editorial cartoon in the October 20, 2010 Christian Science Monitor

Conflict of interest penalties must have some consequence - Daphne Bramham

Conflict of interest penalties must have some consequence


By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun July 7, 2010


The muddy waters of municipal conflict of interest got another stir late last month, just weeks after then community development minister Bill Bennett admitted that the law isn't nearly as it ought to be.

This time, though, it's not the law itself that's been found wanting. Instead, three judges of the B.C. Court of Appeal agreed that both the process and the penalty are problematic.

The justices exonerated Spallumcheen Mayor Wybren Jan (Will) Hansma of conflict of interest. They upheld an earlier B.C. Supreme Court decision that Hansma had not acted improperly when he voted in March 2008 to amend the Official Community Plan to allow all A-2 parcels of less than 75 acres that are not in the agricultural land reserve to be rezoned as small holdings.

Rezoned in this way, the parcels can then be subdivided into lots no smaller than 2.5 acres.

Hansma owns a four-acre plot adjacent to a 10-acre parcel owned by his two sons, and 32 Spallumcheen electors sought to have the mayor disqualified from office because the change potentially gave Hansma and his sons a financial benefit.

All of the judges disagreed with the electors.

Hansma's property is simply too small, they said, and there was no evidence that he would benefit if his sons subdivided their property.

In this case, the judges had no problem deciding what conflict of interest means in the civic context. But there have been a number of cases where jurists have mentioned how difficult it is to interpret the law.

An example of its complexity played out recently in Delta. In late May, Delta Coun. Heather King recused herself from voting on a development, saying that she had a conflict because she'd accepted a campaign donation from Ron Toigo and his company, while others who had received similar donations stayed on and voted.

Both sides believed that they were doing the right -- and legal -- thing.

But what the Spallumcheen case revealed is an entirely different problem.

The process takes so long that the punishment -- disqualification from holding office until the date of the next general election -- is likely to be moot by the time the case is decided.

"The potential period of disqualification in this case has long since lapsed, there having been a general local election in November 2008," they wrote in the unanimous decision.

"It raises the serious issue. ... Were we to refuse to hear the appeal as moot, it would be a rare case that could be advanced through the court process, given the election cycle in municipal governance."

The justices noted that the issue in the case was serious, and the allegations of consequence to both the electors and to Hansma -- and it's an issue that has the potential to arise again.

For those reasons, the appeal court heard the case even though, had the justices overturned the lower court's decision, Hansma would have been free to go back to City Hall and resume the mayor's chair.

But what it means is that without some amendment, there's a very real possibility that other mayors and/or councillors could break the law, enrich themselves and remain on council even after they've been found guilty.

It's ridiculous.

The recently dissolved municipal-election task force erred in not addressing any aspect of conflict of interest in what was to have been a sweeping review of the elections provision.

And it's all the more reason that Ben Stewart, who replaced Bennett, needs to rethink the decision to leave it alone until after the next provincewide municipal vote in November 2011.

Bennett has said it's already going to be a rush to turn the task force's recommendations to limit spending, increase transparency and improve enforcement into law before next spring.

A full review of conflict of interest may not be possible between now and then.

But it surely wouldn't take that long to come up with a penalty that would ensure that any future politicians who try to line their own pockets would face a meaningful consequence.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Conflict+interest+penalties+must+have+some+consequence/3244263/story.html#ixzz0u0NUC1eH

"Municipal election reform ignores biggest problem" - Paul Willcocks - June 2, 2010

"Municipal election reform ignores biggest problem" - column by Paul Willcocks. Printed in the Penticton Herald on June 2, 2010 and also on his blog - "Paying Attention" - http://willcocks.blogspot.com/

Do big campaign contributions influence politicians' decisions?
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
http://willcocks.blogspot.com/

"Report on municipal elections step in right direction" - editorial Wednesday, June 2, 2010 Penticton Herald

Report on municipal elections step in right direction

Wednesday, June 2, 2010
For years, lobbyists have known the cheapest and most effective branch of government to influence is at the
municipal level, whether things are above-board or not.
If someone wants to lobby the provincial or federal government, it has to pass through a lot of hands. It was therefore refreshing to see the B.C. Liberals call for a report on electoral
reform for municipal elections.
In the 2008 election, some ridings in the province were a Gong Show when it came to following guidelines. This report, which you can view on-line, is pretty good. There are still some cracks to be filled but that can be expected with any new piece of legislation.
The idea of a four-year term is dumb.
It will discourage more people from running because of that extra year and if a town or city gets stuck with a poor council, they will have them for an additional year.
Once upon a time, terms were only two years and that was far too short mainly because of unfinished business and succeeding councils being able to reverse decisions.
So what was good about the task force report?
- Municipal spending limits will be in place. While this may prove to be an advantage for incumbents (but likely not in Penticton) it limits the big spenders from buying victory.
- Anonymous donations are now outlawed.
- All advertising must state who paid for each ad.
- Third party advertisers must register.
- Complete disclosure must be placed on-line within 90 days of the election. At the present time, anyone wishing to view election
information must go to the inconvenience of visiting their municipal hall.
A common word that was used is "transparency" and this is extremely important.
In an informal poll of candidates in Summerland, both successful and unsuccessful, all seem to agree that this report is an
extremely positive start.
- James M. Miller
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=269369&a=41745&d=12445&k=f3f800001e636ebd8f18d1bf97b04dd2

