Monday, November 30, 2009

Endorsement ads were solo effort, Ziebarth says - Summerland Review Nov 30/09

Endorsement ads were solo effort, Ziebarth says



When Mark Ziebarth ran a series of newspaper advertisements during the lead-up to last year’s municipal election, he did so simply as an individual voicing his own views.

“I chose to run an independent expenditure campaign,” he said, adding that he wanted to present his message, not filtered through a candidate’s advertising campaign.

The ads, which bore the name, Citizens for Smart Governance, ran during a four-week period.

The last of the four advertisements, just days before the election was held, came out in support of mayoral candidate Janice Perrino, while the other three outlined his views on the direction he wanted to see from the new council.

Ziebarth said he did not register and report the financial details of his advertising campaign since he said he was not required to do so.

“Nowhere in the Local Government Act does it say an individual has to report advertisements in the newspaper,” he said.

The provincial elections act specifies rules for campaign financing and disclosure by elector organizations.

According to Section 83 of the Local Government Act, a campaign organizer is an individual or organization organizing and directing a series of coordinated activities to promote or a candidate, which supplement the election campaign of one or more of the candidates.

“An individual is not a campaign organizer unless they accept campaign contributions from others to finance these political activities,” the act states.

Ziebarth said he paid for the ads himself and did not receive money to help with the costs.

He added that he did not fall under the elector organization definition either.

That definition, in Section 79 of the Local Government Act, states that an elector organization has a membership that includes at least 50 eligible electors for at least 60 days before the endorsement.

Ziebarth said that section of the act does not apply to his activities since he was a lone individual running advertisements.

“Citizens for Smart Governance didn’t illegally fund the municipal elections; Citizens for Smart Governance didn’t solicit or accept funds from third-parties to advance a specific agenda or candidate and Citizens for Smart Governance wasn’t required to register by the Local Government Act,” he said.

Municipal clerk Gillian Matthews, who was also the elections officer for Summerland, said provincial legislation does not cover Ziebarth’s advertising campaign.

She said Ziebarth does not fall under the category of an organization or under the category of an individual running a campaign and collecting donations.

Ziebarth said his endorsement of Perrino came from his time on the board of the hospital foundation in Penticton, where Perrino serves as the director.

In addition to the advertisements, he ran, Ziebarth also gave a personal donation to Perrino’s campaign.

The four ads Ziebarth ran in the Summerland Review were not the only third-party ads to run during the 2008 election campaign.

Penny Lane Bargain Outlet ran one advertisement endorsing Janice Perrino for mayor and Bruce Hallquist for councillor.

In the Nov. 6 Summerland Review, an advertisement endorsing seven candidates was run. This advertisement had the names of 90 Summerlanders. A similar ad in the Nov. 13 Summerland Review, also endorsing the same seven candidates, bore the names of 210 Summerland residents. All seven of the candidates listed in those ads were elected.

In addition to the candidate-specific ads, a series of ads, without attribution, ran in October and November, urging voters to elect a council which was not against growth.

“Some concerned residents and business owners of Summerland urge you to please get involved and support candidates who are not against some growth in this town, one ad read.

online edition of the Summerland Review http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/summerlandreview/news/78187957.html


Council under fire for third-party election ads - Summerland Review Nov 29/09


Council under fire for third-party election ads

Mayor Janice Perrino and other members of Summerland council have come under fire as a result of advertisements endorsing them during the election campaign last year.
John Arendt Summerland Review


Possible Election
Council can’t dodge responsibility
By John Arendt - Summerland Review (online version of the Summerland Review)
http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/summerlandreview/news/78095377.html)

Published: November 29, 2009 12:00 PM
Updated: November 29, 2009 12:58 PM
A series of advertisements in last year’s election campaign, endorsing the members of the present municipal council, have stirred controversy and raised criticisms of the council members.

Last year, during the election campaign, third-party advertisements were placed in the Summerland Review and other newspapers in the region, endorsing one of the two mayoral candidates and six of the 13 councillor candidates.

The seven candidates listed in the advertisements were all elected.

The candidates subsequently declared the value of the advertising in their disclosure statements.

Mayor Janice Perrio said she and the others listed in the ads followed the advice of the municipal elections officer who told them to declare everything that could be considered a benefit.

“But I didn’t pay for them and I didn’t approve them,” Perrino added.

Under the election act, candidates may not accept anonymous donations of more than $50 and anonymous donors may not give more than $50.

Candidates, elector organizations and campaign organizers must give that contribution to the municipality or the regional district.

Municipal clerk Gillian Matthews, who was also Summerland’s elections officer in 2008, said violations of the elections act cannot be enforced unless members of the public go through the court system. This has not yet happened anywhere in the province.

“No one’s responsible for enforcing the act. That’s the problem,” she said.

She added that during the campaign period last fall, she advised candidates to acknowledge the advertisements on their disclosure statements, in the interests of being open and transparent.

Perrino said she would like to see some changes to the present election act.

“I think there are problems within the whole election system,” she said. She would like to ensure any ads endorsing a candidate would also have the approval of the candidate.

This is not the first time Summerland has had third-party advertisements on behalf of candidates.

In the 2005 election, several of the candidates were endorsed by a pro-agriculture group within the community.

The seven candidates named in last year’s third-party advertisements were all elected, but Perrino said the advertising campaign did not ensure the election outcome.

“Ultimately, it’s the public who votes for you. Ultimately it’s the public who decides who gets elected,” she said. “People are very intelligent. They vote as they want to vote.”

Matthews said the candidates cannot prevent anyone from placing a third-party advertisement on their behalf, even if they refuse to authorize the ad.

“Candidates have absolutely no way of controlling anonymous ads going into the paper,” she said.

