I notice that the same auditor seems to audit the books of a number of semi private organizations that receive public dollars, and yet in both cases I am aware of they never include looking at conflict of interest as part of the scope of their audit.

When it comes to public funded organizations that are in the business of promoting I would think conflict of interest would have a high priority in the auditing process and should be mandated by the politicians releasing the purse strings. Otherwise we have a situation where access to information rules don't apply, questions are never answered, and conflict of interest with public dollars becomes everyday business... and those that do cry fowl are quickly quarantined from the inner circle so as to keep the light of day from reaching public scrutiny.

In my opinion it makes no sense that an auditor in this type of a public funded organization can make the claim that conflict of interest is not in their mandate as a legitimate part of the auditing process.

Its these types of publicly funded organizations where conflict of interest is most likely to take place and where that kind of culture finds fertile ground. The auditor is all we in the public have for raising red flags when questions are raised and not answered to the accountability of how spending decisions are arrived at... I think these organizations should have no control over who does their audits, and ideally we would have an accountable government service that oversees the work of the independent auditors through a system that seperates any 'conflict of interest' in determining who the auditor will be year to year... and is accountable to access to information requests.

Under the BC liberals especially, this idea of private organizations tasked with public dollars all using friendly auditors became common practice in a number of areas... it has since spread to municipal politics and other defacto areas of taxation without accountability and representation.

I don't think that this is the fault of the auditor. There are different types of audits. The auditor does the type it is asked to do. The problem here is most likely that an audit that looks for conflicts of interest is not required by the DBIA by-laws or the legislation governing this type of society.

I think it is ridiculous the amount of money Initiatives Prince George is spending on advertizing in ALL local media. Their purpose is to raise the profile and awareness of Prince George outside of the local area not raise the profile of IPG locally. If they are doing their job they will be mentioned for free when the media talks of their successes.

+2 lonesome!

Well it's unfortunate but I would like an independent audit of the DBIA on the basis of what has been posted here and what I hear on the street. When you can't get good honest people to run a venue like the DBIA and they refuse visual access then it's time to get rid of them and start with transparent procedings. If an officer requires more pay for his/her work then he/she can make an application (in triplicate) otherwise leave. I am sure there is someone waiting on the other side of tghe door.

Just to make sure people understand the conflict of interest rules under the society act.

"
Disclosure of interests

27 A director of a society who is, directly or indirectly, interested in a proposed contract or transaction with the society must disclose fully and promptly the nature and extent of the interest to each of the other directors.




Accountability

28 (1) A director referred to in section 27 must account to the society for profit made as a consequence of the society entering or performing the proposed contract or transaction,

(a) unless

(i) the director discloses the interest as required by section 27,

(ii) after the disclosure the proposed contract or transaction is approved by the directors, and

(iii) the director abstains from voting on the approval of the proposed contract or transaction, or

(b) unless

(i) the contract or transaction was reasonable and fair to the society at the time it was entered into, and

(ii) after full disclosure of the nature and extent of the interest in the contract or transaction it is approved by special resolution.

(2) Unless the bylaws otherwise provide, a director referred to in section 27 must not be counted in the quorum at a meeting of the directors at which the proposed contract or transaction is approved."
-----------------------------------

As long as the conditions in the act are followed, there should be no problem.

Well, you are trying to take it to a higher level than is envisaged in the Society Act. You are taking it to a level that suggest a company, when doing business, should ensure that it spreads its wealth to other businesses on an equal footing.

Some companies do that, especially when they have a large amount of business to do and the various service providers are on an equal footing. I am afraid I do not know what the selection criteria was. For all I know, the DBIA simply continued doing business the way they did before, send all or most of their advertising to the Citizen.

Remember, the DBIA has existed as a society for more than 10 years. The entity does not die simply because there is a new Board.

If you know how the DBIA has traditionally divided up its monetary support of the different media in town, please let us know.

If someone can show that they did a 50/50 or so split before and now put all thier eggs in one basket for no valid reason, then there would be a case to be made. Otherwise it is just sour grapes that is simply not covered under the law.

BTW, how much advertising money are we talking about anyway? They had no substantial events to advertise.

Oh, why the introduction of IPG? They are not related to the DBIA. Totally separate entity and totally separate Board.

There is another notion that I think needs consideration. How much should the people who are downtown and sending extra taxes to the group top promote the downtown and assist the livelyhood of those who have businesses downtown promote businesses that are not downtown?

It is the old shop at home situation. "Buy Canadian"; "Buy Oregon".

"Buy downtown PG".

The Citizen pays into the downtown levy. The Free Press does not.

Need office supplies? Buy SPeedee, not Staples.

Need task lamps for the manager's desk? Buy McInnes/Northern, not Cosco, Walmart, Canuck Tire, Home Depot.

Is that conflict of interst? ..... if you say so, but to me it is an acceptable conflict because that is the very thing the downtown merchants are about, aren't they? - shop downtown!... would be a self defeating bunch of hypocrites otherwise .... I know, it is difficult sometime.

The City of Prince George, as the major DBIA funder, should demand that the DBIA follow the City of PG's purchasing policy. It is, after all, taxpayer dollars.

