To Vote Or Not To Vote, A Matter of Personal Choice
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 12:01 PM
Prince George, B.C. – A Prince George city councilor says it’s a matter of personal choice whether a member of council removes themselves from voting on an issue that appears on the council agenda.
At Monday night’s meeting of city council, Brian Skakun and Councilor Lynn Hall removed themselves from the discussion surrounding an application by the Treasure Cove Casino to increase its liquor service area. Skakun removed himself because his son is working at the casino while Hall left prior to the discussion because his company occasionally audits the casino.
Councilor Albert Koehler did not support the application, but the balance of council, including Mayor Shari Green, did support it.
Green, as stated in her Election Campaign Financing Report filed following the November 19, 2011 municipal election, received a campaign contribution of $13,440.00 from the Treasure Cove Casino in her bid for the mayoralty. The $13,440.00 was the largest single donation to Green’s campaign contribution total of $81,147.55.
We asked Skakun whether he feels there might be a perception of a conflict of interest on the part of the mayor in voting on this issue. Skakun says “I can’t say whether or not there’s a perception of a conflict of interest. I know for myself that I removed myself because there could have been a perception of a conflict of interest, and since my son is going to be employed by John Major I just thought it best that I don’t vote. So it’s an individual decision not to vote or to vote on a matter like that. I can’t say one way or another whether there’s a conflict of interest. That decision lies with her.”
Skakun says “If it had been me, with such a large donation like she had received, I wouldn’t have voted on the matter, so that might answer your question indirectly I guess.”
Opinion 250 called Chris Bone, Manager of Communications with the City of Prince George, to see whether Mayor Shari Green would comment on whether she felt she was in a conflict position in voting on the casino liquor application. Bone told us “I know that she is out of the office all day today at a Northern Development board meeting, and I also know she is on record as not granting interviews to Opinion 250, but I can check with her if you like.” Bone was told that even if the mayor doesn’t want to speak with us directly, we feel the issue is of significant importance that Mayor Green may want to pass a comment to Opinion 250 through Bone. The Communications Manager told us she could “certainly ask her for a comment and I will let you know.”
We await that call.
Comments
Are you kidding me? I mean, thank you 250 for giving Mayor Green the benefit of a doubt, but this just screams “conflict of interest”. If Mayor Green votes, I can finally say I have lost all faith in her leading this city. On the bright side, I’m glad to see Skakun and Hall were swift and cordial in their decisions.
Conflict of interest? Obviously not in the mighty mayor’s opinion……..
I really think that we hae to move beyond campaign contributions being considered conflicts of interest in such broad applications.
I think there is a greater conflict of interest from the point of view that the City gains from the Casino being there as do many charitable organizations in this city.
Of course, there are also costs to having the casino here.
I think that once a decision has been made to accept a casino into the community, they should be allowed to operate within common practice. It seems that common practice in the province has become for alcoholic beverages to be allowed on the gaming floor. I understand that Councillor Krause voted as he did for a similar reason and I agree it is a rational reason.
Some may think it is progress other may not.
In politics perception is everything. Was it wise for Mayor Green to vote in favour after receiving such a big contribution at election time? When has she showed any wisdom since entering Civic Politics? Par for the coarse I guess…
Cheetos is right on the money. I understand she’s new to the position, but A) that excuse is becoming very old very fast and most importantly B) there has to be a certain level professionalism at city hall. I’m all for gaming revenue. Heck if it wasn’t for gaming revenue, we wouldn’t be enoying amateur sports or community services at the level we do. As long as Mayor Green bows out, I don’t have a problem with this motion. If she doesn’t, good luck obtaining my vote again Shari..
She votes in favor of majors request and received the highest donation and of course it’s a conflict of interest. Then we have skakun telling on the mayor ” gee I am not sure if it’s a conflict or not but I did not vote because it may have but if I were green I wouldn’t have voted on it.