For the next municipal election, in the fall of 2011, the regulations may be different.

Matthews said the premier has authorized a committee to look at potential changes in election legislation before the next election is held.

“There are holes in the legislation that need to be filled,” she said. “Summerland is not the only place where there were concerns being raised.”
++++
re: above article.
Please note that the sections regarding campaign organizers and electoral organizations are NEW since the municipal election of 2005. So when the Association of Citizens for Summerland ran the ad mentioning several candidates they did not have to register nor file a financial disclosure following that election.
In addition, those mentioned in the ad were:
a) asked if wanted to be named in the ad
b) were members of the group running the ad
c) The Association of Citizens for Summerland had an elected executive, a website and was a known entity in the community.

The article states: “But I didn’t pay for them and I didn’t approve them" - Mayor Perrino

However, the first ad by the Citizens for Smart Governance endorsing Janice Perrino appeared on page 22 of the Summerland Review on November 6, 2008. The same ad appeared again, one week later, on page 12 of the November 13, 2008 Summerland Review. So if she didn't know who the Citizens for Smart Governance were she had one week between ads to try to find out and if she didn't want their endorsement to say so.

you can see these ads at: http://picasaweb.google.com/Kerrisfordphotos/ElectionAds2008?authkey=Gv1sRgCODqsZGXoPKfQA&feat=directlink#

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Chief electoral officer speaks - Penticton Herald November 29, 2009

Chief electoral officer speaks
By Susan McIver
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Penticton Herald

Summerland‘s chief electoral officer acknowledges she advised members of the current council on their election expenses declaration.
“A number of candidates asked me what to do about anonymous contributions,” Gillian Matthews said in an interview with the Penticton Herald.
Matthews‘ comments came as controversy over campaign financing for Summerland council during the 2008 municipal elections drew the attention of the provincial and national media Friday.
Earlier this month, the Herald questioned councillors about their relationship to a group called Citizens for Smart Governance, which did not register as an elector organization in the 2008 elections even though it endorsed candidates.
Any person or group spending $500 or more is legally required to register with the chief electoral officer, and Citizens for Smart Governance allegedly spent thousands of dollars on advertising during the elections.
An article in the Penticton Herald, which reported on questions raised by Herald managing editor James Miller, also revealed that the mayor and councillors had declared cash transactions as in-kind donations and had exceeded the $50 limit for each anonymous donation.
A front-page opinion piece in Friday‘s Vancouver Sun suggested Summerland council has no legitimacy because of illegal donations, quoting a political scientist at Simon Fraser University.
Subsequently, Miller was interviewed by various media outlets Friday, including CBC Radio One‘s As It Happens program.
It is illegal to give anonymous donations of more than $50, and for candidates to accept them.
Matthews said she advised the candidates to acknowledge receipt of these donations on their campaign financial disclosure statements because they had derived benefit from them.
All six councillors and the mayor stated in their campaign financing disclosure statements that they took donations from unnamed individuals, groups or corporations that exceeded the legal threshold for newspaper ads, flyers and cards.
Coun. Bruce Hallquist confirmed Matthews‘ statement in a television interview on Friday.
“We were simply following instructions of the elections officer to be open and honest,” Hallquist told CHBC.
Hallquist also claimed that Matthews had advised him and others to estimate the cost of the ads sponsored by Citizens for Smart Governance and to split it seven ways (six councillors plus the mayor).
During her interview with the Herald, Matthews did not mention whether she had given such advice, but she did say, “Accuracy of this (financial disclosures) is the candidate‘s responsibility.”
Matthews says she provided candidates with extensive information about the conduct of their campaigns, including the candidate‘s guide to local elections.
The identity of the individuals involved in Citizens for Smart Governance and its relationship, if any, to the council and mayor remains unclear.
However, some indications have come to light.
“I identified myself with that group, as did a number of others, to take a position during the election,” acting mayor Gordon Clark said when Miller asked about his standing with the group.
Coun. Sam Elia declared a cash contribution of $207.85 from Summerland resident Mark Ziebarth on Nov. 14, 2008.
Clark and Mayor Janice Perrino declared the same amount on the same date as an anonymous donation for an ad published Nov. 14 in the Penticton Herald.
The other four councillors provided only a total of anonymous donations over the course of their campaign, rather than stating individual amounts and dates.
Listing cash contributions as in-kind donations, often as from anonymous sources, is a common thread in the financial disclosure statements by the current councillors and mayor.
The candidate‘s guide for the 2008 municipal elections says in-kind contributions are donations of goods or services instead of money.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=227490
Penticton Herald November 29, 2009

Friday, November 27, 2009

"As it Happens" interview with James Miller - Nov 27/09

They may not be able to keep their own council. Residents of a B.C. town may lose their entire municipal government due to extremely mild greed.
James Miller, managing editor of the Penticton Herald interviewed on CBC Radio's "As it Happens" 
To hear the podcast go to http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/ The piece on Summerland is about 2/3 along on Part One.





Illegal donations mean Summerland has no legitimate council - Daphne Bramham

front page of the November 27, 2009 Vancouver Sun

Illegal donations mean Summerland has no legitimate council


Thousands of dollars spent by the seven winning candidates during last year’s municipal election in Summerland came from anonymous donors.

But that’s illegal and the penalty for candidates who take anonymous donations of more than $50 is disqualification from holding office and from running again until after the next general election.

It’s also illegal to give anonymous donations of more than $50.

Candidates, elector organizations and campaign organizers who receive anonymous donations greater than that amount are required by the Local Government Act to give that contribution to the municipality or regional district.

But it’s harder to find the givers than the takers.

All six Summerland councillors and Mayor Janice Perrino admitted in their campaign financing disclosure statements that they took donations from unnamed individuals, groups or corporations that exceeded the legal threshold.

