Conduct In Conflict?

Posted by on March 15, 2015 in CITY FINANCE, CITY GOVERNMENT, EMAILS TO MAYOR / COUNCILLORS | Leave a comment

Ron Bolin: March 15, 2015

The following emails have been sent, the first to Mayor McKay and the latter two to Mayor and Council, both Newspapers and the last has added Mr. Swabey as the previous had not yet been answered.  These are serious questions relating to a serious issue which will come before Council again tomorrow, March 16.  The matter of the Colliery Dams seems to have been derailed from the information needed to make rational decisions about them since the political decision to remove them was made without consultation.  Tomorrow’s Council meeting where the attempt will again be made to ignore rational decision making in favour of political power, should be an interesting one where perhaps the hand that rocks the cradle may finally be seen.

______________________________

Mayor McKay and Councillors,   (March 15, 2015)

I have appended below my previous emails to you on March 5 and March 13 on this subject. To date I have not had a reply. In the meantime, however, I have received information from other parties which appears to be both pertinent and probative.

Section 287 of the Local Government Act which deals with Immunity for individual municipal public officers appears to nullify any concerns regarding the individual liability of Councillors for decisions made in the absence of “dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct…”

At the same time, Sections 100 and 110 in the Community Charter seem to give rise to serious questions about the matter of Conflict of Interest which was raised adamantly by several Councillors in noting that they felt that they might be personally liable for damages relating to decisions that Council might make regarding the Colliery dams. Is it not the case that those feeling themselves to be in conflict due to personal liability are supposed to declare their perceived conflict and remove themselves from any discussion of or vote for or against the tainted issue? Will those who have previously declared their perceived conflict remove themselves from any discussion or vote at tomorrow’s Council meeting? And if not, how can they remove themselves from their previously declared conflict?

I again look forward to your consideration for a response.

Ron Bolin

________________________
Mayor McKay and Councillors

I forwarded the message below on March 5 following the dramatic portrayal of the jeopardy to individual members of Council relative to the Colliery Dams. To date, no reply has been received.

The extent of this jeopardy has been left unstated. I, and I believe a great number of the citizens of Nanaimo, would like to know the legislation which permitted the Mayor and those Councillors who changed their previous vote for action which was apparently ignored, to believe that they were in personal jeopardy and for instances where that legislation has led to personal liability. As legal advice was apparently sought, any response from Counsel should have included this information.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ron Bolin
__________________________

From: Ron Bolin
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:02 PM
To: Bill McKay
Subject: Case Law

Good afternoon Bill:

Can you please advise of any case law in which a Council has been held liable for any decisions that were not the result of gross neglect of duty? Or for that matter, any and all such liability?

Thanks,

Ron Bolin