Dont we all feel so trusting in mayor and council.
gus: “I think that once a decision has been made to accept a casino into the community, they should be allowed to operate within common practice. It seems that common practice in the province has become for alcoholic beverages to be allowed on the gaming floor. I understand that Councillor Krause voted as he did for a similar reason and I agree it is a rational reason.”
Totally in agreement. People need to get over this. Drinking in casinos happens everywhere. There is no rational reason why it shouldn’t happen here as well.
I don’t think drinking in casinos is the issue; gambling and drinking go hand in hand. People drink when they gamble so that they gamble more. Then they drink after they gamble to drown their sorrows they bring upon themselves and their families. Not everyone that goes to casinos come out a winner, if they did there wouldn’t be any casinos. The issue in the above article concerns conflict of interest. As usual Ms. Green blew it!
The question is not one of the morality or the business case of casinos/liquor – together or separate – it is whether Green should have excused herself due to a perceived conflict of interest. In my opinion there is not even a perception. It exists. The classy, business savvy move would have been to excuse herself from the vote. Terrible example of moral fortitude at any level – at least fake it. The final nail, from my point of view.
So let me ask you this; how much of a donation does it take for a person to have a conflict of interes because the person in front of council asking for something has donated to a Councillor’s or Mayor’s campaign? I think once the donation hits $100 or something like that, it can no longer be anonymous.
So Majors, key builders, developers and other wo may see themselves in front of Council on occasion give everyone $200 and a few $500 .. and one or two others $1,000.
Which member is in a conflict? Is anyone in conflict? What happens if there are enough in a conflict that there will never be a quorum?
The donation by Major was many times the average donation.
If the top 5 or 10% of donations to any candidate by an individual or a company are red flagged and those receiving them must excuse themselves from any vote dealing with aforementioned individual or company.
Rule in place, no second guessing if a person should have voted or not and would not affect the quorum issue.
Good journalism, keep fighting the good fight.
Certainly keeps you engaged, ms.pg.
I think there should be a rule in place about what amount of donations may provide the perception that there is a conflict.
Then again, if people are friends, next door neighbours, etc. wouldn’t that also raise the issue of perceived conflict?
I feel it would likely not. I think a conflict exists if financial gain can be had. In Skakun’s case, the financial benefit is to his son which may be construed both ways. If he does not vote in favour of the request, his son may not get the job. If he votes in favour, his son may get the job, even though there is a better candidate.
Small town problems. Typically not a problem in NYC.
I sure didnt vote for an individual to NOT vote on an issue because there might be a monetary reprecussions to their family directly or indirectly. You have an obligation as councellors given to you from us voters to make a choice and vote!
It just confirms my previous statement that money wins elections – not candidates.
Well it did cost green almost $82,000 to get a $100,000 a year job.. She owes lots for that $20,000. After looking at her math that alone should speak volumes, then again her track record sums it up nicely.
So I wonder if Chris Bone is related to Scott Bone the Purchasing Manager at city hall… the insiders club? I bet they got all the angles covered and friends are richly rewarded.
Question to the above.. yes, says the rumor at the city hall.
So I wonder if Chris Bone is related to Scott Bone the Purchasing Manager at city hall… the insiders club?
I believe Chris Bone and Scott Bone are husband and wife and yes Mayor Green should have excused herself from voting on
this matter. Although Mayor Green says she votes on the issues in front of her and not the person, she was given a very large campaign donation from Mr. Major and in my view the amount was significant enough to declare a perceived conflict of interest…. to me this is not about being classy or being business savvy, declaring a perceived conflict of interest would have been the right thing to do in support of good democratic governance.
I will also confirm that Chris and Scott Bone are husband & wife, although, they could pass for twins. If you havn’t noticed…Chris is the masculine one.
Better words to express it all, “resources”. Agreed.
Green could never sell $20,000 in candles, or could she? We have some very crucial players here with some very nice smelling homes I think….just thinking.
Comments for this article are closed.