“I guess Summerland doesn’t have a council any more,” said Kennedy Stewart, a political scientist at Simon Fraser University, whose specialty is civic politics.

Perrino spent $7,913 on her campaign with $1,127 of that coming as anonymous “in-kind” donations of newspaper ads, flyers and cards. She also recorded another $170 in anonymous cash contributions of $50 or less.

In-kind donations are those that involve a person, company or group providing service or the use of a property at no cost. For example, a hotel owner could provide a meeting room at no cost to a candidate. But under the act, if that meeting room normally rented for more than $50 he or she could not donate it anonymously.

For the newspaper ads to be considered “in-kind” donations, they would have had to be provided at no cost by the newspapers’ owners. But if those ads were worth more than $50, the candidates would not have been able to accept them without naming the newspapers’ owners as donors.

Councillors Gordon Clark and Bruce Hallquist both filed disclosure statements claiming $513.91 from “anonymous for reasons of privacy” for newspaper ads and the printing of flyers and cards.

Clark and Hallquist both noted that amount was one-seventh of the full cost of the ads and other printed material.

But the question is: Who is responsible for enforcing the law and firing the mayor and council?

Stewart says nobody is. Municipal clerks act as chief electoral officers, but they have no powers to enforce the act’s provisions.

It’s a striking example of how miserably flawed the Local Government Act’s election provisions are.

Earlier this month, Penticton Herald managing editor James Miller confronted Summerland council at its weekly meeting about the anonymous donations. He also asked them about the Citizens for Smart Governance, which endorsed all of them.

(His fine example of crusading journalism is available on a video at vancouversun.com)

Citizens for Smart Governance broke the act by failing to register as an elector organization, even though it endorsed a slate of candidates and bought ads urging voters to support them. The group also failed to file a financial disclosure statement.

Perrino was not at the meeting. She is away, recovering from back surgery.

Clark, the acting mayor, admitted to Miller that he identified himself with the group and had indeed claimed $207.89 on his financial disclosure as his 1/7th proportion of an ad that ran above the Citizens for Smart Governance name.

But Clark said he had no recollection of who actually constitutes the group and didn’t know of any formally appointed chair or president of Citizens for Smart Governance.

Miller’s conservative estimate of how much the Citizens for Smart Governance spent on newspaper advertising alone is $3,000. One ad in the Penticton Herald that ran the day before the election, for example, cost just over $1,000.

The Herald ran more than one ad from the group, which also placed ads in two other newspapers: the Summerland Review and the Penticton Western News.

The Citizens for Smart Governance also distributed flyers.

Ironically, one of its ads for Perrino in the Summerland Review urged voters to choose her because “Janice Perrino is not beholden to any special interest group.”

The reality is that because of all the anonymous donations, nobody really knows who funded a considerable portion of the Summerland council’s election campaign.

It has left Perrino and her council open to speculation about its contentious two-pronged decision to, first, amend the official community plan (less than a year after it was approved following four years of public consultation) and then to upgrade the Rattlesnake Mountain site to an urban growth area from a future growth area, making it easier for it to be developed.

“The whole slate thing stunk,” Miller wrote in an editorial calling for an independent audit of election expenses.

The problem is, there’s no provision for that in the act.

The fact is that the provincial legislation has no provision for enforcement of any kind by anybody despite having all kinds of clauses about penalties that range from disqualification from holding office to fines of up to $5,000 to up to a year in jail.

With no one in charge of ensuring that municipal elections are free, fair and transparent, B.C. is more like Afghanistan than any of us would like to believe.

To date, the position of the B.C. Liberal government is that it’s up to citizens to complain.

But even that isn’t very effective as David Wilson from Central Saanich, David Marley, Michael Lewis and Vivian Vaughn from West Vancouver and Sonya Paterson from Langley can attest.

All of those individuals filed complaints with police. In Central Saanich, it was RCMP who investigated because the local police chief was a director of the Peninsula Co-op, which failed to register.

The RCMP recommended 19 charges be laid. The B.C. government’s criminal justice branch decided it was not in the public interest to press charges and that there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction.

The same thing happened in West Vancouver. Local police recommended charges, Crown counsel said no. Earlier this month, Marley and Lewis wrote to Attorney-General Mike de Jong asking that the decision be reviewed by senior ministry staff.

Langley RCMP sent Paterson a five-page letter explaining that charges were not being recommended because the act is pretty much a shambles.

The gaping holes in the legislation have not gone entirely unnoticed by municipal and provincial politicians.

At the Union of B.C. Municipalities’ convention this fall, the city of Vancouver put forward a motion calling for legislative change.

In his speech to that convention, Premier Gordon Campbell announced a “task force” headed by UBCM president Harry Nyce and Community Development Minister Bill Bennett would review the legislation and make recommendations by May 31.

“It is a bit of the Wild West out there compared to provincial and federal elections,” Bennett admitted in a radio interview this week.

He said there has not been “the kind of comprehensive reporting that should have been taking place” and that there are “some serious gaps in terms of accountability, transparency and spending limits.”

But aside from public hand-wringing, nothing has happened.

The government has yet to appoint the other task force members. It has no terms of reference. No budget.

And soon, it won’t have any time.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Illegal+donations+mean+Summerland+legitimate+council/2275145/story.html

Friday, November 20, 2009


The issue of campaign expenditures during the 2008 municipal election has entered the news recently with a number of articles by Susan McIver and editorials by editor James Millar appearing in the Penticton Herald. (see links below) As Daphne Bramham (see below) has reported in the Vancouver Sun similar situations occurred in other communities around the province. Central Saanich was one where the RCMP actually recommended charges, but the Crown did not proceed. Some of the issues include the possibility that anonymous donations exceeding $50 were received and not remitted to the municipality as required by the legislation. And the Citizens for Smart Governance never filed a financial disclosure form. As James Millar mentioned during his questioning of Councillors Clark and Elia at the last Summerland Council meeting this group conservatively spent over $3000 on election ads. Which is far in excess of the $500 threshold for having to register as a campaign organizer.