"Summerlanders comment on Task Force findings" By Susan McIver/Special to The Herald Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Summerlanders comment on Task Force findings
By Susan McIver/Special to The Penticton Herald
Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Current and former Summerland municipal politicians and members of the public generally think the task force on local elections did a good job.
The report released Monday by the joint government and Union of B.C. Municipalities task force contained 31 recommendations.
“I think all of the recommendations of the election task force are excellent. What is important is that the task force listened to all of the comments presented to them,” said Mayor Janice Perrino.
The task force received over 10,000 submissions.
“They did a great job. I have the utmost respect for members of the task force,” said former councillor Peter Waterman.
B.C. Community and Rural Development Minister Bill Bennett said the task force was guided by the principle of transparency.
“The public has a right to know where the money comes from, who is spending it, who is buying ads, who is organizing or supporting candidates in local government elections,” Bennett said.
Bennett and UBCM president Harry Nyce co-chaired the task force.
Councillor Gordon Clark agrees with the importance of transparency.
“I am a proponent of full disclosure. More light and more air, as a general matter, are core underpinnings of a free society,” said Clark, who is generally content with the report.
In order to enhance transparency the task force recommends banning all anonymous contributions.
Last fall questions about the financing of the 2008 Summerland municipal election led a group of residents, including Frank Martens, to request an investigation by the RCMP.
Citing the six month statute of limitation on such matters the RCMP declined to conduct an investigation.
Martens was pleased by the recommendation that extends the current six month period for
investigation of an alleged offence to one year.
The deadline for submission of campaign finance disclosure statements is recommended to be shortened to 90 days from the current 120 days after the election.
The disclosure statements would then be published online through Elections B.C.
“I think the task force recommendations are good ones and should address most of the concerns that were raised in the last municipal elections in Summerland,” said John Kingsmill.
The task force recommends that third party advertisers must register and must disclose what they spend on ads and who contributed to them, and prohibit advertising by unregistered third parties.
As well there would be a requirement for all election advertising to disclose who sponsored the advertising and make it an offence to published ads without required sponsorship information.
To ensure accountability a separate act dealing with campaign finance rules in local elections is recommended.
A key role for Elections B.C. in enforcing campaign finance rules in local elections is also recommended as is clarification of roles, power and responsibilities of the local chief election officer with regard to elections enforcement, including explicit powers during elections.
Former mayor David Gregory said that election controversy in Summerland is nothing new.
“During Summerland‘s 2002 municipal election and referendum, a flyer was distributed to every household in Summerland supporting the proposed Protective Services Building.
This flyer was written on municipal council letterhead suggesting that mayor and council supported the referendum. Municipal council never saw the flyer. Municipal council did not support the contents of the flyer,” Gregory said.
In addition to being deceived, Gregory said taxpayers paid approximately $600 in postage.
The complete report can be viewed at www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=269355

"More transparency needed for civil election campaigns" by Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun June 1, 2010

More transparency needed for civil election campaigns

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun June 1, 2010


There will be greater transparency, significantly better oversight of civic-election financing, and a move away from citizen-complaint-driven enforcement of the rules, if the B.C. government puts in place the recommendations of its appointed task force.

Released Monday, the recommendations are aimed at eliminating the kind of electoral shenanigans that occurred during the 2008 civic vote and resulted in court cases and police investigations in municipalities such as West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley and Summerland.

Anonymous donations would be banned.

Elections BC would have oversight and enforcement powers, and more authority will be given to local electoral officers to do things such as take down illegal signs.

All election ads must say who paid for them.

Financial disclosures must be filed within 90 days of the vote and made available online. Currently, municipalities set their own rules about allowing citizens to view the documents, and the disclosures don't have to be filed until 120 days after the vote.

For the first time, the financial-disclosure rules would apply to referendum votes on a wide variety of issues, from rezonings to capital spending to annexation and expansion of civic boundaries.

Still, citizens would largely continue to vote blindly, because there's no way for them to find out who backed a candidate or issue financially until after the election.

While the task force focused mainly on transparency measures, it also recommended capping election spending by individual candidates, parties and interested third parties, to ensure that running for office isn't only open to the rich and well-connected.

However, task-force members -- representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and Liberal members of the legislature -- ducked both controversy and trouble by not suggesting what limits might be appropriate or how they might be applied.

If the spending limit covers the entire term, would disclosures be required only 90 days after the election or would there be annual disclosures?

(Community Development Minister Bill Bennett suggested Monday that mandatory disclosures might be too onerous in small municipalities, but "timely disclosures" would be required. He didn't say what timely means. Is it a month? Six months? Two years?)

In municipalities with civic parties, would the spending cap apply to candidates' nomination campaigns?

And those are just some of the questions that need to be answered. As the task-force report concluded, "the actual design of the expense limits will take significant work."

That work will now apparently be done over the next few months by government staff in consultation with the UBCM so that legislation can be passed next spring. There will be no opportunity for public input.

The task force also balked at recommending contribution limits, refusing even to ban foreign donations despite that being a unanimous recommendation from Vancouver's mayor and councillors.

Both Bennett and Surrey councillor Barbara Steele, a UBCM appointee to the task force, argue that improved transparency is the best regulator of contributions.

It's a view not widely held, as is evidenced by the donor cap at the federal level, limits in most provinces -- not B.C. -- and by a recent trend in other provinces to limit municipal election spending.

Yet neither Bennett nor Steele could explain why transparency is enough -- other than it might discourage citizens from voting next time for a mayor or council member who might, for example, have accepted $500,000 from either a public-sector union or a developer and then voted in line with the donor's best interests.

As for foreign donations, Bennett said the amount is insignificant and not worth worrying about, even though in the 2008 election in Metro Vancouver, total foreign donations far exceeded anonymous donations, which the task force recommended banning.

