langleywatchdog…. and more!

There is an old (adage) saying: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

This is a tried but true expression which I have learned through my life experiences to live and learn by. In my opinion and experience, Rich Coleman is the epitome (a perfect example) of that saying!

So why do I say that? You just have to read my previous BLOG Post regarding the dialogue I had with Rich Coleman when I innocently requested a meeting after announcing I was running for Mayor of the Township of Langley back in 2008. (A verbatim transcript of that meeting was laid out in my previous BLOG Post to this one.) At that time, after about 36 years in politics, my experience with bullies and those that practiced intimidation, mirrored my experience with Rich Coleman in that meeting. Throughout my life I had never capitulated to bullies or intimidation and I was not going to start with Coleman. He did not get his way as he thought he would.

Getting back into politics after many years was not my plan when we bought our farm, our horses and moved here from North Delta in 1996. We lived there for close to 30 years. Why did I get back into politics? As a taxpayer and citizen of the Township of Langley I followed what was happening through friends, neighbors, and the local media. To say I was shocked on a wide variety of issues including property deals for friends and insiders would be an understatement. All of that coupled with a year and a half campaign connecting with residents in all parts of the Township, very quietly I might add, made up my mind to go for it. An uphill battle yes, for me a relatively unknown at the time, but I had years of experience running major campaigns as well as being previously elected municipally and a candidate provincially.

So fast forward – You work hard, meet lots of great people, and we are focused on winning, Election-day comes around and you win! A shock and surprise to many – As the old saying goes “Be careful what you ask for,” I could, and I should write a book! The following is just a short snapshot of my experiences, leading up to, during, and after winning the 2008 election. As I see it now, nothing has changed; the chains and controls of insiders are still in place, and it will not change until you, the voter, decide you are not going to take it any longer!

The Athenry Development on 208^th: The Athenry Development on 208^th on the Willoughby Community Hall corner was brought forward to the new council. The previous council had given this project 1^st and 2^nd reading, public hearing and 3^rd reading. As it dealt with approvals given to it by a previous council it is required that the new council be provided with all of the information and material to-date. I wanted to ensure we had all of the information, so I requested the layout of the proposal that was given 3^rd reading. That reading was for a large mixed-use building in the center of the property while the NEW layout showed multiple buildings very-close to homes – about 15 feet from their back fences and 4 stories in height (over 40 feet) hovering over single family homes surrounding that property. This was an obvious breach of regulations surrounding what changes can be made at 4^th reading. Those regulations state that the only changes that can be made at 4^th reading are form, character, and design, NOT an increase in density! It was a highly contentious and controversial project which I strongly objected to, spoke, and voted against. However, despite the protestations of hundreds of local residents, the majority of Council approved the project. There were lawsuits and/or threatened lawsuits, however I know first-hand there were family break ups and loss of home values of up to $100,000. It was a travesty. Once again, the owner of that property had inside connections. It is Interesting, that this development property was-flipped since, and to-date only has one building built on the site. Favors for friends and insiders – Density was added!

The Dixon Pit property sale: Prior to the 2008 election the Township sold the Dixon Pit property – 40 acres of bog plus 40 acres of non-ALR developable property in North Langley. Advertised in the Aldergrove Star (not in a paper distributed around the property in question per legal requirements) with legal address only and sold to a prominent Township of Langley family for pennies on the dollar, compared to the market value. The purchaser donated the 40 acres of bog property to Metro Vancouver and received a tax benefit. This is the sale that Rich Coleman was OK with! Favors for Friends and Insiders, Rich Coleman said WE are OK with this? Who is WE Rich – Developers? Power Brokers? Establishment? Who, is WE?

The Parklane Fort Langley Condo Wall: Fort Langley’s Park Lane Condo Wall project on the waterfront. In the 2008 election year, mid-year, the Township Council when giving 4^th reading to the by-law for a 3 story Condominium Development, approved a 4-story development. At 4^th reading you are only permitted to make changes in form, character, and design – NOT density which they ignored. Are we trying to suggest a 4^th story would not add density? NOT! Favors for developers who benefit!