Here is a You Tube video showing James Millar, managing editor of the Penticton Herald, questioning Councillors Clark and Elia, at the November 9, 2009 Summerland Council meeting, regarding their association with the "Citizens for Smart Governance" and who paid for the "Citizens for Smart Governance" ads during the 2008 municipal election.

election ads from 2008 Summerland municipal election

Here is a link to some photos of various ads placed in the Summerland Review during October and November 2008. Some of these ads also appeared in the Penticton Herald and the Penticton Western. http://picasaweb.google.com/Kerrisfordphotos/ElectionAds2008?authkey=Gv1sRgCODqsZGXoPKfQA&feat=directlink

Why have rule? - James Millar

Why have a rule?

Wednesday, November 18, 2009



What‘s the point in having a rule if there‘s nobody to enforce it? This is the question I need answered as it pertains to the section on municipal elections in the Local Government Act.
As reported exhaustively in the Vancouver print media, there are several discrepancies on election expenses throughout the province. Many candidates are in clear violation of the Local Government Act while others appear - at least on the surface - to be trivial or honest mistakes.
Violation of the act can carry some stiff punishments ranging from a verbal reprimand to jail time. Forcing a new election is even a possibility.
The problem is that the province won‘t react unless there‘s a formal complaint made by an individual or group of citizens. This would obviously be a tremendous time and financial commitment for anyone wishing to pursue this.
Who‘s going to go to this extent?
A few have on the Lower Mainland and the
Island.
This would be like posting additional signage in school zones and if there wasn‘t someone to monitor this, a fine or driving suspension would never be issued. Many would respect the law but others would ignore the rules knowing they‘d never be held accountable.
There are extremely strict guidelines in place for federal and provincial elections. Some of the regulations seem a tad ridiculous but they‘re all in place to assure a fair election. Yet, here in B.C., things are loosey-goosey at the one level where politicians have the most
power - the local level. This needs to change immediately.
The entire Local Government Act should be reviewed.
When candidates are allowed to run for different positions in the same election, it‘s ridiculous. Perennial candidate Kevin Andrews ran for both mayor of Keremeos and the Okanagan Skaha school board in the 2008 election. While Mr. Andrews certainly wasn‘t violating any rules and is certainly keen to be part of the process, a rule change is needed on this one.
It‘s also puzzling how an individual who doesn‘t own a home, piece of property or business in the community where he or she is seeking office is still allowed to run in that jurisdiction. Again, this needs to be examined.
(These are, of course, separate issues to the ones on election spending and declarations.)
To Premier Gordon Campbell‘s credit, his government is looking at some changes in the sections pertaining to elections in the Local Government Act. The problem is he hasn‘t
given any terms of reference and has yet to establish any funding.
With all that‘s gone on in the world over the past 18 months, this might not seem like a high priority but protecting democracy must be done at any price.
-James Miller, managing editor
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=225347&a=41745&d=12445&k=74076e7af313a7a999d2f92636ec898d

Audit should be ordered by mayor - James Millar


Audit should be ordered by mayor
Penticton Herald
Friday, November 13, 2009




Although the issue of the election expenditures in Summerland may seem trivial on the surface, it is incredibly important when viewed through a wider lens.
After hearing rumblings that some citizens might file an official complaint to the provincial government about the strange declarations made during the 2008 municipal election, our news team conducted exhaustive research. It‘s obvious after reviewing the Local Government Act as well as the candidate‘s
expense forms that several procedures were broken. At the very least, clarrification must be provided.
After probing the declarations in neighbouring Penticton, we found everything was above board. One school board candidate in Penticton was fined for filing 48 hours late. We checked the statements of Summerland‘s two successful school board candidates. Again, everything was properly presented.
While many of our discoveries could be considered nit-picking or harmless oversights, something as important as following the Elections Act shouldn‘t be taken trivially.
This is especially disturbing considering Summerland has mostly experienced people on its council. They should know proper procedure. If they didn‘t, Summerland Town Hall has a competent staff which is trained and could answer questions.
Among the issues is the Smart Governance group. All of the councillors in attendance at Monday night‘s meeting said they are definitely not part of this organization. Many said they knew very little about this group.
I‘ll take everybody at their word but most people who run for office would inquire as to who was behind an organization giving such glowing references in print.
The whole slate thing stunk.
The councillors elected have all made extremely notable contributions to their community prior to the election. They all could have won on their own merit. There appears to be a person or persons in the community who definitely wanted to see these seven individuals elected.
I also wonder why a group that‘s so concerned about the well-being of its community wouldn‘t offer suggestions on who to vote for the school board. After all, isn‘t the education and safety of our children and grandchildren equally as important as to who determines water rates and policies on sewage treatment?
Anonymous donations are fine up to a certain point. However, when the citizens are not given the entire list of contributors to the dime, it strikes at the very heart of democracy.
I‘ll make a comparison to business.
Let‘s say a restaurant owner discovers his best teenage employee failed to wash his hands after going to the bathroom. Do you fire the kid even though he‘s your greatest asset? Maybe not, but you‘d certainly issue a week‘s suspension or, at the very least, a harsh disciplinary letter. Perhaps keep him around if he voluntarily apologizes.
Once Mayor Janice Perrino returns to her job (she‘s recovering from surgery), the best thing she could do is call for an immediate and independent audit of election expenses.
This would either put an immediate end to false assumptions and allow council to get on with its business, or, it could expose those who made a mockery out of the process our veterans fought and died for.
-James Miller, managing editor