There's no argument that the task-force proposals to make civic elections more transparent and hold election participants more accountable for their actions are good things.

But the measure of the success of this whole exercise will be determined by if and how the Liberal government fills in the blanks on the spending cap, and whether it has the courage to go further and restrict electoral donations -- not only at the local level, but at the provincial level as well.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/More+transparency+needed+civil+election+campaigns/3096063/story.html#ixzz0phtode3m

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/More+transparency+needed+civil+election+campaigns/3096063/story.html

"Civic election taskforce recommends spending limits" article by Daphne Bramham

"Civic election taskforce recommends spending limits"

By DAPHNE BRAMHAM 31 MAY 2010 posted on her blog Think Tank

Candidates for the 2011 civic elections in B.C. will for the first time face spending limits. What those limits are, what period of time they will cover and many other details still need to be worked out if the provincial government agrees to the changes.

The spending limits were one of a package of recommendations released by a government-appointed task force Monday. The taskforce was appointed in December by Premier Gordon Campbell following a number of high-profile cases involving 2008 election discrepancies that resulted in citizens filing complaints with police or going directly to the courts.

However, the taskforce did NOT recommend limits on how much individuals, corporations or other groups can contribute to campaigns nor did it recommend that donors be limited to

Canadian citizens or even residents.

Key recommendations included:

Extending the spending limits to referendum votes;
Banning anonymous contributions;
Doubling the investigation period to one years after an alleged offence has occurred;
Extending council terms to four years from three
Continuing the ban on businesses having a vote;
Reducing the time for post-election financial disclosures to 90 days from 120
Requiring all election ads to say who paid for them
Giving Elections BC responsibility for oversight
Extending the financial disclosure provisions to referendum votes
Requiring all financial disclosures to be posted online
The task force was made up of representatives from the Union of B.C. Municipalities and Liberal members of the legislature. There were no public hearings. However, the task force received 10,374 submissions from individuals and groups.

To see all of the recommendations and the rationale, click here for the task force's full report.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thinktank/default.aspx

"NDP concerned about local election finance" article by Matthew Burrows in the Georgia Straight May 20, 2010

NDP concerned about local election finance
By Matthew Burrows
The NDP MLA tasked with shadowing the Local Government Elections Task Force is looking forward to his last chance to go “toe-to-toe” with the B.C. Liberals on the issue during a debate in the legislature today (May 20).

“That will be our last chance before the recommendations are drafted, if indeed they haven’t been already,” Scott Fraser, the New Democrat community and rural development critic, told the Straight by phone.

The six-member task force, struck in October 2009, must report to the B.C. government by May 30. Fraser is still upset that the NDP and South Delta independent MLA Vicki Huntington were excluded, and wonders whether cochair Bill Bennett, the community and rural development minister, will tackle the influence of big money in municipal elections.

Bennett did not return a call requesting an interview.

Campaign finance, including contribution and spending disclosure and limits, is the first of six topics under review. Others include enforcement, the role of B.C.’s chief electoral officer, term limits, and whether corporations should be allowed to vote in municipal elections.

“The task force received a large number of submissions, raising a number of concerns around contribution limits for all the right reasons,” Fraser said. “Arguably the rationale for creating the task force was in part because of perceived problems with individual contributions. The issue was not so much with the spending. If you can raise money and if you need to raise money to raise a large campaign, you could argue that is democratic. But getting the giant contributions from individuals or some entity, that could be argued as tarring the political process by potentially influencing policy post-election.”

Kennedy Stewart, an associate professor in SFU’s graduate public policy program, told the Straight he has some concerns about how Bennett will stickhandle provincial legislation that can be “dropped down to cover municipal elections”.

“The big problem is that, although the minister probably recognizes that contribution limits should be put in place, we don’t have contribution limits at the provincial level,” Stewart said by phone from London, England, where he is on sabbatical. “So it will be pretty difficult for him to say, ‘We’re going to put these in at the municipal level, but we don’t have them at the provincial level.’ That’s his challenge.”

Fraser noted that NDP leader Carole James introduced a private member’s bill on April 20 that would have led to stricter provincial conflict-of-interest rules.

“And they have refused to even bring that bill up for debate, let alone consider such reforms,” Fraser said of the B.C. Liberals. “They would have a hard time bringing in recommendations that include contribution limits, considering they are refusing to do so for their own reasons provincially.”

http://www.straight.com/article-324778/vancouver/ndp-concerned-about-local-election-finance

"Council's 'public' question period deemed unsuitable for TV" -by Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun May 20, 2010

Council's 'public' question period deemed unsuitable for TV


BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN MAY 20, 2010


The nagging, gnawing thing about democracy is that, once elected, politicians are supposed to continue paying attention to the voters who put them in office.

It's a nuisance really. Citizens sometimes ask stupid or nasty questions. Sometimes, they ask pointed questions. Occasionally, they ask questions that the elected folks would prefer were left unasked.

And every once in a while, the peasants revolt. Just ask provincial Liberals what it's like to be the focus of the HST backlash.

But for the most part senior levels of government don't have to face the voters every week like municipal mayors and councillors do.

Summerland's municipal council has been particularly plagued by difficult public questions at its regular meetings, not the least of which was a barrage by Pentiction Herald managing editor James Miller in November 2009 about 2008 election financing disclosures.

His questions about an unregistered campaign organization, its support for all of the successful council candidates and more generally about campaign donations were broadcast as part of the regular council coverage by Shaw Cable and they ended up on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY).

That led to more questions about the legitimacy of the council itself. And, eventually, some citizens lodged complaints with local RCMP.