Landfill on Agricultural Land: A significant issue was an apparent breach of ALR regulations allowing a free reign for dumping fill on agricultural land. After a significant period of time fighting this issue, a diligent land-owner brought to my attention that there was a memo sent to the ALC from our CAO that Council had agreed by resolution to send all applications through to the ALC for their consideration and/or approval. After doing my due diligence internally I discovered a copy of the memo and, that, no such resolution had been passed by Council. In my view that is a deliberate act to mislead a provincial crown agency which is responsible to enforce provincial regulations. Was this a favor for developers? Less costly to dump fill from developments in local area?

The Langley Events Center development: I said then and since, that there should be a Forensic Audit on the Langley Events Center. There was NO Business Plan, NO Taxpayer Referendum, NO Public Consultation and NO P3 agreement that was promised by all parties!

This is not an issue of it being a good or bad project, but it is a serious issue once again pertaining to improper process in favour of friends and insiders. I have written extensively on this subject as it was the first issue I faced after the election.

When I was elected the LEC was about 75% complete and I wanted to be brought up to speed as to cost, process and what issues were at hand. In my first in-camera meeting agenda there was about a 15-page staff report requesting something like an additional $7.5 Million with 10 significant recommendations that required further thought and more information. Getting to that report on the agenda, a motion was put forward to approve the request at which time I requested a one-week deferral as there was a new Mayor, a new councillor and one councillor was away. Barely getting that request out of my mouth Councillor Bateman called for the question on the motion and it was approved with myself being the only dissenting vote. That kind of irresponsible action by members of Council was consistent through my term.

An important point to remember, the $15 Million Provincial Grant was secured based on B.C. Wood being a vital part of construction and that it was a P3 agreement! This fact was heavily promoted and marketed by both the Provincial Government (your MLA Rich Coleman) and the Municipal Government per Press Release of December 18^th 2006, January 8^th 2007, and November 19^th 2007 – There was NO P3 Agreement! The taxpayer was on the hook going forward.

In short you have Mark Bakken’s (Township CAO and friend of Rich Coleman) sons playing hockey on the Langley Chiefs playing out of the George Preston Arena, the team that just happened to be owned by Maury Keith who just happens to be close friends with Rich Coleman who appointed him to numerous terms on the B.C. Lottery Corp Board, who with Rich Coleman and his $15 million B.C. Government Grant supported by Mark Bakken CAO of the TOL gets approval from Council to build the LEC at a cost of $45 Million, who solicit RFQs and RFPs and bingo – we award the contract to Maury Keith and his partner Jim Bond in the Langley Development Group (LDG created for this project) – OH and the contract is awarded to Vantana Construction owned by Jim Bond. You cannot write this stuff! On completion the Maury Keith owned Langley Chiefs are moved to the LEC.

The total cost of the project was $66.2 Million plus an estimated $10 Million in land acquisition / development costs.

Coleman claims an independent assessed value of $100 Million. Speaking to experts in the field this is totally incorrect on buildings of this nature.

Does a needless not contractually required settlement / payment of $8.83 Million to friends and insiders to sever our relationship with LDG not say it all? Where did that money go, just asking?  

NOTE: I have written in detail and extensively about this issue. You can check those posts out – 1) March 3^rd, 2013 and 2) September 24^th, 2014 BLOG Posts.

Mufford Crescent Diversion: The Mufford Crescent Diversion plan was initiated by the then B.C. Liberal Government under the guise of the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor project led by TransLink, an overpass over the rail line and Glover Rd. through the historical Hudsons Bay and Bella Vista Farms making over 300 acres of prime agricultural land impossible to farm which ultimately would have been removed from the ALR. It was designed and approved without Public Consultation, supported by B.C. Liberal MLA Rich Coleman. After the 2008 election Mayor Rick Green held two Open Houses and a Public Meeting that saw over 1,000 people involved with 97% in opposition. This was the measure of public interest and public opposition. Mayor Green received abusive opposition from his Council plus verbal (in-person) and written threats from then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon if we didn’t want the money, he would move it elsewhere and Falcon was told to go ahead. While taking two years, we were successful and the ALC, thanks to Chair Richard Bullock, denied the application and returned the proposal to the funding partners, despite the threats, for a better option. Richard Bullock was removed as Chair of the ALC shortly after by the then B.C. Liberal Government. Coleman primarily responsible for fighting against the wishes of Township residents!  You can read about the detail here –

NOTE: Full details can be found in langleywatchdog BLOG Post February 22^nd 2013

Trinity University Financial entanglement with the Township of Langley: The Township of Langley has had a close financial relationship with TWU for many years. To the best of my knowledge the current status of this financial relationship has not been made public. It involves the financing of major utility infrastructure years ago, plus their publicized partnership in the Langley Events Center (LEC), back in 2008 / 09, the status of their lease payments to-date for use of the LEC and The Province newspaper (by the late Kent Spencer) expose of the The Township of Langley pays Trinity Western University 80% ($1.2 million) OVER assessed value! The three independent appraisals TELL the rest of the story…….

