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

Police called over campaign donations - Penticton Herald - Dec 30/09

Police called over campaign donations

By Susan McIver special to the Penticton Herald December 30, 2009

Questions about campaign finances of the Summerland mayor and councillors led a group of concerned residents to request a police investigation.

Earlier this month, 15 Summerland residents formally requested that the RCMP conduct an investigation into the controversy over financial disclosure statements from the 2008 municipal election.

The request came on the heels of widespread media coverage of alleged wrongdoings.

At issue are numerous anonymous advertisements that appeared in local newspapers during the 2008 campaign in support of the current councillors and mayor.

In the official complaint, the residents say they are particularly concerned about these anonymous donations in excess of $50, contrary to Section 87 of the Local Government Act.

All council members stated in their campaign financing disclosure statements that they took donations from unnamed individuals, groups or corporations for newspaper ads that exceeded the legal threshold. They listed these anonymous contributions as "in-kind" when, in fact, they were cash transactions.

For the newspaper ads to be considered "in-kind" donations, they would have had to be provided at no cost by the newspapers‘ owners - in which case they would not be anonymous.

Some council members publicly said they exercised due diligence by seeking advice from the chief electoral officer before completing their disclosure statements.

Chief electoral officers provide information to candidates, including the candidate‘s guide to local elections, but they are not responsible for detailed interpretations of regulations or the accuracy of financial statements.

The candidate‘s guide states that disclosure rules exist to provide information about who is financially supporting each candidate and how much candidates spend on their campaigns.

The Summerland residents are also concerned about the two groups, perhaps more, that promoted candidates and viewpoints in the 2008 municipal elections and spent more than $500 doing so.

Individuals or groups spending more than $500 are legally required to register with the local chief elector officer.

The day after a front page opinion piece appeared in the Vancouver Sun with the headline Illegal Donations Mean Summerland has no legitimate Council, area resident Mark Ziebarth said he alone was behind the Citizens for Smart Governance.

Smart Governance ran advertisements endorsing the current mayor and councillors in local newspapers.

A Penticton businessman, Ziebarth said because he did not collect funds from other people, he did not qualify as a campaign organizer.

The provincial guide for campaign organizers says any person or group becomes a campaign organizer when they engage in an election campaign that augments or operates in place of a candidate‘s campaign.

In an interview with CBC Radio, Ziebarth said that, as an American, spending $2,000 on endorsement ads was the only way he could participate and influence the election‘s outcome.

When asked if he would do it again, Ziebarth replied, "I‘d do it with double barrels - twice as many ads, twice as much fun."

Unlike the Summerland candidates, at least two candidates facing a similar situation in the West Vancouver municipal election publicly dissociated themselves from anonymous ads.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=233446&a=41745&d=12445&k=145d85b0ccb9f651d4909c4193d18b2e

"Waiting for the truth" - Summerland Review editorial

"Waiting for the truth" - Summerland Review editorial

December 17, 2009

A group of 15 Summerlanders has asked the RCMP to investigate allegations of wrongdoings in the lead-up to last year’s municipal election.

The investigation comes after a number of anonymous third-party ads were run in the Summerland Review and other area newspapers. Some of the ads promoted a slate of candidates, one endorsed mayoral candidate Janice Perrino only and several urged voters reject anti-growth platforms.

The result of the election was a decisive win for Janice Perrino and each of the candidates listed in the seven-name slate.

Since the news stories ran, there has been much speculation about who may be involved, the motivations behind the advertisements and the possibility of groups of conspirators, lurking in the background but shaping the outcome of the election.

Others are questioning the motives of those who have now raised their concerns over the ads.

At this point, it is important to remember that the story is still unfolding.

While an investigation has been requested, it has not yet been conducted.

It will likely take months before a proper investigation can be completed.

Right now, it is much too early to make any conclusions. It is also unfair to point fingers until the investigation has run its course.

We live in a society in which the presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of our justice system.

None of us would want to be judged by those who do not know the whole story.

The candidates in the last election, those who placed advertisements, the elections officer and others involved deserve the same level of respect.