No investigation was ever done, since in the absence of a time limit for complaints about election improprieties in the Local Government Act the RCMP had to rely on the Offence Act, which does not allow proceedings to commence more than six months after an action takes place.

(Changing that to allow more time for investigation is one of the recommendations the RCMP subsequently made to the provincial task force, which is scheduled to report back later this month about improving transparency and accountability in municipal elections.)

With a shadow continuing to hang over it, Summerland council is now considering a controversial development affecting both municipal and agricultural land that would require an amendment to the Official Community Plan, which was passed in April 2008.

Not surprisingly, citizens have lots of questions, but Summerland council has made sure that its public questioning is a little less public.

Citizens can still step up to the podium and ask what they want. Citizens can still do that, but that part of the meeting is no longer broadcast by Shaw Cable . . . at the council's request.

It was done without any public debate or disclosure and citizens only found out about it this week after a local print reporter noticed that at a recent meeting the cameras were turned off when question period began.

Convenient isn't it? Legal, too. There is no legislated requirement for municipalities to have any part of council meetings televised.

And, as Shaw told the Penticton Herald earlier this week, it is not under any obligation by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) to cover local councils at all.

It's surprising that Shaw was willing to accede to Summerland council's wishes.

Maybe covering the entire meeting isn't part of its mandate. But pragmatically?

Having spent far too many soporific hours covering city council meetings in several different municipalities, it's hard to imagine the broadcaster is okay with filling hours of air time with boring, moved-seconded-all-in-favour stuff and not the public question period that's almost always the liveliest, if not the most interesting part, of the meeting.

It's hard to imagine what's next.

Banning the public altogether? Or taking a page from some other municipalities' minutes and threatening citizens with legal action? Yet forced back into the public realm come election time, don't be surprised to hear the politicians wondering why there's so much voter distrust and cynicism.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

To make municipal election financing more transparent for Metro Vancouver residents, The Vancouver Sun has a searchable database of donors in the 2008 election at vancouversun.com/donors

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Council+public+question+period+deemed+unsuitable/3050753/story.html

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Council+public+question+period+deemed+unsuitable/3050753/story.html#ixzz0oX44LUWu

"Summerland Council should not dictate television coverage policy" - Penticton Herald editorial

"Summerland Council should not dictate television coverage policy"

Penticton Herald editorial Monday, May 17, 2010

Summerland Council is again deciding what‘s the public‘s business and what‘s none of our business with its abrupt and unannounced decision to pull the public question period from broadcasts televised by Shaw Cable.
This raises some intriguing issues.
While Mayor Janice Perrino guarantees "gavel to gavel" coverage of the meeting and promises that any group may come before council with a delegation (which will be televised), her council has arbitrarily determined that open questioning can only be witnessed if the individual comes out to the meeting in person.
This is clearly a case of duck and cover.
The question period is allowed to be televised in Penticton but apparently not in Summerland. It always was. Why the abrupt change?
Perhaps it had something to do with some hard questions addressed to specific council members by this newspaper as well as members of the community.
Why can we as viewers not see what concerns the gallery may have? It‘s quite possible that a citizen may ask a perfectly valid question which nobody had ever thought of before. Voters also deserve to see how mayor, council and its staff deal with the public. How sharp are the politicians we elected when a tough question is posed?
Yes, some questions from the floor are from special interests groups and even the occasional wing-nut will get up and grandstand but they too are citizens and valued members of our community.
Officials from Shaw Cable in Calgary (the local people were not allowed to answer our questions) state that they‘re under no obligation by the CRTC to provide coverage of municipal councils and therefore they‘re happy to abide by the ground rules dictated by this council.
This is an example of chicken journalism.
In-camera meetings are obviously off-limits to press and the public for obvious reasons but Shaw should not be told by an elected board as to what they can and can not broadcast.
They‘re cheating the viewer.
The beauty of television coverage of meetings is that they‘re able to show the entire proceedings. They‘re not limited to a certain number of column inches or a 60-second sound clip like newspapers and radio are.
What will happen should CHBC show up some night and want to shoot footage of the question period? May print journalists no longer use a tape recorder?
Summerland residents should be outraged by this and must immediately begin by writing their council members and phoning the head office of Shaw Cable.
Should none of this work, bring a video camera and tape recorder to the next meeting. If there‘s something interesting, it could always be posted to Youtube.
-James M. Miller
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=265270&a=38639&d=12586&k=b0187a47844af356f15222c39e44e6ae

****

Could James Miller's (managing editor of the Penticton Herald) questions to Summerland council about election expenses during 2008 municipal electon. be the reason for this decision? To watch that November 18, 2009 interview click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY

"Foreign influence in our local elections is troubling" - Daphne Bramham - The Vancouver Sun May 12, 2010