NOTE: Full details can be found in langleywatchdog BLOG Post January 14^th, 2014.

As to Rich Coleman’s habit of trying to bully or intimidate Municipal Councils, we have the Surrey Casino issue: The South Surrey Prospective Casino supported by Rich Coleman and the B.C. Liberal Government – Rich Coleman tries to intervene and coerce a Council decision: Days before Surrey Council’s vote on this controversial project, the minister responsible for gambling. Rich Coleman, called some city councillors with a warning, if they voted no to this proposal, they could forget about any new casino anywhere in Surrey. More attempted bullying and intimidation by Rich Coleman. Councillor Bruce Hayne, who voted against the proposed $100-million casino resort in South Surrey, said Minister Rich Coleman’s call was unusual but clear: “He let me know in no uncertain terms that if we turned down the proposal, the province and (the B.C. Lottery Corp.) would not be looking at another site in Surrey.”

Money Laundering Final Report from Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering: Rich Coleman likes to suggest he was cleared? Really? When discussing Coleman specifically, Cullen wrote in his report that at one point, the former minister “should have recognized that there was a need to take aggressive action to bring an immediate end to the suspicious activity, that was clearly spiraling out of control.” Coleman was largely responsible for the Money Maundering scandal by disbanding IGET in the face of hundreds of millions of dollars flooding B.C. casinos.! The report also took aim at a radio interview in which Coleman downplayed comments by an RCMP officer who raised concerns about dirty money in casinos. It found Coleman’s comments “posed a real risk of misleading the public into believing there was no basis for concern about suspicious transactions in the provinces casinos at a time when Mr. Coleman had good reason to believe that there was cause to be worried.”

This kind of back-room politics speaks to what Rich Coleman is all about: The following is an excerpt of a thread of emails that were extensively distributed to hundreds of Real Estate professionals and many others in the Township of Langley. It was started by Joel Schacter, a well-known Real Estate Agent friend of Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken with respect to the 2011 Township of Langley Municipal Election Campaign. It was distributed widely during the week prior to election-day. It speaks for itself. A key excerpt from this thread states the following:

“I do have a concern if we split the vote between Jack Froese and Mel as this could easily put Rick Green back in the mayor’s seat. Jack is a good man, but I was hoping he would have run for a council seat before jumping right for the chair of the mayor. Unfortunately, it appears a vote for Jack looks like it will end up being a vote for Green in the long run. I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors…. they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out. Rich will be making an unprecedented press release endorsing Mel as well as several current members of council and 2 new prospective members in the next 24 – 48 hours. He believes strongly in getting the right people locally who can work with them provincially.”

NOTE: The full thread of these emails can be found in the langleywatchdog BLOG Post of March 23^rd, 2013,

All of this is the tip of the iceberg – I established this langleywatchdog BLOG back in January of 2013 primarily to make residents aware of key issues that they should know about within the Township of Langley. We have published approximately 150 Posts having over 150,000 readers since its inception.

I wish the average hard-working resident of the Township of Langley could have experienced what I did over three years in office, it was an eye opener and in my case those experiences have stayed with me.

In my experience, those that get involved in politics do so because they care about their community and want to contribute to make their community better. Unfortunately, some individuals; very few, get involved in politics by working their way up within community non-profits and service clubs, gaining community profile in their quest to achieve political power.

At no time in elected political office in Delta or here in Langley have I ever viewed my position as that of a position of power. I honestly ran and fought to make a difference in both of these communities, and I look back objectively and believe I have.

In my past 45 years of political activity, I have made many friends, many in the municipal field in the lower mainland. I have known first-hand (up-close and personal) another provincial politician that attempted to use their bully pulpit in their local community, but he never got his way and rightfully so. All of that was true, until we moved out to the Township of Langley. This, as it turned out was an entirely different world relating to power and influence by senior government representatives, their developer friends and insiders on their municipal councils. It is long past time that we stand up and say NO MORE! We can do it!