We ask that everyone, on all sides of this story, would keep an open mind until the facts are known.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/summerlandreview/opinion/79467867.html

"Lawyer refutes allegations against Summerland council"- Capital News Dec 15/09

"Lawyer refutes allegations against Summerland council"

By John Arendt (see the online version of the Capital News)


While a group of 15 Summerland residents have petitioned RCMP to investigate possible wrongdoings in the last municipal election, a prominent local government lawyer contends council members did not contravene any election laws.

Don Lidstone, who has spent more than 30 years working with local governments, said the allegations that the council is illegitimate are inaccurate and legally unsubstantiated.

The allegations came after questions were raised about a series of anonymous advertisements in the Summerland Review and other area media. Later, Mark Ziebarth took responsibility for those ads which bore the name Citizens for Smart Governance.

Candidates are not allowed to accept anonymous donations of more than $50 under the Local Government Act. However, Lidstone does not believe council members could be disqualified.

“Even if it could be proved that council members contravened the campaign finance provisions of the Local Government Act — and I do not think they contravened the act — in my opinion, the council members would be able to establish that they exercised due diligence, which is a complete answer and defence under the statute,” he said.

Under the Local Government Act, there are two grounds for disqualification that relate to campaign finance disclosure statements. A member may be disqualified for failing to file a disclosure statement within the specified time frame or for filing a false or incomplete statement. If a council member exercised due diligence to ensure the requirements were met, they would not be disqualified, Lidstone said.

He added that each of the council members filed their statements within the required time frame and that each would be able to show they exercised due diligence as they all disclosed the value of anonymous contributions.

“The courts will not lightly disqualify an elected official, especially where, as here, the official can show they exercised good faith and reasonable judgment,” Lidstone said.

While legislation prevents candidates from receiving anonymous contributions valued at more than $50, Lidstone said the council members cannot be disqualified for two reasons. He said the value of the ads is deemed to be nil under section 89(2) of the Local Government Act. Even if the ads are determined to have a value, Lidstone said the act provides that a council member is not guilty if they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Ziebarth placed the ads as a volunteer as defined in the act and received no compensation for doing so. As a result, Lidstone said there is no obligation on council members to turn over the value of the contributions.

Last week, Frank Martens, representing a group of 15 Summerland residents, brought a complaint to the Penticton RCMP, asking them to investigate possible wrongdoings.

He said anonymous advertisements and the amounts of anonymous donations claimed by mayoral and councillor candidates violated election legislation.

“We’ve pretty much looked at all the regulations,” Martens said. “You can’t go off on your own and place ads for candidates.”

The investigation process could take up to four months, Martens said. Once it is completed, he hopes the election legislation is changed to become a little clearer.

Peter Waterman, who lost his bid to become Summerland’s mayor in last year’s election, assisted Martens with the complaint.

“There’s a reasonable case to proceed,” he said. “The contraventions of the election act in this case are stronger than in Central Saanich.”

In Central Saanich, an RCMP investigation recommended 19 charges be laid. But the attorney-general’s criminal justice branch did not proceed, saying there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest.

Martens does not hold out much hope that anything will happen beyond the investigation.

“There’s not going to be too much done, in my opinion,” he said.

If the 15 residents wish to take council to court following the investigation, he said the cost of the legal process would be at least $20,000.

No matter what the outcome, Waterman said he is disturbed by the effects of the anonymous ads.

“It’s certainly not a good idea for a council to be receiving this negative publicity,” he said.

While Martens and Waterman believe there were wrongdoings on the part of council members over their disclosures, municipal clerk Gillian Matthews, who was the elections officer last year, disagreed.

“No council member has done anything that would result in their disqualification with respect to the filing of their campaign financing disclosure,” she said in a recent news release.

She explained that the two reasons for disqualification are failure to file the required disclosure and filing a false disclosure.

All disclosures were filed on time, she said. She added that a person is not disqualified if he or she exercised due diligence to ensure that the requirements of the legislation were met.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/79358742.html?c=y&curSection=/okanagan_similkameen/kelownacapitalnews&curTitle=BC%20News

(Dec 15/09 online version of the Capital News)