Money doesn’t talk. But give it to politicians and it can buy access, influence and even a favourable vote or two.
That’s why citizens need to know who is giving, who is receiving and what amounts are changing hands. Transparency is largely lacking in the B. C. municipal elections, since no disclosure is required until four months after voting day. There are also no restrictions on either donations or expenditures. And, far from requiring that donors live or work in the community, there’s not even a requirement that they be Canadian.
While it seems improved transparency and enforcement are finally on the agenda, it’s astonishing that parochial politicians ( and I mean that in a good way) and concerned citizens are not demanding a ban on foreign donations at the level of government that is supposed to be the closest to the people.
There is nothing xenophobic in telling rich people, organizations and corporations with no ties to a community, to take a hike at election time. In fact, not doing so seems naive. Do we really believe that the rich are only donating to campaigns to support the democratic process?
At the federal level, there are spending and contribution limits as well as a prohibition on foreign donors. Yet B. C. lags at both the provincial and municipal levels. Perhaps the perception is that the benefits to a donor are such chicken scratch at the local level that it’s not worth the effort of regulating.
But the reality is that buying a city council is extremely costeffective, whether it’s a corporation wanting to build a polluting plant, a greedy developer with plans for a highrise tower in a single-family neighbourhood, a religious organization bent on overturning values held by the majority, a union determined to preserve jobs during the economic downturn or an individual bent on altering the status quo.
Voter turnout hovers at 30 per cent. So, the difference between winning and losing can mean swaying just a few hundred people in a city such as Vancouver, or a few dozen people in smaller centres. Not only does it not take much money to buy a campaign, a candidate or a council majority, no one will know until it’s too late.
Mark Ziebarth is a good example of how loopholes can be exploited. An American who did work with the Heritage Foundation ( a right-wing group that has produced such controversial figures as Ann Coulter), he now lives in Summerland.
During the 2008 campaign, Ziebarth wrote and paid for four ads in The Summerland Review and one in The Penticton Herald supporting pro-development and eventually successful candidates for mayor and council.
“ In order to have some fun at the expense of the antediluvian Smart Growth crowd, I named myself Citizens for Smart Governance and published my ads under that banner,” Ziebarth bragged in a letter to The Review last December.
He also broke the law by never registering as a campaign organization or filing a financial disclosure statement.
Ziebarth wasn’t charged because complaints about his action weren’t filed with police within a six-month period following the election.
Maybe no harm was done. But would anyone be comfortable had the secret financier been from Saudi Arabia with links to militant Islam, or a cult leader searching for a convivial community? What if the backer were a Chinese military leader or a state-owned company trying to influence the vote in resourcerich Interior and northern communities?
It’s hard to say whether it would have made a difference to voters had they known that Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson had a handful of highprofile foreign contributors including Oprah’s pal, Dr. Andrew Weil.
But since then, Robertson and all of Vancouver’s councillors ( including Raymond Louie, who received $ 8,000 from a Taiwanese businessman toward his failed mayoral bid) have recommended to the province’s municipal electoral task force that foreign donations be banned.
It appears that they, too, have belatedly realized that the perception — if not the reality — of foreign influence in elections is troubling, to say the least.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Foreign+influence+local+elections+troubling/3016439/story.html

"Getting past 'not in the public interest to proceed' - Vancouver Sun April 30, 2010

Getting past 'not in the public interest to proceed'

Local Government Act concerning illegal campaign contributions to candidates is flawed

BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 30, 2010


Civic election campaigns are awash in money even in small communities

and municipalities where candidates have no real challengers. As interesting as that is, what's as intriguing is the money that is never accounted for; money spent by individuals and groups who endorsed and promoted various candidates across the province and broke the law by failing to register or file the necessary financial disclosures.

They've been allowed to get away with it because the Local Government Act is deeply flawed, even with the amendments made less than seven months before the 2008 election requiring third-party registration and disclosure.

Chief among the act's flaws is that it has penalties, but no enforcement provisions.

Chief electoral officers have no investigative powers and, even if they did, they would likely be perceived to be in a conflict of interest because, almost invariably, they are municipal employees.

Citizens can file private prosecutions, but that puts the onus of investigation and court costs on their shoulders.

Police can investigate after citizen complaints. But there are -- to put it mildly -- investigative challenges.

Police did conduct investigations in West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley, Summerland and Gibsons following the 2008 election.

In West Vancouver, a group called Low Tax, Low Growth Association sent out glossy brochures endorsing a slate of candidates. It neither registered as a campaign organizer nor filed a financial disclosure even though it spent thousands of dollars.

Although West Van police recommended charges, Crown counsel said there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest to proceed.

In Central Saanich, several groups that endorsed candidates failed to register; among them was the Peninsula Co-op, which had the local chief of police on its board. RCMP were called in and spent more than 600 hours investigating. They recommended charges against 19 individuals, but again Crown counsel said there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest to proceed.

In Langley, the names of two provincial cabinet ministers appeared in newspaper ads endorsing a slate. No charges were recommended; RCMP didn't know what value to place on the endorsement.

Nor did the RCMP make any recommendation to charge an individual, on the grounds the person didn't know about the act and complied after being told. So much for the ignorance-is-no-defence theory.

In Summerland, Citizens for Smart Governance ran five ads endorsing all of the successful candidates, including the mayor. Only after intense media interest did local businessman Mark Ziebarth come forward and claim that he was the only person in the group. He also insisted to CBC Radio that during next election not only will he again refuse to register, he'll spend more money.

No charges were recommended there or in Gibsons, where the citizens complained of conflicts of interest. It's not because there may not have been cause for charges in both communities, but because the time limit to charge anyone had expired.

The Local Government Act sets no time frame within which charges can be laid. As a result, police have no choice but to use the Offence Act, which says no action can be taken more than six months after an offence has taken place.

This is ridiculous in the case of municipal election complaints.

Candidates, campaign organizers and election organizations don't even have to file their financial disclosures until 120 days after the election. That leaves a scant two months for citizens or police to investigate.

And while the complaints from the last election focused on failures to register and disclose, there are far more serious offences in the act including vote-buying and intimidation that may be more complicated to investigate.

As a result of myriad concerns about the act and spurred by the media attention given to the shadowy groups and the subsequent investigations, Premier Gordon Campbell finally appointed a Local Government Elections Task Force to review the civic election rules last December.