Most Regional Districts and municipalities do this on a regular basis.

I wonder if Prince George is the exception?

So what is the City's purchasing policy?

What is the DBIA's purchasing policy?

Based on that knowledge, where is the key area where the two differ?

Just want to make sure you are not talking about some hypothetical situation.

Also, the agreements in place for funding DBIOAs are often on the city web sites. Can you find any that actually require the Associations to follow City Purchasing Policies? If so, please provide the links.

The Society Act deals with the level of care that needs to be taken with a Society around conflict of interest. There is a committee, I believe, now looking into that.

The auditor has presented a report and stated that she looks for indicators of fraud and has found none. Under Canadian rules that govern such audits, she has done the duty required of her.

I hear what you're saying, gus, but following your logic, a priest in a girl's locker room is appropriate. Why are they are on the boards at all? There's a million other ways to help the community. And blow that whole IPG and the DBIA are two TOTALLY different organizations flooy out the window. Both are breastfed by the city, and neither has been worth it's weight in salt since its conception.

The money the DBIA gets is a tax upon taxes, used to defer the city's responsibility ... a fall guy if you will. Ah, the sweet aroma of failure without blame. We all should be so lucky. Your right about the auditor, controlled questions receive controlled answers. The real question becomes who asks the questions.

The people controlling advertising budgets are not keeping up with the times. There is a whole generation of people, from 13 to 33, who rarely watch television, virtually never listen to local radio (mp3s, cds, etc.) and hardly ever read traditional newspapers. They get their information primarily from digital sources, or easy reading publications available at their favorite hang-outs. Don't believe me? Ask them. Traditional advertising is being turned on its head, and far too many advertisers are paying for results that simply won't be delivered anymore. They are unknowingly trying to cram square pegs into a round holes. It's time for fresh thinking, from people in the here and now, instead of those stuck in the then and when, and to move beyond letting society's reputations be possibly tarnished by narrsistic opportunists.

I was asked to write in and "set the record straight" about membership in the Prince George Downtown Business Improvement Association (the "DBIA") and make some comments about providing access to the DBIA's books and records. For the record, I am currently a director on the board of the DBIA, although I do not expect to continue. I am not writing this on behalf of the directors but on behalf of myself.

Membership in the DBIA is open to tax paying "Property Owners" and "Tenants" located within the Prince George Downtown Business Improvement Area (the "BIA"). Tax paying Property Owners and Tenants in the BIA become a member simply by submitting a membership application to the DBIA. Ben, you are neither a tax paying Property Owner nor a Tenant in the BIA. You are not a member.

You, like I and many other people in attendance at the AGM, are an "Authorized Representative" of a member. By authorization, you have been given the legal authority to represent a member in all matters pertaining to the DBIA. You are the member's agent, you speak on the member's behalf. Your decisions, your words are those of the member you represent.

As a member's "Authorized Representative" you are entitled to the opportunity to inspect the books and records of the DBIA. Pursuant to Bylaw 50(1) of the DBIA Bylaws, the directors of the DBIA are required from time to time to determine at what reasonable times and places the accounts and books of the DBIA shall be open to the inspection of the members. To the best of my knowledge, the directors of the DBIA have never done this. Not because of some nefarious scheme to deny access but simply because no member has previously requested to see the books (I sit on lots of boards and do not recall ever setting access times and places). Upon request, the directors must obviously consider such request. If they have never considered such a request previously, the directors will probably want to consider: What are "accounts and books"? What obligations arise from Part 2, section 11 of the Society Act? What times and places should such accounts and books be open to inspection? The directors may even require advice from a lawyer to deal with such a request. With a volunteer board of directors it takes time to make decisions. The DBIA board of directors, like most boards, typically meets on a monthly basis. Ben, although you don't say when you, as a member's "Authorized Representative", requested access, but based on your blog, I can only imagine that you did so days before the AGM when the directors and the DBIA's one and only staff member were busy preparing for the AGM. I am not sure how you could reasonably expect the directors to comply with your request on such notice. As long as you are a member's "Authorized Representative" you are entitled to access however you must be patient as the directors determine what that means. I am sure you will get access to the books and accounts, it may just take a little time.

This does not in any way mean that you, as a member's "Authorized Representative" are not entitled to ask questions and receive answers, whether it be at the AGM or otherwise. All members are entitled to ask questions, even hard questions, and entitled to answers. This is a privilege of membership. One only hopes and expects that members put their questions forward in a thoughtful and respectful manner and provide an opportunity for the question to be answered. Unfortunately that is not always the case.

At the DBIA's AGM, I watched a number of directors resign or withdraw their names or lose the election. They are all people who committed significant time and worked extremely hard for the DBIA. They have a real passion to improve the downtown and were well into developing and carrying out a program that would have seen real and measurable improvement for downtown Prince George.

We have invited the nation to Prince George for the Canada Winter Games in 2015. The DBIA has a huge task ahead of it. Whether or not I continue as a director, I wish the directors every success and I hope that the new board give as much commitment and dedication to improving downtown Prince George as the old board because Prince George sure needs it.

Grant Zimmerman