"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
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
"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
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
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
Monday, May 17, 2010
"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
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
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"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
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
Saturday, May 1, 2010
"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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)