The panel has received hundreds of submissions from groups and individuals, although names are redacted on the individual submissions because of privacy concerns.

In its submission, the RCMP lays out the multitude of problems with the act. Among the investigative challenges, it says there is not enough time

to investigate, investigations require specialized skills and local police (including RCMP working as municipal police) have either real or perceived conflicts of interest.

As a result of its experience with "at least five complaints" following the 2008 vote, RCMP recommend five changes:

. Empower Elections BC, or establish another body, to receive and review all complaints to ensure only the most serious are referred to police.

. Add a limitation-of-action section to the Local Government Act of at least one year from the date of the alleged offence to bringing the complaint to the attention of the appropriate authority.

. Expand the number of offences for which automatic penalties apply.

. Address the actual or perceived conflict of interest arising from local police investigating their political overseers.

. Ensure that officers have the necessary skills to investigate election-related complaints, which may require training a pool of officers -- both RCMP and local police -- familiar with the act who could act as primary investigators.

All of those recommendations make sense and would help restore some confidence in the electoral system. But they are only part of the reform that's needed.

dbramham@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Getting+past+public+interest+proceed/2969994/story.html


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Getting+past+public+interest+proceed/2969994/story.html#ixzz0mgz8z3D1

"Now‘s the time to speak your mind" - guest column Penticton Herald April 3, 2010

Now‘s the time to speak your mind

By Bill Bennett
Minister of Community and Rural Development

Saturday, April 3, 2010
VICTORIA - If you‘ve ever wanted to have a say in the way your local government representatives and school trustees are elected, this is your chance to speak your mind.
There are still a few weeks left for citizens, organizations and community groups to submit written feedback to the joint Local Government Elections Task Force.
I‘ve had the privilege these last few months, to work with an incredible group of people representing both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the province on the task force, including co-chair and UBCM president Harry Nyce.
We‘ve been collecting feedback from individuals and organizations from all over B.C. about how to improve our current local government elections process and have received more than 250 submissions to date.
Though a lot of positive changes have been made in recent years to the Local Government Act to modernize elections, the task force has been looking at any remaining gaps in the process.
The issues we‘ve been examining include campaign finance, enforcement processes and outcomes, the role of B.C.‘s chief electoral officer in local government elections, the term of office, the corporate vote, and candidate eligibility of some local government employees.
We know how important it is to seek opinions from a diverse range of stakeholders, and we have invited input from local governments, citizens, community groups, the Leader of the Opposition and organizations such as the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Federation of Labour, B.C. School Trustees Association and B.C. Teachers Federation.
We are also getting technical advice from election experts, including the Local Government Management Association, Elections B.C. and academics.
As well, individual task-force members are receiving feedback throughout the normal course of their work in communities throughout B.C.
From the outset, the task force has made a concerted effort to be as transparent as possible.
That‘s why we took the unusual step of posting on our website discussion papers about the topics the task force is reviewing.
We wanted the public to be part of this process, to think through these complex issues with us.
We decided initially to keep the submissions confidential
so people could feel free to
express themselves without fear of having their comments made public.
However, as a result of constructive criticism about our process, we have reconsidered that decision.
We are posting submissions by local governments and organizations in their entirety to our website.
To protect people‘s privacy, we are posting only the substantive comments of individuals, without identifying them.
In order to hear from as many people as possible, we have asked for comments to be submitted in writing.
I encourage you again to check out our website and let us know what you think. The deadline is April 15.
Comments can be provided:
Online at localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.c
By e-mail to localelectionstaskforce@gov.bc.ca
By fax to 250 387-7972
By mail to:
Local Government Elections Task Force
c/o Ministry of Community and Rural Development
PO Box 9839 Stn Prov Govt.
Victoria B.C. V8W 9T1
Any changes that come out of the review will be made in time for approved legislative changes to be implemented for the 2011 local government elections.
For more information on government services or to subscribe to the province‘s news feeds using RSS, visit the province‘s website at gov.bc.ca.
Bill Bennett is the Minister of Community and Rural Development.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=254832&a=53591&d=12619&k=5d3d5f59fc74b8a17af3e6f09071f76d

NDP urges Liberals to be non-partisan in selecting civic election committee - article -Vancouver Sun

NDP urges Liberals to be non-partisan in selecting civic election committee
Darah Hansen, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, November 28, 2009
B.C.'s New Democrats appealed to the government Friday to put aside partisan interests and include opposition members in a yet-to-be-announced committee examining gaping holes in municipal-election legislation.
Any such committee "should be squeaky clean ... Even the appearance of [possible] political motives should not be there," said Scott Fraser, NDP MLA for Port Alberni and community development critic.
Fraser's comments came after hints leaked earlier this week that the Liberals were set to appoint members of the committee. They will investigate possible changes to the Local Government Act after municipalities across the province raised concerns at the Union of B.C. Municipalities this fall about serious flaws in the legislation.