So Last BUT NOT LEAST we just see Rich Coleman’s Financial Disclosure which says his holdings are in a BLIND TRUST! Really, you have to be kidding – the arrogance of the man knows NO bounds! – You can’t write this stuff!

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

Let’s elect a build infrastructure, do-something Council!

The majority on our Township of Langley Municipal Council has been populated (elected) with individuals that are a de-facto slate for the last four decades at least – of course they deny it, but their voting records and interesting community connections prove otherwise. The backroom unelected powerbrokers control of this and past council’s majority make it impossible for a reasoned single voice on Council to get anything of substance done for Township of Langley residents. They then use the argument in an election campaign that “This person cannot work with anyone”, which is nothing but their predetermined outcome. This has been a key part of their master plan for decades, lets change that, once and for all! 

Unfortunately, it takes new residents a number of years to learn about the reality of Township of Langley politics – if they have the time within their busy lives to read up on the issue? So, we go back to our title of this Blog Post – “The Best Predictor of FUTURE Performance is PAST Performance”

Remember, you are electing a mayor and eight Councilors for 4 years, and in today’s world that is an eternity. Let us get it right this time, otherwise we will all pay a very heavy price. For the sake of our families, neighbors, and relatives, we need a Council that will do something for our communities in our collective infrastructure needs, and NOT development favors for friends and insiders!

For the record, I am a life-long free-enterprise activist and supporter, but this is not a left or right issue, this is about electing a solid municipal government. It is interesting that the current and past majorities of our Township of Langley municipal councils, seem to be in lock step with the disastrous 16-year record of our previous B.C. Liberal Provincial Government, favoring friends and insiders in land deals, development proposals, contracts and more. So, in BREAKING NEWS, this has all now been confirmed; former MLA Rich Coleman has just come out of hiding and registered a slate confirming what most of us have known for decades, his close ties (admitted below) and influence of your Municipal Government and senior staff. Is he running or not? If Rich Coleman does run for Mayor, I have no trouble stating that “the man’s arrogance knows no bounds”. I guess the bad publicity he received during the money laundering public hearings and his B.C. Liberal Government’s disastrous 16-year run was not enough for him. Who is on his slate? In a very questionable mistake – NOT! (Dirty politics, great start Rich?), he used NDP MLA Megan Dykeman’s office phone number in his interestingly resurrected smokescreen Langley Voter’s Association registration for a slate with Elections B.C.

Rich, you say you have had a lot of people asking you to run for Mayor, I am sure you have as all of those developer friends must be getting nervous about the likely changes coming to the Township of Langley Municipal Council this year! The following is an excerpt from our first BLOG Post of January 2013, it says a lot:

At this point I will relate an interesting conversation I had in my meeting with Rich Coleman. (For the record I would swear an affidavit to the validity of the following, a lie detector test if required) It was in February of 2008 and in response to my message and request for a meeting, I received a call from Rich Coleman’s office to set up a meeting in his then Aldergrove office.

On my arrival (interesting, then Councilor Jordan Bateman was hanging out in Coleman’s office when I got there) we went into his boardroom with just the two of us in the meeting. We got into it right off the top:

Rich Coleman: So what is this meeting about?

Rick Green: I just wanted to drop by and introduce someone who is running for Mayor.

Rich Coleman: Well, WE are OK with the job the Mayor is doing.

Rick Green: Well, we are not.

Rich Coleman: I want you to know two things; the CAO (Mark Bakken – Chief Administrative Officer) is a good friend of mine.

Rick Green: That’s interesting

Rich Coleman: And you have been making noises about some land deals, and I want you to know WE are OK with them. (note: the specifics are a topic for another day – but it dealt with the sale of the Township owned Dixon Pit property at an unbelievable low price with questionable required advertising and more to a prominent Langley family.)

Rick Green: Well we are not, it is bull shit and it is going to stop.