Questions asked about Summerland election

Questions asked about Summerland election
Penticton Herald
Wednesday, November 11, 2009

By Susan McIver
Special to the Herald
Summerland--Careful scrutiny of campaign financials led to questions for Summerland council and casts a shadow over the 2008 municipal elections.
The consistent theme of the questions Penticton Herald editor James Miller asked councillors Monday evening concerned their relationship to the group calling itself Citizens for Smart Governance.
"I identified myself with that group as did a number of others to take a position during that election," acting mayor Gordon Clark said, when Miller asked about his standing was with the group.
Earlier Clark said "It doesn‘t raise a signal for me" when asked if he was aware of the group.
After Miller reminded him of the series of ads sponsored by the Smart Governance group which endorsed everyone at the council table Clark said, "Yes, I am aware of it (the group)."
During the 2008 campaign, the Smart Governance group ran ads in the Penticton Herald, Summerland Review and Penticton Western News in support of the successful mayoralty candidate and winning slate of councillors.
Miller noted that $3,000 was a conservative estimate for the total amount spent on newspaper ads by the group.
An ad sponsored by Smart Governance in the Penticton Herald on Nov. 14, 2008, the day before the municipal election, cost just over $1,000.
Any person or group spending $500 or more is legally required to register with the chief electoral officer as either a campaign organizer or an elector organization and file financial statements within four months of the elections. Neither Good Governance nor any other group or individual registered with Summerland‘s chief electoral officer.
Failure to register can carry a maximum penalty of a jail sentence and disqualification of elected officials who benefited.
In his campaign financial disclosure statement, Clark reported receipt of an anonymous donation of $207.89 for payment of an ad in the Herald on Nov. 14, 2008.
He also noted that this was one-seventh of the total cost.
There are six seats for councillors at the Summerland council table plus one for the mayor.
A stand-alone ad for Clark did not appear in the November 14 issue of the Herald which prompted Miller to ask, "Is it safe to assume that it (the $207.89) was a contribution to the Smart Governance ad."
"I presume it was," Clark replied.
Clark also noted in his statement having received five other anonymous donations, all over $50 and all noted as one-seventh of the total cost, for ads in the Summerland Review and expenses associated with printing and mailing of cards and flyers.
Coun. Sam Elia declared a cash contribution of $207.85 from Mark Ziebarth on Nov.14, 2008.
"No, I don‘t think it is a safe assumption," Elia responded when Miller asked if it would be safe to assume that the $207.85 was a contribution to the Smart Governance ad.
When Miller said there was no stand alone ad for Elia in the Nov. 14 Herald and again asked if the $207.85 was a contribution to the joint Good Governance ad, Elia replied, "I am not sure I have an answer to that question."
Elia denied being a member of the Smart Governance group as Clark did a few minutes earlier.
According to Clark, the group is not a ‘body corporate‘ and therefore membership is irrelevant.
Clark also said he did not recall knowing of any formally appointed chair or president of the group.
"I am not sure what that term endorsement means," Elia replied to Miller‘s question if he was aware that he was being endorsed by the group.
Mayor Janice Perrino declared a contribution of $207.85 from an anonymous source for an ad on Nov. 14 ad in the Herald.
There was a stand alone ad for Perrino in that issue with no indication of it being sponsored by Smart Governance.
This ad would have cost slightly over $400.
Interestingly, the cost of the ad sponsored by Smart Governance plus that of the Perrino ad equals within a few dollars seven times $207 or $1,442.
Listing cash contributions as in-kind donations, often as from anonymous sources, is a common thread in the financial disclosure statements by the current councillors and mayor.
"This ad paid for by a generous donation" appeared at the bottom of a full page ad in support of Perrino which was published in the Summerland Review on Nov. 13. 2008.
Perrino declared a cash donation of $842.09, the cost of a full page ad in the Review, from a B. Friesen on Lakeshore Drive as an in-kind donation.
In total Perrino declared $2,109 worth of cash contributions from four named donors, including Friesen, and nine anonymous sources as in-kind donations for expenses associated with newspaper ads, flyers and cards.
Such cash transactions are not permitted to be designated as in-kind donations in Penticton municipal elections.
An in-kind donation is a donation paid or given in goods, commodity or services instead of money, as defined by dictionary.com.
The six councillors declared a total of in-kind and/or anonymous donations totalling just over $3,000.
Neither the unsuccessful mayoralty candidate nor any of the seven defeated candidates for council reported any in-kind or anonymous donations.
The Local Government Act limits each anonymous donation to $50.
Perrino and her council members, however, listed numerous cash donations of over $50 from anonymous sources as in-kind donations.
Intended or not, this gives the appearance of attempting to thwart the public‘s right to know who paid for their campaigns.
Rather than providing the details of amount, date and other information required by the Local Government Act, four councillors gave only a total amount for their anonymous contributions.
Councillors Bruce Hallquist, Jim Kyluik and Lloyd Christopherson each reported having a received a total $506.72 in anonymous donations during the months of October and November 2008 for newspaper ads, cards and flyers.
Coun. Ken Roberge declared an estimated amount of $650 in anonymous donations without stating any time period for donation of the funds or their use.
Adherence to the provisions of the Local Government Act, especially as related to sources of campaign financing is crucial to the credibility of elected municipal officials.
Perrino was unavailable for comment. Clark has been appointed acting mayor in her absence as she‘s presently recovering from surgery.
Campaign financing disclosure statements are available for public viewing at the Municipal Hall on Henry Avenue.
The November 9, 2009 council meeting can be seen on Shaw TV Friday, November 13 at 11 am. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY You Tube video

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=223734&a=53591&d=12619&k=86684b621da93a1e4500c2c8b2c8b6ec

Summerland Council on the hot-seat - Susan McIver

Summerland council on the hot-seat

SUSAN McIver, Special to The Penticton Herald October 26, 2009


Summerland council will meet this evening in the spacious confines of Centre Stage Theatre because of the high-level of public interest in proposed changes to the official community plan.

