Friday, June 4, 2010

Peninsula Co-op's Election Invalidated due to "Bad Faith"



This story is a classic tale of what happens when a small group gathers too much power to itself and becomes unaccountable to those it is supposed to serve.

What happened last June at Peninsula Co-op's woefully undemocratic election is also a cautionary tale for all citizens who fail in their duty to be watchful of those they elect.

Arbitrator Jakob de Villiers QC, has ruled last June's Peninsula Co-op election invalid stating that the election at the AGM was conducted "contrary to the Respondent’s Memorandum of Association, in bad faith and in a manner that was oppressive to those members that were in opposition to the incumbent board’s and senior management’s land use plans". He didn't hesitate to use the word "scurrilous" to describe some of the tactics used to blacken the reputations of candidates running against the Board's approved slate.

No one observing this election process could have reasonably doubted its irregularities. From the beginning those who were pledging to protect Central Saanich farmland from development were vilified publicly and repeatedly by the Board and Management of Peninsula Co-op and in particular its General Manager Pat Fafard. Candidates were forced to present themselves before a committee which grilled them on their positions and whose members lectured and scolded them in a classic case of bullying. This committee then released its list of preferred candidates to the membership.

Candidates requesting a copy of the membership list, the financial statements and the most recent Board minutes were refused them despite the fact that all these documents are available under the Act to any member that requests them. Allowing all candidates to have access to the membership lists is no different than allowing all candidates access to the voters' list in any other election. Without equal access the challengers had little chance of being elected.

Other irregularities included unlocked ballot boxes which were frequently emptied into cardboard boxes beneath a table; the lack of voting booths to ensure the secrecy of one's vote and the lack of scrutineers to ensure the fairness of the voting procedure and to witness the count. Allowing members to vote before the meeting was underway was inappropriate as it provided no opportunity for the candidates to be heard (even more important given that the three challengers had had no access to the membership lists) before these votes were cast.

The arbitrator has now set out rules for a new election which must be held within 60 days of the May 26th ruling.

Under these new rules "candidates or their agents may attend and observe the counting of the votes; no completed ballots may be visible to anyone before counting commences; no voting can be allowed before the meeting commences; no candidate shall be required to appear before or be approved by any nominating committee in order to be eligible to be nominated for election and most importantly, no employee of the Co-op is permitted to participate in the election campaign, whether in support of or in opposition to any candidate." So when the employees approach you to vote for their candidates or allow them to have your proxy vote be aware that they are banned from any such action whether at the gas pumps, in the stores or in any other way.

This year's Peninsula Co-op AGM and election was already underway when this ruling was made, but anyone with integrity would immediately re-set that election date and abide by the rules the arbitrator has set out for the replacement election. That has not been the case to date and in addition the Co-op is proposing a number of changes to the bylaws, some of which are blatantly undemocratic and tend to pool even more power in a few hands.

Do not vote in favour of these bylaws.

If you want to know more feel free to contact me at sue_stroud@hotmail.com.

Please also join the facebook group Friends of the Peninsula Co-op which is posting all information pertaining to these elections.

You can read the entire arbitration award at http://www.rrocss.org/ the website for the Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Paradise Threatened
A movie about the Vantreight development proposal
If you live in Central Saanich take 20 minutes and watch this video.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Drop in on the Community Action at L.E.A.D.'s first
Healthy Living Healthy Planet EXPO!
50 Exhibitors, Local Food, & special guest Guy Dauncey from 1 - 1:15.

FREE Admission. Fun stuff for kids! SAT., March 20th, 12 - 3 pm @
Brentwood Hall, 7082 Wallace Drive. (near Tru Value).

For more info: Helen @ 544-2064

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Setting the Record Straight

Recently, Central Saanich Councillor Ron Kubek has been on the airwaves trying to convince citizens that the Capital Regional District is interfering in the internal affairs of Central Saanich. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ron Kubek himself moved the motion (892.09, December 14, 2009), that brought the Vantreight farms issue to the CRD, and the elected councillors of Central Saanich voted on and passed that motion unanimously.

Central Saanich's elected representatives and citizens were part of the seven-year process that created the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), including the process through which that Regional Growth Strategy would be changed and monitored. To say now that bringing something before the CRD is undemocratic is just false. We signed on to it on behalf of our citizens and we now must abide by the rules we agreed on. Muddying the waters and trying to bully the CRD doesn't help the debate.

Time to Step Aside

Central Saanich Councillor Ron Kubek needs to recuse himself on the Vantreight development issue.

He publicly declares his bias in favour of the Vantreight development every chance he gets, as at the Capital Regional District meeting last week when he stated that four councillors publicly supported this project and were elected on that basis.

Speaking on CFAX and at the council table he has clearly declared a bias in favour of a project that hasn't even come to public hearing.

In fact, while it may be acceptable to take donations from anyone, councillors are expected to recuse themselves when a proposal comes forward from someone they can be perceived to be beholden to, or with whom they have a business relationship. A realtor promoting a development proposal will have a hard time banishing the suspicion that he is doing this for his own personal business interest as at some point he is likely going to be selling or re-selling those very houses.

And while it is also acceptable to state your position during an election campaign, once elected you are expected to listen to all the information provided, to treat all persons respectfully be they citizens or councillors and whether they oppose your position or support it. Bullying at the council table and at the CRD is not acceptable.

Ron Kubek has clearly demonstrated that his mind is made up on the vantreight development issue and it is time for him to step aside.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Vantreight Development Update

Please have a look a the newly updated information on the Vantreight Development proposal at the link below and take action.

http://saveourruralland.blogspot.com/

It is very important that we make ourselves heard on this issue.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

When is a Hearing not a Hearing?

Central Saanich Council is supposed to hold a public hearing into the Vantreight development before making a decision on whether the project should go ahead.

They are supposed to attend the public hearing with open minds and listen to what citizens have to say. The public hearing is supposed to take place before the project begins (after all if the hearing is fair there should be a chance the project will not go ahead).

Although there will be a public hearing there is no chance at all that it will be a fair one unless there is a public outcry about the tainted process. Councillors who should have recused themselves because they are in conflict, and who have already made up their minds about the Vantreight development have given a virtual go-ahead to the project. Stakes are in the ground, the pro-development councillors have already made their positions clear (how can you have an open mind when you've already agreed to a Special Interest Zoning to slip the project through?).

This public hearing will be in name only and more of the same tainted processes will follow for waterlines, a new Co-op store and pretty much anything any developer wants UNLESS we all shout out together.

If you live here because it is rural and green think about what it will be like as one after the other these projects begin to creep in and eat up our farm and pasturelands. Think and then act.

It only takes a minute to write to Council (go on the website and use the email form). You can phone the Councillors, you can buttonhole them on the street and you can come to council and watch them.

We could very quickly become Gordon Head and lose everything we value.