After that frosty exchange, I was surprised that the meeting lasted a while longer. Believe me, there was no doubt that I was not his choice for Mayor, (Somehow I don’t think I fit his mold of a “do as I say” Mayor) but then again, I could have cared less. He was the last person in the world I was trying to impress. The haunting question from that meeting that still remains unanswered is, WHO was Rich Coleman referring to with respect to “WE” being OK with the mysterious land deals, and “WE” being OK with the then Mayor Kurt Alberts. Who is “WE”?  Just asking the question? The Establishment? WHO? Very interesting comment which probably tells a lot!

We cannot allow this cabal (def. a secret political clique or faction) to continue their undue influence and take over of our community, not IF we care about the Township of Langley and want a truly representative municipal government, unlike those of the past. All of this sounds like panic is setting in within the development community! Up to now developers have had a free reign!  

Proof of the above? Just look at our current Council’s consistent voting record over the last four decades on issues such as “selling off of Township owned property to friends and insiders”, “disastrous development approvals,” votes against reasonable “Community Amenity Contributions” (CACs) forcing developers to pay for necessary infrastructure, voting for ad-hoc changes to “community and neighborhood plans,” voting for ad-hoc “zoning changes” within community and neighborhood plans, voting against key “Community Infrastructure Investments and needs” with a complete lack of transparency. Remember it was Mayor Froese, and Councillors Whitmarsh, Long and former Councillor Quaale who accepted donations just before, during and immediately after development proposals were voted on at the Council table. Illegal no, unethical and immoral, in my opinion yes.  All of that coupled with decisions being made behind closed doors during in-camera council meetings, ALL hidden from the public which is the way they want it. That must be stopped.

Remember the publicly stated opinion by Mayor Jack Froese on Public Hearings – he does not pay much attention to them as he has to consider the number of people that did not come out to express their opinion. All of this is a slap in the face to community members attending and voicing their opinion which follows due process in municipal governance mandated by legislation?

But this is the mantra of their silent de facto slate meeting the needs of the development community and those unelected in our community (Some call them the Langley Mafia) pulling strings to do their bidding on Council. If you are going to run a slate at least have the guts to make that public, so the voter can decide based on knowing the facts of who is involved. That may just be about ready to happen.

All of these issues, especially with an exploding population (the second largest increase in Metro Vancouver over the past three years and not slowing down) can have, and frankly ARE having, a devastating effect in all six of our communities throughout the Township of Langley.

In a recent interview with outgoing Mayor Jack Froese he was asked what he felt was a key issue in the Township of Langley going forward – his response “to keep the Township with a small-town feel”? Really? But their de-facto slate obviously agrees, SO:

Let me see if I understand this – you approve massive new housing developments, but vote against the necessary infrastructure needed to support those developments? Like roads, sidewalks, recreation facilities (Community Centers and pools), passive parks, active parks, fire halls with the necessary fire infrastructure, school properties supporting NEW development and we wonder why all of us are faced with a community in crisis every day? Road congestion, poor sidewalk connectivity, a disturbing deficiency in the area of parks and recreation facilities, schools, no seniors centers and more? A small town feel? That horse is out of the barn, and we are all feeling the negative effects of it.

This LANGLEYWATCHDOG BLOG, will, as it has done for the last 9 years, keep you abreast of the candidates, the issues, and what the candidates stand for. It will culminate in my endorsements in an issue prior to the October 15^th election and with the clear reasons why. There are many interesting rumors going around with respect to potential candidates, so we will leave all of that for now, but we encourage you to follow this BLOG for the latest in election news.

It is very unfortunate that our local papers, ALL owned by Black Press, pander to our sitting municipal government (The Township of Langley, your tax dollars and hard-earned money, spends over $225,000 per year on local media) the local media do not want to upset their golden goose revenue source. Our local media’s largest advertisers are the Township of Langley and the development community – period, a fact based on years of inside knowledge up-close and personal. You cannot rely on them to do anything other than printing soft–ball and orchestrated political Q and A candidate campaign reports; that is just what they do and how they survive.

Through our network of objective contributors within all six communities, we will provide the feedback most taxpayers are looking for. We will explain the issues in an understandable and reliable fashion, how they affect you and in many ways what the majority of the current council do not want you to know.

As a former Mayor of the Township of Langley and Delta Alderman with over 45 years of political experience, elected and appointed on numerous Municipal Commissions, Delta Police Board Member, Metro Vancouver Director, member of six Metro Vancouver Committees, including vice-chair of the Metro Vancouver Agriculture Committee, TransLink Mayors Council member and Alternate Municipal Finance Authority Director, we will not hold back on the facts that you should know about before you vote!

