Justice

Director Anderson to be given notice of SRD Board’s expectations

2 Comments

The Strathcona Regional District is sending Cortes Island Regional Director Noba Anderson a letter advising of the SRD Board’s expectations regarding communications between Directors and Regional District staff.

An ongoing political pissing match

This most recent round of what could be perceived as becoming an ongoing political “pissing match,” is a considerable downgrade for the Board’s original motion for a lawsuit to have Anderson disqualified from holding office.

As Campbell River Director Claire Moglove explained, at the February 10 Board meeting, they should not attempt to have Anderson removed from office. “The chances of success, in my view,  are fairly low” and “the risks to the organization should we not succeed, should we lose, could be quite significant.“

She argued that, “We can’t just do nothing, because the behaviour needs to be addressed.”

Moglove outlined four possible courses of action, before moving that the SRD send Anderson a letter.

Tahsis representative and Mayor, Martin Davis seconded the motion, which carried.

This segment starts at 5:39

Previous conflicts

Prior to this, the SRD refused to pay Anderson’s legal costs in what the Supreme Court of British Columbia found to be a frivolous lawsuit a handful of Cortes residents brought against her. 

The SRD  subsequently censured Anderson for showing confidential SRD documents, associated with the suit, to her lawyer.

The Board’s conduct is currently the subject of a lawsuit that Anderson has brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. 

The email of Dec 17, 2019

This most recent incident started on December 17, 2019, when Anderson emailed an SRD staff member that his impending referral of a property she co-owns with several other Cortes residents could be a waste of time, unless he waits for the Ministry of Transportation to explain what they would accept as far as roads go. There was a strong possibility that he would have to do the work twice.

“So, unless you have already completed the referral, it would be wonderful if you could hold off until the new year. All the very best to you. Warmly, Noba,” wrote Anderson.

The SRD interprets this email as insider influence and a violation of section 102 of the Community Charter.  

At the Boards’s last meeting, Anderson’s lawyer, Matthew Voell, explained, “The key requirement…for a breach of section 102, is that the board member must not use their office to attempt to influence a staff member in respect to a decision being made … It does not prohibit a board member from acting in a personal capacity with respect to their property, rather there has to be an attempt to leverage their position as a Director. To use the language from 102, ‘use his or her office to influence a decision.” 

He added, “This is somewhat of a unique situation because there are a number of owners. Imagine a situation where there is only one owner and that owner is a board member. Of course the board member is entitled, in their personal capacity and not as a board member, to engage with staff in the issues involving their property,”

Voell produced a long stream of emails demonstrating that staff repeatedly initiated the direct contacts with Anderson. Voell maintained that Anderson ‘communicated with Regional District staff in her personal capacity and not in her role as a director,’ used her personal email address, and ‘almost always copied her land partner Ms. Lovena Harvey.’

Using a Personal email is not enough

In their subsequent press release, the SRD Board highlight the idea that is not sufficient for Anderson to use her personal email address.

As their lawyer, Kathryn Stuart, explained, “The use of personal email does not immunize a Director from the application of section 102 of the community Charter, in cases where the influence or attempted influence and an officer or employee of the local government.”

She explained, “…The person receiving the communication will undoubtedly know, the person is an elected official.”

Stuart added that it was not sufficient for Anderson to tell staff she was acting in her personal capacity. 

She conceded that, “There are a number of  circumstances where an elected official could communicate with a staff member in his or her personal capacity and that would not be a breach of Section 102 … Examples would include: an official could communicate directly with staff when they are paying their taxes, purchasing a dog license or applying for a building permit.”

Kathryn Stuart is drawing up a letter informing Anderson how the Board expects Directors to behave.

Proposed Integrity Commission 

Campbell River Mayor Andy Adams moved that, “the chair of the SRD be authorized to write a letter to the Provincial Government Attorney General’s office requesting the implementation of an integrity commission.” 

He added that while British Columbia does not yet have such a commission, other provinces do and they are very helpful “in guiding local governments, Regional Districts, in matters that are maybe beyond their capability or scope to handle.” 

Moglove agreed, referring to “the lack of teeth of the community charter. There is not a lot that a local government can do when there may be some behaviour that is not appropriate.”

Links of Interest

Top photo: screenshot from YouTube video of Feb 10 meeting. Starting clockwise from top left corner: Kathryn Stuart; Campbell River Mayor Andy Adams; Campbell River Councillor Ron Kerr; Campbell River Councillor Claire Moglove; CAO Dave Leitch

This program was funded by a grant from the Community Radio Fund of Canada and the Government of Canada’s Local Journalism Initiative. 

2 thoughts on “Director Anderson to be given notice of SRD Board’s expectations”

  1. The board at SRD gives itself away some times…
    Molgove states that the reason for not proceeding with this meritless lawsuit is that “it might be bad for the organization” as if this was some kind of sport. The fact that it might be morally wrong to persecute someone in this way doesn’t enter into it.
    I must agree, however, that some “direction” from the province about ethics might do them some good.

  2. Pingback: Statement of expectation to be given to Cortes Island Director

Comments are closed.