The question before council is whether to adopt the proposed changes or to seek additional public consultation.

The most controversial issue yet faced by this council, the changes would allow lands on the eastern side of Garnet Valley, known as Rattlesnake Mountain, to be designated as an urban growth area.

An overflow crowd and inadequate sound system at the last council meeting necessitated holding the required public hearing at Centre Stage Theatre.

A full house of close to 300 attended the rescheduled hearing on October 15.

At that time council listened while members of the public spoke.

“This is the public‘s opportunity to tell us what they think. We are here to listen,” Mayor Janice Perrino said at the hearing.

This evening council will respond to the issues raised and consider the recommendations from municipal staff on how to proceed with the proposed bylaw.

“I‘ll be giving a power point presentation,” Perrino said in a telephone interview Saturday.

The two-part bylaw would alter the requirements to amend the urban growth area in the OCP and would change the designation of roughly 69 hectares on Rattlesnake Mountain from future growth area to urban growth area.

Key to council‘s deliberations this evening is whether or not it considers appropriate public consultation has occurred and whether further consultation with other organizations and authorities is required.

“Slow down, seek input and make the process as transparent and open as possible\", Khati Hendry advised council at the public hearing.

Underlying the proposed bylaw is whether a council has the legal authority to change the OCP before the mandated time for changes to be considered.

The OCP was adopted in April 2008 by the previous council, only 16 months before the current council initiated steps to change it.

“The lawyers gave you the opinion you wanted but there is a cautionary note at the end of their letter. I see this closing paragraph as urging council to a higher standard than simply moving forward with what may be legally possible,” John Kingsmill, an experienced corporate lawyer, said at the public hearing.

Subsequently, other community members said that it was the council‘s moral responsibility to uphold the OCP even though they may have the legal right to change it.

“I do not share his (Kingsmill‘s) opinion,” Perrino said Saturday.

Perrino also questions Kingsmill‘s motives for raising this and other serious concerns at the hearing.

“It is deeply discouraging when the purpose is to ’get them‘ (meaning the council) rather than looking at the issues,” she said.

Kingsmill could not be reached for comment.

On a more positive note Perrino said, “There were so many helpful intelligent comments made at the hearing.”

The opinion of the municipal lawyers was first circulated to council members in September as a summary provided by staff.

“I kicked up a fuss because I wanted a copy of the original letter rather than staff‘s interpretation,” said Coun. Gordon Clark.

Subsequently, copies were distributed to all members of council.

The issues of urban growth, capacity of municipal services, sustainability and environmental impact were also raised at the hearing.

These issues have been addressed by letters to the editor in local newspapers and by municipal staff in a memorandum to council.

The latter is available on the municipal website.

In his recent letter, Summerland resident Brian Adams wrote,” Unfortunately, the handling of this matter, leads people to speculation. One perception is that payback is involved.”

Adams readily admits his comments are speculation only.

However, the question of electoral irregularities in civic elections in the province, including Summerland, was raised in an article in the Vancouver Sun last March.

“There was a quarter-page ad endorsing the Perrino slate that included the names of 90 supporters, including a number of realtors and developers. Some of those supporters‘ names were also among a longer list of names on a pamphlet endorsing the Perrino slate. The entire slate was elected,” Daphne Bramham wrote in the article.

Bramham questions the ads in support of Perrino and the successful slate which gave no indication of who the concerned residents or business owners were or who paid for the ad.

She also questions the amount of money spent on ads in local newspapers in support of Perrino by a group calling itself Citizens for Smart Governance.

Any person or group spending $500 or more is legally required to register with the chief electoral officer as either a campaign organizer or an elector organization and file financial statements within four months of the election.

Neither such an organizer nor organization was registered in Summerland although the cost of the ads totalled above the $500 threshold.

Tonight\’s meeting begins at 7 p.m.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/top_story.php?id=219927&type=Local

Municipal election reform long overdue - Daphne Bramham

Municipal election reform long overdue, but timely change unlikely

BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN NOVEMBER 7, 2009

More than a month after Premier Gordon Campbell announced that a task force would be formed to make recommendations for modernizing and improving municipal election rules by May 30, 2010, nothing has been done.

There are no terms of reference. There is no budget.

Only two members have been appointed -- Harry Nyce, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and Bill Bennett, minister of community and rural development. It's not even clear whether the task force reports to Bennett or the premier.

The task force's scope is wide, according to the premier's press release. It is supposed to "consider opportunities to adapt the principles of the provincial Election Act to local elections such as disclosure requirements and changes that will improve fairness, accountability, transparency and public participation."

It may also consider the frequency of elections and whether voting rights ought to be extended to business and companies that pay taxes.

It's a writhing can of worms that Campbell wants the task force to subdue in less than five months -- five months that are interrupted by Christmas and the Olympics.

What's clear is that reform is long overdue since the unprecedented spending during the 2008 provincewide vote was followed by an unusually large number of citizens complaints and police investigations into election malfeasance.

(No charges have been laid even though in Central Saanich RCMP recommended 19 charges be laid. In Langley, RCMP found one example of where disclosure regulations were broken, but recommended against charges because investigators decided the group hadn't intended to break the law.)

Candidates' election spending in 15 Metro Vancouver municipalities alone was $7.9 million -- $1.6 million more than the New Democrats spent in the last provincial election.