"It is a bit of the Wild West out there compared to provincial and federal elections," Community Development Minister Bill Bennett said at the time.
A Vancouver Sun article published Friday highlighted one particularly murky situation brewing in the grape-growing paradise of Summerland following last year's municipal election.
All six town councillors and Mayor Janice Perino admitted in their campaign-financing disclosure statements that they took donations from unnamed individuals, groups or corporations that exceeded the legal threshold set out under the Local Government Act.
According to the act, it's illegal to take anonymous donations of more than $50, and the penalty for doing so 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.
To date, no one on council has been fired. Summerland's acting Mayor Gordon Clark said that's because no one has done anything wrong.
"I try to behave in complete compliance with the spirit and the letter of the legislation," the retired lawyer said in an interview.
But others, including Kennedy Stewart, a Simon Fraser University political scientist whose specialty is civic politics, believe the lack of action has more to with the toothless nature of the act, which fails to set out clear powers of enforcement.
In a speech to municipal leaders in the fall, Premier Gordon Campbell said he would put a committee in place to look into the problems. The committee is to be headed by Union of B.C. Municipalities president Harry Nyce and Bennett, with recommendations expected by May 31.
Fraser said he was still hopeful Friday the committee would also include members of the NDP, as well as B.C.'s lone independent MLA Vicki Huntington.
dahansen@vancouversun.com
© Vancouver Sun 2009
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=65171acd-240a-4306-8db2-03f34dc88915

Task Force on changes to municipal elections

On October 2, 2009, Premier Gordon Campbell announced a joint Task Force to make recommendations for legislative changes to improve the electoral process for local government elections across B.C.

The six-member Task Force is co-chaired by Bill Bennett, Minister of Community and Rural Development, and Harry Nyce, president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and includes two other UBCM executive members and two provincial MLAs.

The Task Force is reviewing specific issues related to local government elections. Topics under review are:

Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
Enforcement processes and outcomes
Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
Election cycle (term of office)
Corporate vote
Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)
The Task Force welcomes feedback in writing on these topics. Written comments can be submitted via the e-mail Feedback link, the Feedback Form or sent to:

E-mail
localelectionstaskforce@gov.bc.ca

Mail
Local Government Elections Task Force
c/o Ministry of Community and Rural Development
PO Box 9839 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9T1

Fax: 250-387-7972

The Task Force looks forward to receiving your written comments as soon as possible, preferably by April 15, 2010.
http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/index.html

Unanswered questions - Summerland Review editorial Jan 14, 2010

Unanswered questions - Summerland Review editorial January 14, 2010

(also Published: January 13, 2010 4:00 PM on www.summerlandreview.com and
Updated: January 13, 2010 4:50 PM)

We didn’t want it to end like this.

The investigation into violations during the 2008 municipal election campaign is over now, since the paperwork was filed much too late.

The filing deadline was six months after the November 2008 election, but the request for an investigation did not take place until December 2009, seven months after the deadline had passed.

The decision to drop the investigation means the members of municipal council can finish out their terms, but it also means the questions which have been raised will not be answered and the allegations cannot be supported or refuted. This does not help anyone.

Accusations of corruption and illegal campaign contributions have been raised.

An investigation would be able to prove, once and for all, whether those allegations were valid.

For the last few months, the reputations of the council members and a number of others in this community have been tarnished by the claims.

Summerland has made the news on a provincial and national level in a way none of us would prefer.

The story has now come to an end, but it was not concluded.

The case is closed but the questions remain unanswered.

Ending an investigation in this way should not be taken as evidence of the guilt or innocence of anyone involved. Neither is it a sign of a cover-up.

Instead, it demonstrates the need for reforms and revisions to the provincial legislation governing municipal elections, so nothing like this can happen again.

The allegations and resulting investigation have shifted attention from the important issues affecting the future of our community to something which has far less bearing on our lives.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/summerlandreview/opinion/81380417.html

Police end investigation of council - Summerland Review

Police end investigation of council

Online edition – Summerland Review

Published: January 13, 2010 5:00 PM 
Updated: January 13, 2010 5:18 PM 


A police investigation into possible violations during the 2008 municipal election is now over as the request was filed several months past the deadline.

Cpl. Dan Moskaluk, an RCMP district representative, said the general statute of limitations is six months, unless a different time frame is set out specifically. He said the investigation is now over.

The complaint was filed in December by a group of 14 Summerlanders concerned about irregularities in the municipal election.

“No one made a complaint until it was too late,” said Mayor Janice Perrino. “Nothing more will be done. The case is closed.”

Perrino, who was one of the subjects of the investigation, was contacted by the RCMP late last week.

She said the deadline for filing a complaint about election irregularities was within six months of the election.

The municipal election took place on Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008.

In the fall of 2009, questions were raised about a series of anonymous advertisements, some urging voters to choose a council friendly to growth and others endorsing specific candidates.

The result of the election was a decisive win for those endorsed.

Close to 4,000 ballots were cast. Perrino, with 2,183 votes, defeated mayoral candidate Peter Waterman who had 1,651 ballots.

Among the council candidates, the six endorsed in third-party ads were all elected with more than 200 votes separating the sixth place councillor and the seventh of the 13 candidates.

Those questioning the ads had said they were anonymous donations to the candidates which the council candidates should not have received.

Later, Mark Ziebarth, a Summerland businessman, claimed responsibility for some of the third-party ads.

He said the ads were not political donations and did not violate the legislation governing elections.

Perrino is glad the investigation has now ended.

“It was incredibly painful for our community to be smeared right across this province,” Perrino said.

She added that the investigation took up valuable police time and was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Because the review was requested more than a year after the election, she questions the motives of those who brought it forward.

“It had nothing to do with an election and everything to do with a smear campaign,” she said. “This was because of an issue.”

She said that if the concerns were over the election itself, the complaint would have been filed shortly after the election instead of more than a year later.

But Frank Martens, one of the people behind the request for the police investigation, said the information about the irregularities did not surface until the fall.

Once the stories began to circulate, he said the complainants waited to give the members of council a chance to refute the allegations.

“I thought there would be some sort of charges laid,” Martens said. “I can’t understand why the RCMP would say there’s nothing they can do.”

A provincial task force has been formed to examine the legislation governing municipal elections in B.C.