Let us finally break from the past and make changes to our council that are meaningful and not connected to the unelected insiders control of Council and staff. The status quo has not worked for us in the past and will not work for us in the future – we need meaningful change.

Four years is an eternity, the new Council’s decisions will make or break the direction the Township of Langley is going in – Let us get it right this time around, our families pride in their community and its livability depend on it!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

We will keep you up to-date with the news that is important to you and your Family!

Elections have Consequences, we want you to be informed!

The Township of Langley has a long and sordid political history going back over at least four decades. It has a reputation of special property and development deals for special friends and insiders. Many refer to the Township of Langley as the Wild, Wild West of property development and incestuous (adj. excessively close and resistant to outside influence) political activity! This BLOG has published over 160 BLOG Posts since its inception in January of 2013, documenting a vast number of serious issues that have been uncovered in the Township of Langley by community activists and myself as Mayor 2008 – 2011. Unfortunately, this community has ceded political control over the last four decades to those acting in personal interest and not in the best interest of Township residents – this MUST change! This year is our real opportunity to transform our Council into a Council that will work and do the right thing for ALL taxpayers.

Along with the serious issues documented within this BLOG over many years we continue to see an unbelievable reluctance and outright intransigence on the part of our current Municipal Council to change in the best interest of our exploding population. Keeping pace with our booming population and communities needs by providing much needed critical infrastructure is essential, and it is not happening. The Township of Langley’s population leads the pack in Metro Vancouver at + 31.88% growth between 2011 and 2021. (That is only 10 years!) It is long past time that we have a Municipal Council that recognizes our citizen’s needs in looking after this exploding growth. We need to move into the present and meet the needs of today and tomorrow, the status quo is long past being acceptable, there has to be some serious change in the make-up of our elected Council!

What are we talking about? – Roads, sidewalks, parks (passive and active), recreation facilities, property for schools, water, Community and Neighborhood Plans that represent community values (not repeated approvals to change those plans and the approved zoning for and by developers), fire halls (to keep pace with Insurance Company demands) and so much more!

The election is for FOUR years, we have to get it right on October 15^th, 2022!

Special Deals with friends and developers: As I am sure it has been noted that my last two posts have dealt with what I still consider a serious issue pertaining to the campaign fundraising activity of a few members of the Township of Langley Council by way of a Supreme Court of British Columbia application; a group of ten Township of Langley residents (who deserve a lot of credit) petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the process and method of receiving campaign donations by Mayor Jack Froese, Councillors Blair Whitmarsh and Bob Long as well as former Councillor Angie Quaale at various times, before, during and after developments were voted on and approved by Council.

The Petitioners didn’t really “lose”. The Justice said the obvious connection between them did not prove a conflict of interest in terms of a “quid pro quo”. That is actually not the legal standard though, instead being that a reasonable person could conclude it *may* affect their votes. In our opinion of course it does. The Justice just wasn’t going to do it.

The complete detail pertaining to the application and the decision are laid out in my BLOG posts dated November 26^th and December 4^th 2020. I have deliberately left these two BLOG Posts up as my latest posts so my daily viewers, of which there are many, will have the opportunity to be reminded about what is and has been going on in our municipality who still claim they did nothing wrong. Really?

Technically the petitioners lost their case in the Supreme Court, but it is clear however that at a minimum there is a moral and ethical argument about the fundraising activities that occurred by these members of Council. As an individual who has been involved in politics for the best part of 45 years, has managed many campaigns Provincially and Municipally, been elected Alderman in Delta, and Mayor in the Township of Langley, I have NEVER accepted donations directly nor did my Fundraising Chairman fundraise prior to 45 days before the election day.

Under NO circumstances would we receive (accept) donations during the elected term which presented any appearance of influence should any development applications be on the table. I voted considering input from staff, residents input by mail and public hearing outcomes and my personal consideration.

It must be about ethics and moral governance for those elected without any appearance of undue influence. I have talked to many Municipal politicians, former colleagues in the lower mainland, and without exception they were surprised at what has been going on politically in the Township of Langley. It appears that a change in Campaign Finance Laws has not had the desired effect on our local politics.