The reason there's so much money sloshing about is that no other level of government provides as big a bang-for-your-buck.

It takes only six votes on city council to get property rezoned, which can be a windfall worth millions of dollars for developers; six votes to approve lucrative union contracts.

With no serious opponents, Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, for example, spent more than any other Metro mayoralty candidate. He raised $244,836 (much of it from the development industry) and he had $135,790 left over from the previous election.

But that unprecedented $7.9 million doesn't account for spending on nomination bids, only the contributions and spending within the election period. Raymond Louie, for example, spent $244,000 in his unsuccessful bid to be Vision Vancouver's mayoralty candidate.

Determining what kind of limits might be appropriate is difficult since B.C. is unique in maintaining the municipal at-large system. So, there are few working models to draw on.

Seattle -- the only other large city in North America without a ward system -- limits donations by individuals, corporations, unions and groups to no more than $700 over four years. By limiting the size of donations and specifying the time period, it ensures contributors can't secretly fill up political coffers in off-election years.

The Canadian government limits contributions to individuals. According to a recent Yale University study, in some jurisdictions that strategy has the added benefit of increasing voter turnout.

Still, there's the question of whether all individuals are eligible to contribute. Vision Vancouver had a number of large American donors in 2008. Should non-residents be allowed to contribute? And if the task force is looking at residency requirements for donors, shouldn't it also consider whether it's right that candidates don't have to live in the municipalities they want to run?

The task force may also consider extending voting rights to tax-paying corporations and businesses. If it does, is it fair that multinational corporations might be able to vote, but not donate to campaigns?

Then, there's the transparency question.

Candidates are required to file financial disclosure statements, but public access to those filings varies widely.

Langley District forbids photocopying and allows people to view the documents for only an hour at a time. Vancouver's disclosure forms are on the city's website. Surrey put the disclosures on its website, but only for a limited time. Port Coquitlam destroyed all of its disclosures prior to 2008.

Another gaping legislative hole is that the disclosure rules do not apply to referendum votes even though campaigns can cost tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars because a lot can be at stake -- the Olympics, for example. Or, as Cranbrook voters will decide later this month, the annexation of land that will more than double the city's current footprint and massively enrich the property owners.

If the task force can agree on election finance reform, it will be useless without better oversight, enforcement and stiffer penalties.

The premier says Elections BC will take that on. But that too requires legislation. And Elections BC can't do the work without more money and, likely, more staff. Yet, there's been no hint that the money is available.

It will be near miraculous if the task force can deal with all of those issues and it will still have only scratched the surface of electoral reform. Still it would be a good start. But time's short, premier. You need to get this task force going.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

The banana republics of B.C. politics - Daphne Bramham

The banana republics of B.C. politics

Citizens are left on their own to guard against electoral irregularities in municipal elections

BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN March 21, 2009

Even the provincial minister responsible for municipal legislation did not believe that citizens would have to spend their own money to overturn an unfair election but he learned he was misinformed.
Photograph by: Glenn Baglo, Vancouver Sun, Files, Vancouver Sun
The B.C. Liberal government has gone far beyond convention in silencing opposition during the May election campaign with its gag law on third-party advertising. Yet the same Liberal government allows a virtual free-for-all during municipal elections.

Civic elections are "the Wild West," says Simon Fraser University political scientist Patrick Smith, who has concluded that more than four times as much money per voter is spent than in provincial or federal elections.

Yet, it's left up to citizens to enforce the electoral rules. There is no independent oversight, which gives municipal elections in British Columbia some of the hallmarks of voting in banana republics.

The Liberals did amend the Local Government Act a few months before the November civic elections. For the first time, groups and individuals supporting candidates or slates of candidates were required to register. But the legislation has no enforcement mechanism. No one is responsible for policing it. If citizens believe there are electoral irregularities, they have to spend their own money to ensure that unfair elections are overturned and transgressors either lose their seats or are banned from participating in the next election.

It's a serious oversight that renders the legislation so lame that even former community development minister Blair Lekstrom couldn't believe it.

In an interview the day before the Nov. 15 provincewide elections, Lekstrom assured me that his department had it wrong. Lekstrom, a former mayor, said it couldn't possibly be that it would be left up to citizens to police and prosecute any election irregularities. He said that is the role of the police.

Over in West Vancouver, Kash Heed, who recently resigned as chief constable, agreed. Police are continuing their investigation into complaints of election irregularities including the failure of at least one lobby group -- Low Taxes, Low Growth Association -- to register as a campaign organizer even though it spent thousands of dollars attempting to get a slate of candidates elected. It also didn't file a financial disclosure by the March 16 deadline.

However, mayoral candidate Vivian Vaughan noted on her financial disclosure form that the association donated $1,000 to her campaign.

Another group, Preserve West Vancouver, filed a financial disclosure claiming to have raised $3,550. Vaughan is listed as having contributed $1,200 to it and two council candidates -- Carolanne Reynolds and Danielle Charlton -- donated $500 and $300 respectively.

But Preserve West Vancouver's listed expenditures do not include a $3,200 donation to Charlton that she lists on her financial disclosure.

Apparently, Lekstrom -- who has since moved on to become the energy minister -- was set straight by his staff after the elections were over. In an e-mail to David Wilson, a Central Saanich resident who alleges irregularities in that municipality's election, Lekstrom said Wilson should take his concerns to court.

But there may be no better illustration of the ramifications of this electoral regulatory gap than Central Saanich. The local co-op was heavily involved in endorsing and stumping for council candidates, who would look favourably on a rezoning needed for its new store.

During the election, Peninsula Co-op sent out letters to all of the candidates asking if they would support a rezoning of four residential lots to allow construction of a 27,000-square-foot grocery store adjacent to its gas centre. It told the candidates that their responses would be distributed to its membership.