Perrino has contacted MLA Bill Barisoff and the task force about the incidents in Summerland.

“We know the rules have to be tightened and we are aware there are major problems,” she said.

She would like the rules changed to protect the public, to protect the candidates and to protect elections officials in order to prevent smear campaigns following an election.

Martens also believes the task force is needed.

“That’s the only good thing, in my opinion, that has come out of this,” he said

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/summerlandreview/news/81384362.html

Summerland - Update-Alleged Local Government Act contravention - RCMP Statement Jan 11/2010

Summerland - Update-Alleged Local Government Act contravention
File # 2009-2555 2010-01-11 06:36 PST
The RCMP have completed their review of the recent Local Government Act complaint against Summerland Mayor and Council. Police do not possess statutory authority to investigate the complaint, due to the expiration of the statute of limitation.


The RCMP “E” Division Commercial Crime Section has conducted a review of the recent Local Government Act complaint made to the Summerland RCMP Detachment, which leveled allegations against elected officials and a member of the public.

The complaint filed in mid December 2009, alleged that during the 2008 municipal election, the running Summerland Mayor and a number of members of Council, as well as a private citizen, had contravened sections of the Local Government Act.

The official complaint submitted to Summerland Detachment enumerated 3 complaints:

1.The alleged acceptance by the Mayor and Councilors of anonymous donations in excess of $50 contrary to section 87 of the Act.

2.That there were at least two groups who in appearance, met the definition of campaign organizer, and may have spent more than $500 and yet failed to register or file a financial disclosure form as required by the Act.

3.That advertisements in the Summerland Review and other local newspapers which appeared to have exceeded the $500 threshold requiring campaign organizers to register with the chief electoral officer and file a financial disclosure, were not disclosed.

“Investigators in this case, are statute barred from proceeding any further than reviewing the complaint. In this matter, the limitation of action for instituting any judicial proceedings, (which includes police investigation) has expired by virtue of section 3(2) of the Offence Act BC. The statute of limitation on matters of this nature is a period of six months from the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence.

Although the formal police review of this complaint will end here, it has been conducted in a thorough and properly documented manner, in order to demonstrate the seriousness with which the RCMP views electoral offence allegations and to demonstrate due diligence in the assessment of the complaint.” stated Cpl Dan Moskaluk.

The Provincial Ministry of Community and Rural Development recently announced the creation of a Task Force to “improve the fairness, accountability and transparency of the elections process at the local government level” (media release 2009CD0051-000725 from the Ministry of Community and Rural Development dated 2009-12-04).

See full media release at: news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009CD0051-000725

“While the RCMP is statute barred from investigating this complaint, it is noted that the task force will be seeking feedback from a diverse range of stakeholders and will be inviting input from local governments, representative groups and the public on topics under review”…Cpl Dan Moskaluk


Released by

Cpl. Dan Moskaluk
Media Relations Officer
South East District and North District
170 -395 Penno Road, Kelowna BC V1X-7W5
Office: (250) 491-2300
Cell: (250) 863-7433
Fax: (250) 491-2381
Email: dan.moskaluk@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=12914&index=3

"Clock Runs out for probe into Summerland Council expenses" Penticton Herald Jan 10, 2010

Clock Runs out for probe into Summerland Council expenses

By James Miller

Penticton Herald

Sunday, January 10, 2010

A request for a formal RCMP investigation from 15 citizens in Summerland into allegations of irregular election expenses made by mayor and council in the 2008 municipal election has been denied due to a statute of limitations.

Although a statute of limitations is not mentioned in the official B.C. Municipal Elections Act, according to spokesman Cpl. Dan Moskaluk, “when the provincial act doesn‘t have a section on a statute of limitations, it defaults to the offence act, which is a basic six months.”

Moskaluk quoted section 3(2) of the Offence Act.

Retired orchardist Frank Martens, along with 14 others, filed an official complaint with RCMP on Dec. 14 that all six councillors plus the mayor were in violation of several infractions.

In their official complaint they outlined three major concerns:

• The alleged acceptance by the mayor and councillors of anonymous donations in excess of $50 contrary to the act.

• Groups which spent over $500 on endorsement ads yet failed to register or file a financial disclosure statement

• Additional advertisements in the Summerland Review and other local newspapers that may have exceeded the $500 benchmark requiring campaign organizers to register with the Chief Electoral Officer and file a financial disclosure.

Councillors stated that they sought advice of CEO Gillian Matthew on disclosure and were always honest in their declarations. They listed donations of more than $50 as anonymous only because they directly benefited from advertisements from unnamed citizen‘s group but had no idea who they were.

The case was immediately moved out of Summerland and was handled in Vancouver by Andrew Koczeruk of the Commercial Crimes section.

“I‘m not happy about the result, but I‘m certainly not unhappy with the fact that we had requested the investigation,” Martens said.

“I don‘t believe the people involved have been entirely exonerated because it‘s been declined basically on a technicality. I don‘t believe there should have been such a brief time-line in place, but that‘s not our call to make.”

Martens noted that candidates have three months from the time of the election to declare their financial statements and the public is not allowed access to those documents until that time, thus meaning citizens don‘t truly have a six-month period to complain.

Martens said there is still the option of challenging in court, but he doubts that will happen due to the tremendous costs involved.

“There‘s now a task force in place because there were similar occurrences throughout the province and maybe other places that haven‘t bothered to raise questions.”

Coun. Gordon Clark, who was acting mayor at the time questions were first brought forward, declined comment, Saturday. Phone messages were left with both Mayor Janice Perrino and Coun. Ken Roberghe, who did not reply by press time.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=235498