Court Ruling Causes Scramble For City Council
Prince George, BC – Prince George City Council has replaced its representative on the 2015 Canada Winter Games Host Society, and is reviewing other council appointments, in light of a BC Court of Appeal ruling that appears to have serious implications for local governments across the province.
While the recent court decision did not involve the City of Prince George, Councillor Lyn Hall resigned from his one-year appointment as a director with the Winter Games Host Society on January 25th, as a proactive step. He won a Council ballot to become the City’s representative last February. Last night, Councillors approved appointing Les Waldie to replace Hall.
In explaining the ruling to Councillors, the City’s Manager of Legislative Services, Walter Babicz, said the judgement infers a local government elected official, who also serves as director of non-profit society, would be deemed to have a financial interest in that society during any council vote relating to the non-profit. "It’s deemed to be a pecuniary interest, your Worship, which is the change in law," said Babicz. "The law used to be that unless there was some personal benefit that the elected official was gaining by that decision there would be no pecuniary interest."
Mayor Shari Green admitted it may take some time to determine the full ramifications of the ruling. "What Mr. Babicz can do is look at the delegated city positions that councillors have," she said. Some positions, such as appointments to the Regional District are fine – it’s not a non-profit society – but others are less certain. Case in point: another item on last night’s council agenda, saw a motion passed to have Councillor Dave Wilbur nominated for a position on the executive of the North Central Local Government Association. The NCLGA is a non-profit.
"All of the local government associations are non-profit societies," said Green, "And they’re full of elected officials from around the province, so, clearly UBCM (the Union of BC Municipalities) and/or the Province is going to have to deal with that one on its own and figure something out."
Babicz said it’s his understanding that the UBCM is studying the ruling and will be presenting a list of options or recommendations for its members to consider.
Comments
So what do these bufoons obey the court ruling this time? Or just ignore it like they demonstrated for us all too see with Haldi and many other items they decide they do not like? How do they get away with this? Anyone else who ignores or disregards a court order is usually sanctioned in some way. It’s because nobody will protest. I hope no one volunteers to help this winter games gong show and most boycott all there events. I hope it flops.
“your worship”
metalman.
Why the heck was Les Waldie not involved right from the start? He’s a great candidate to replace Hall. Isn’t half the staff at the 2015 (well, at least 2 of them, from the City anyways).
So, tell me, does any city or regional district in BC make a profit?
hey “57chevy” what are you talking about? Are you saying a member of council broke the conflict of interest rules?
as for this decision, you have to wonder if it also puts a wrinkle in the mayor’s plan to take over control of the Initiatives PeeGee board and seize even more power. The core review was quietly being used as a vehicle to justify getting her on the board.
CWG doesn’t want council playing in their sandbox. Wouldn’t blame them.
Further, where did this judgement come from and what is the impetus?
I would argue that by far – the greatest conflict of interest where elected politicians are concerned, is the unspoken (or spoken in some cases) allegiance to campaign contributors.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/05/bc-icbc-potholes-coquihalla.html?cmp=rss
If this goes through I wonder how the city will react?
Nice find axman. About time.
Of course, in the case of our City, they are not aware of the potholes …. LOL
I would expect that IPG, NDIT, and the Airport Authority would fall under this ruling.
The only one at this time that has a member of City Council as a director, is IPG. Mayor Greene is a director.
MS Soltis, is a ex-officio director of IPG, so not sure what her status would be on this issue.
“where did this judgement come from”
BC Court of Appeal, as it states in the article above.
Here is the link to the decision and Island Trust press release.
http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/news/pdf/newsjan112013.pdf
For those who do not like to open links and then read more than 98 words, here is, in my opinion, the salient part:
Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald:
[1] Elected officials must avoid conflicts of interest. The question on appeal is whether the respondents were in a conflict when they voted to award two service contracts to societies of which they were directors. In the words of s. 101(1) of the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, did they have âa direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter[s]â?
[2] The chambers judge found they did not have such an interest because they derived no personal financial benefit from the contracts.
[3] With respect, I disagree with the judgeâs opinion. His view of the matter comes from too narrow a construction of the enactment. In my judgment, the pecuniary interest of the respondents lies in the fulfillment of their fiduciary obligation to their societies. When they voted for the expenditure of public money on the two contracts, which master were they serving, the public or the societies? In these circumstances, a reasonable, fair-minded member of the public might well wonder who got the better bargain.
———————-
Could not be simpler and more obvious.
When I tie this together with the Haldi Road case, it seems to me that many people who should have “common sense” really do not.
thanks “gus”. If this is now case law, then mayor greene will have to declare that conflict of interest and not participate in the budget discussion tomorrow night which is about giving public funds to an organization (IPG) that she sits as a board member.
This is of course assuming that “Palopu” is right and the mayor actually did manage to pressure IPG into changing their articles of incorporation which up until this point didn’t allow a politician to be appointed to the board.
Maybe that happened behind closed doors. Anybody know for sure?
I believe IPG is a different matter.
IPG is an arm of the City which has some advantages working not at arms length. IPG is primarily funded by the City and it is reasonable, in my opinion, that the City sits on the Board as either ex-officio non voting, but also as a voting member if they so decide.
The same goes for the municipal associations. The same goes with two government bodies such as the Region and the City sitting together. They are intimately related.
The case at Appeal dealt with two totally separate corporate entities.
A partnership would work in the same fashion. Two or more entities which form a consortium for some specific purposes, with the consortium are of the same mind with how they work together, including decision making.
Gus. You could be right about IPG, however the prove will be in the pudding.
IPG is a non-profit organization that is funded by the City, however all of their revenue does not come from the City. In addition they have a CEO, and board of directors that (supposedly) operate independent of the City. If it were not so, then of course they may as well be on the City payroll.
Somewhat of a grey area, however Im sure that it will be clarified at some point.
As an example, if IPG were to request an increase in their budget from the City, would the Mayor, as an ex-officio Director of IPG have a pecuniary interest, if she votes in favour of the increase???
Who knows???
The ruling seems to apply to elected officials, however one would think that unelected officials of the City, such as the Manager would also have a conflict.
Disregard my info on this subject. Major correction.
The Mayor is a director of the Northern Development Initiative Trust.
Ms Soltis is an ex-offico director of IPG.
I will leave it to others to determine if any of this means anything.
Comments for this article are closed.