Politics is not a Spectator Sport – It is a Participation Sport! – This obviously doesn’t mean you have to run for Council or for that matter donate or work for a candidate, however it does mean that as taxpayers we have the responsibility to follow who is running, what they stand for, what life experiences, they have and specifically what their voting track record is if they are currently on Council? Your Municipal Council has more direct influence and effect on our daily lives than do the two senior levels of government.

Our existing Council? To keep Council members accountable they must be held accountable at election time; it is our only chance as taxpayers to hold them to account. An election is a referendum on the real performance on current council members, not their grandstanding performance, which becomes obvious at every Council meeting. Through this BLOG we will provide relevant information as to the performance of current Council members. Don’t pay attention to the political platitudes you will hear from many candidates during the election campaign in their written editorials, campaign literature, Council meeting theatrics and political profiles – they mean absolutely nothing. Real performance on Council means everything. My municipal political experience has given me an up-close-and-personal observation on the actions of many sitting at our Council table, it is not pretty.     

NEW Candidates – Who else is running for Council, what is their background, what are their life experiences, what do they stand for, what is their platform? There have been a few that have come forward publicly to announce they are running for Mayor and Councillor but it is far too early to draw any conclusions. There challenge is to have the intestinal fortitude to lay out their platform in real terms and not with fuzzy language backed up with some proof of credibility.  

This BLOG, www.langleywatchdog.com will keep you up to-date through POSTS during August, weekly after that up to October 1^st and then bi-weekly up to election-day October 15^th, 2022.

As I stated earlier we have a serious critical infrastructure deficit. We are no longer that sleepy hollow that some would like to go back to, those days are gone, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view. The issue, we have to manage it and protect our communities with good planning. We are the fastest growing Municipality in Metro Vancouver and we are in a crisis due to the inaction of many on the current Council. We are in gridlock with respect to parks, schools, roads, fire halls and so much more. Let’s work to have the largest turnout in Township of Langley municipal election history – It is the only way we can correct so many years of inadequate Council attention.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

The case as presented in court along with my editorial comments are being left in place so readers can judge for themselves their views on the actions of 3 current members of Council and 1 that was defeated. What happens from here will be up to the opinion of residents leading up to the next election? Are you supportive of Council members making these decisions or not? Over to you……

No. S1914167 Vancouver Registry

BETWEEN

JOHN ALLAN, PENNY LYNNE ALLAN, JANICE LORRAINE BRADDELL,

JOHN FULLERTON, JULIE FULLERTON, GRIT HIGH, ALEXANDER

GRANT SCHIERMAN, NORA ELIZABETH SCHIERMAN, GARY DAVID SAWATSKY and LINDA ELIZABETH TEMPLE

PETITIONERS

AND:

STANLEY JACK FROESE, BLAIR GARNET WHITMARSH, ROBERT LONG and ANGELA DAWN QUAALE

RESPONDENTS

Report on Supreme Court Petition Hearing; You won’t get this in the Langley Advance Times!

langleywatchdog.com (lwd.com) Preamble: As a follow up to our Breaking News feature in our previous BLOG Post, we offer the following commentary which further refers to the Petitioners submissions. I will not refer in any way to the Court proceedings as there is a prohibition to any recordings of them. More importantly I want to lay out the substance of the Petitioners argument which deals with the timing, the amounts and the proposals that were voted on by members of Council. As the Petitioners outlined their case in detail, the Respondents response leaves one like me, a former politician and veteran of numerous election campaigns as a candidate and manager, gasping for air. Really?

One thing I learned very early on in politics through those with significant experience and through the distribution of information and instructions from Elections BC and/or the City of Delta and the Township of Langley – the Candidate appoints a Financial Agent, yourself or someone else, BUT YOU (the candidate) are responsible for knowing all aspects of your campaign! You (the candidate) are responsible for any and all debt and therefore for any and all fundraising, the amounts, from whom and when. Frankly, this is so obvious it is hard to believe anyone elected is pleading otherwise. To reinforce that point, every election I have been in, worked to a budget and a plan i.e. brochures, newspaper ads, signs etc.! Not knowing exactly where you were at, was just a non-starter. So a message to our Council who are respondents and subject to this current petition, as an old saying goes “you have either been lying to us or you are too stupid to be running this Municipality.”