Without seeking the permission of its membership, the co-op sent out letters to some, if not all, of its 28,000 members urging them to vote for the candidates who would support the rezoning. It had posters printed and prominently displayed in its grocery store listing the candidates who supported and those who opposed it.

Formal investigation sought

Peninsula Co-op registered as campaign organizer on Nov. 6, only nine days before the election, even though its campaign began weeks earlier and even though Central Saanich chief electoral officer Sara Ribeiro says that groups and individuals must register as soon as they have spent $500.

The Co-op spent a total of $16,488 endorsing and stumping for council candidates.

David Wilson, the resident whom Lekstrom corresponded with, recently wrote to Attorney-General Wally Oppal and Solicitor-General John van Dongen, asking for an formal investigation into the co-op to determine whether it acted improperly both under the Local Government Act, the B.C. Co-operatives Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by spending more than $500 and using the co-op's membership list to try to influence the election's outcome -- all without ever having sought the approval of the members.

"Normally, I would officially file this complaint with the local police department in Central Saanich," Wilson wrote. "But unfortunately, Chief Constable Paul Hames is a member of the Peninsula Co-operative's board . . . . How can the chief constable investigate a local organization's action, when he is part of that organization's executive board? If I ask Chief Hames to investigate, there is a potential for a conflict of interest."

Hames is on the co-op's finance, membership and community relations committees. Cathie Ounstad, one of the members of the police board, is also on the co-op board.

Wilson goes on to say that he's concerned about his safety and that of his family, having raised his concerns with the mayor, the municipality's chief electoral officer, the co-op's general manager and the police chief. Other concerned citizens, he alleges, have been threatened with lawsuits.

He then goes on to state what seems to be obvious: "If the law has been broken, it needs to be investigated by unbiased law enforcement officials and our democratic rights as citizens should be protected without threat of persecution."

The concerns don't end with Central Saanich and West Vancouver where the police investigation is continuing.

Not a single campaign organizer or elector organization registered in Summerland. Yet, there were at least 15, quarter- and half-page ads that ran in the Summerland Review. Similar ads also ran in the Penticton Herald and the Western News.

"Some concerned residents and business owners of Summerland urge you to please get involved and support candidates who are not against some growth in this town . . . . Please get out and support those whose politics will not result in anti-business, anti-family and anti-Summerland by way of their anti-growth, one perspective politics!" says one ad, which gives no indication of who the concerned residents or business owners are or who paid for the ad.

Citizens for Smart Governance ran ads in support of mayoral candidate Janice Perrino. Only two days before the election, there was a full-page ad for Perrino that was paid for "by a generous donation" as well as two quarter-page ads opposing smart growth that had no indication of who had paid for them.

There was also a quarter-page ad endorsing the Perrino slate that included the names of 90 supporters, including a number of realtors and developers.

Some of those supporters' names were also among a longer list of names on a pamphlet endorsing the Perrino slate. The entire slate was elected.

A full-page ad in the Review is $856.52 plus GST; a half-page is $459.62 and a quarter-page is $225.12 plus GST.

So, even in smaller municipalities, it doesn't take long to run up a $500 tab. And $500 is the threshold amount. Any person or group spending $500 or more is legally required to register with the chief electoral officer as either a campaign organizer or an elector organization and file financial statements within four months of the election.

But no one is responsible or legally required to check up on them. Except citizens. And, as Wilson noted, in small communities standing up and complaining can be an uncomfortable, lonely and even frightening proposition.

'Mistakes were made'

Brian Sadler is one of those citizens. Sadler and another unsuccessful candidate for Gibsons' town council, along with two other residents did go to B.C. Supreme Court after last November's municipal election, asking for the election to be declared invalid.

They alleged all kinds of irregularities in the vote-counting -- the most serious of which was that 327 votes suddenly appeared two days after the election during a recount that was done without scrutineers and without the knowledge of any of the candidates.

Even though Justice Bruce Cohen disagreed with the complainants, he did note in his written judgment, "It is far from clear who opened the ballot boxes" when the deputy chief electoral officer did a "review" of the ballots two days after the election.

He even wrote, "Certainly mistakes were made in tabulating and calculating the election results. However . . . there is no evidence of bad faith, only inadvertence and the errors made were discovered and corrected before the official election results were declared."

Cohen concluded that rather than asking for the election to be declared invalid, the complainants should have asked for a judicial recount.

But Sadler contends that a judicial recount wouldn't have solved the mystery of where those extra 327 votes came from. It wouldn't change the fact that there was no voters' list and volunteers at polling stations weren't even given electoral maps to determine whether voters' addresses fell within the municipal boundaries.

The court case cost close to $20,000 and, for the citizens' trouble, Sadler says they have been "bad-mouthed around town."

They considered an appeal. Not only was the cost prohibitive, Sadler says it would have paralyzed the town council for most of this year and as a taxpayer and resident he didn't want to do that.

Still, the case did result in some positives. In exchange for Sadler and the others dropping their appeal, the town agreed not to sue them for costs. Plus, the council unanimously agreed at its March 3 meeting to do a complete electoral process review.

It's a step. But as Sadler says, it's up to the provincial government to fill the vacuum that exists because of no formal monitoring of the due process required in elections.

"This is crap. We have a banana republic going on right here," Sadler says. He knows a thing or two about that. He spent five years in Bosnia as a political officer for the United Nations and election oversight was included in his duties.

dbramham@vancouversun.com
- - -
Online: Visit The Vancouver Sun's database of municipal campaign spending to find out how much money each mayoral and council candidate spent on the 2008 municipal election for 15 Lower Mainland municipalities. www.vancouversun.com/campaignfinance

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun