The Skakun Trial- Nothing But The Facts Please

Friday, October 29, 2010 03:44 AM

Halloween is very close given the witch hunt that has been going on in the courts this week. I'm talking about the matter of Councillor Brian Skakun, who, somehow through his lawyer, seems to be trying to throw enough mud at the wall with the hope that something will stick.

Skakun is charged with breaching the Freedom and Information and Protection of Privacy Act. At issue is the leaking of a confidential document to the CBC, a document that ended up on the CBC's website.

While there has been some effort to try and tie that charge to Skakun being offered a bribe in a civic election, there has also been some effort to say someone else had already leaked the document because a quote from it showed up in a paper several months before.

Neither of these two items have absolutely anything to do with the charge that Skakun faces.

Very simply, did he , or didn't he, release the confidential report?

Trying to play the lady on the broom with a black cap will not cut it with the presiding Judge Kenneth Ball. He is an old timer at the game and knows how to sort out the issues very quickly.

If we want to deal with the side issues, let’s hear them in an open forum, City Council , from Councillor Skakun.

The matter of the bribe was investigated, he should recall, it was a loosely made offer by someone who didn’t have the authority to handle out a dime of the Casino’s money. The Police investigated the matter and came up short, end of story.

Then there is the matter of the parking lot on which the Gaming Centre was built. The city spent in excess of $75,000 dollars looking into that witch hunt by hiring a private forensic accountant, who came away saying that the city got the better of the deal in the parking lot, so that one didn’t stick either.

Then there is the matter of someone handing out some information on the Heller report to a newspaper reporter. First of all it is important to note that the people who had a look at the report also were involved in the issues floating around the City RCMP detachment . Those same issues are the reason why Kitty Heller was called in to take a look and see if there were any grounds to the complaints. The complaints were deemed by Heller to be "unfounded" however, she did say there was a perceived conflict of interests because of the romatic relationship between the Officer in Charge of the Detachment and the head of the civilian employees at the detachment.

Regardless of what was happening at the RCMP detachment at the time, did Skakun breach his oath of office and breach the Freedom of Information section that he is charged with? That's the question, plain and simple,

When this affair ends it is important to note that it will have cost the city taxpayers a lot of money, it is important to note that we elect eight councillors and a mayor for obvious reasons. Each one has an equal vote, if Councillor Skakun is unable to convince the Council to his thinking, then he must be prepared to accept the result.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy is there for a reason, it prevents people from gaining access to your personal life. It prevents people from snooping into your private life and so it should be.

People who believe they should decide what is personal and what is not according to their wants and desires are the reason why the Act is there in the first place.

I’m Meisner and that’s One Man’s Opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, October 29, 2010 03:44 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: econ101 on October 29 2010 7:55 PM

yes

Posted by: Palopu on October 29 2010 9:56 PM

Couple of points. One. If the information had already been leaked, and was in the public domain, then can he still be charged with leaking a confidential document, that was no longer confidential?????

Two. There is a lot of information in the various levels of Government that should be released to the Citizens, but are squirrled away in Government files, under the guise of being confidential etc; This whole area needs to be looked at.

I think that we have just had a good example of how hard it is to get informatino from the Government in the BC Rail fiasco. And of course we know there is information in regards to the HST that will never see the light of day.

Posted by: bitter on October 29 2010 10:08 PM

This is one womans opinion , Brian is not the only BLACK SHEEP here, but he is the one that is going to be slaughtered.

Posted by: gus on October 30 2010 1:34 PM

"Heller .... did say there was a PERCEIVED conflict of interests because of the romatic relationship between the Officer in Charge of the Detachment and the head of the civilian employees at the detachment."

Not only that, but it is reported that Heller also took administrative services director Rob Whitwham to task for allowing the situation to get to that point

Then Soltis was reported to have said that administration didn't agree with that part of the finding, calling the conflict "perceived" and asserting Whitwham acted appropriately under the circumstance.

Well, there are many people over the past decade or two who would agree with Heller. A conflict exists if it is perceived to exist.

Here is the opinion of Canada's Auditor General http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/ag-finds-absence-conflict-interest-rules

Some statements from the above link.

1. "Avoiding situations that could lead to a conflict of interest is key to maintaining the public's confidence in an impartial and objective public service," Fraser said. "Public servants need to be able to recognize potential conflicts and know how to deal with them."

2. "Fraser argued conflicts, whether perceived or real, raise questions about the integrity and fairness of public servants that can fuel Canadians' distrust and cynicism of government.

3. "A common understanding is critical now that departments rely so heavily on a growing shadow public service of consultants, contractors and temporary and term workers who don't always know the rules"

4. "...she found all departments had in-house units to deal with values and ethics, but none reviewed their operations to determine risk areas susceptible to conflicts.

5. "She also raised concerns about the delays in processing the "confidential reports" or self-declarations that public servants submit flagging concerns about possible conflict of interests. Of the 25 reports sampled, 11 took departments more than 120 days to deal with."

Not that the other statements are not important, but I think #2 is one worthy of taking special note of.

I think we are totally forgetting about the potential real problem.

There is a maximum $2,000 fine for a potential "whistleblower", but what is being done about the part of the Heller report that was not accepted?

Posted by: gus on October 30 2010 1:53 PM

I think too many people confuse the issue of releasing a confidential document from an in-camera meeting and releasing information which is protected by Provincial legislation.

One is an ethical issue which has to be dealt with internally and the other is a legal issue which has to be dealt with by the judicial system.

When it comes to "whistleblowing", at least one of them will often come into play and the decision an individual has to make then is what is the greater good.

It is the age old ethical question, does the end justify the means.

Posted by: Boon on October 30 2010 3:07 PM

Skakun has not admitted he leaked it yet. Well kinda not yet. His lawyer has said he is not admitting to it....yet. But he would like to know if the Judge thinks he leaked it......because then he is going argue that he had the duty and right to leak it under the Charter. But if the Judge is maybe thinking he didn't leak it then Skakun won't put forth the Charter argument which could take days and will cost him money. What is really amazing is that Skakun was able to find a lawyer prepared to present this bizarre defence. "I didn't do it your Honour.....but if I did do it....I was drunk and I don't remember!". I am thinking there should be an insanity plea.....for both client and lawyer !!

Posted by: StreetWise2 on October 30 2010 3:58 PM

Ben

THANK YOU!

Finally, I can not tell you how refreshing it is to see someone laying out the facts of this whole mess. No sensationalism, not inuendo, just the plain facts.

Posted by: bitter on October 30 2010 4:22 PM

This is a mess but not all the facts are laid out because they do not count.

Posted by: P Val on October 30 2010 8:14 PM

We are the worst city in Canada for crime and Skakun is wasting valuable court time with this.

But then again.. he is getting tons of coverage in the media..he should be sun tanned from all the pictures he is in. Now just wait for him to want for us to cover these costs. Nice posturing for his run for mayor..but...

If he is found guilty.. he should be removed from chambers immediatly and be done with politics..

Posted by: bitter on October 31 2010 3:37 PM

Guilty of what?? I agree its wasting valuable court time. Who would want this kind of coverage in the media?? IF the problems were dealt with by the City in the begining of this MESS, It would not be in Court today. Val you seem to forget lots of people voted Brian into Council and would like him to stay, reguardless of this MESS, sorry you dislike the man so much.