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
No comments:
Post a Comment