What was this Supreme Court Hearing all about? In a clearly spelled out submission the Petitioners state that this is clearly a case of “Conflict of Interest” which is in keeping with the Don Lidstone opinion frequently referred to (all members of Council received this opinion as requested in 2016), outlining how a direct or indirect pecuniary Conflict of Interest can exist. Shockingly the Respondents, in their submission, came out of the gate making an accusation that the named members of Council are being accused of Bribery?

Conflict of Interest IS NOT Bribery, the Respondents strategy is to simply change the narrative!

Put another way it is and was nothing more than a misdirection play!

So, it is important that residents understand the detail of the facts on why the Petitioners brought this case forward. I must add, this must come at a significant personal financial cost to the local residents / Petitioners with absolutely NO benefit to them other than, hopefully, our municipality will be run in a very transparent way. Speaking personally from my experience as Mayor of the Township of Langley, that would be a refreshing change. I will use excerpts from the Petitioners submission interspersed with my commentary to provide, hopefully, an easily understood explanation.

IMPORTANT – When reviewing dates, remember, the Municipal Election in 2018 was on Oct. 20^th!

RE Williams Neighborhood Plan / The Mitchell Group

April 9, 2018, the bylaw amendments that were required to implement the Williams Neighbourhood Plan were put before Council and passed first and second reading. Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale (the respondents who would end up receiving contributions from the Mitchell Group) were present and voted in favour of the Plan and opposed the referral of the Plan so that Council could receive additional presentations.38

April 23, 2018, the Plan went through public hearing before Council. Ken Mitchell was the first speaker. The minutes note the following:

K. Mitchell, Mitchell Group, Developer of the Williams Business Park and Retail Complex, was in attendance and stated that they want Williams to be a self-contained, walkable community with a neighbourhood retail centre to meet community needs. The Coriolis Consulting Corp. report confirms that four square feet of grocery and 20 square feet of commercial per person are industry standard metrics. The proposed Commercial Project will have a neighbourhood retail complex up to 150,000 square feet with a grocery store of 40,000 feet.39

May 7, 2018, the Plan was put before Council for third reading. At third reading, Councillor Whitmarsh moved to make an amendment to increase the total area for grocery use to 40,000 square feet. The amendment was seconded by Former Councillor Quaale. Mayor Froese also voted in favour, and 40,000 square feet was ultimately approved.40

May 16, 2018, Less than 10 days later Councillor Whitmarsh received $1,200 from Ken Mitchell, $1,200 from Diane Mitchell, and $600 from Ryan O’Shea.41

May 27 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Ken Mitchell and $1,200 from Diane Mitchell.42

June 18 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $1,200 from Ken Mitchell, $1,200 from Diane Mitchell, and $600 from Ryan O’Shea.43

June 22 2018, Mayor Froese received an additional $600 from Jacilyn O’Shea and $600 from Ryan O’Shea.44

October 1, 2018, the Plan was before Council for final adoption. At that meeting, Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh and Former Councillor Quaale voted against an amendment to incorporate more park space. That amendment was defeated 5-4.45

In summary, Mayor Froese received $3,600, and Councillor Whitmarsh and Former Councillor Quaale each received $3,000 from persons connected to the Mitchell Group, when the Williams Neighbourhood Plan was between third reading and adoption. In Councillor Whitmarsh’s case, he received his contributions just 9 days after having moved to amend the Plan to increase the area for grocery use to 40,000 square feet, which matched exactly the proposal that Mr. Mitchell advocated for at the public hearing in April. The minutes from the October1, 2018 meeting showed that none of these respondents disclosed a conflict of interest or removed themselves from the meetings.⁴⁶

RE The Beedie Group

June 30, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Robert Fiorvento, the Beedie Group’s Managing Partner. This was only nine days before a development permit application for a 306.5 m²commercial building would be before Council. ⁴⁷

July 4, 2018, Mayor Froese received another $1,200 from Jason Tonin, the Beedie Group’s Vice President of Land Development.⁴⁸

July 9, 2018, Mayor Froese voted in favour of the development permit application for the 306.5m²commercial building for two restaurants (“Beedie Group’s Restaurant Application”).⁴⁹

July 10, 2018, one day later Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Ryan Beedie, the Beedie Group’s president.⁵⁰

July 15, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $2,400 from persons connected to the Beedie Group.⁵¹This was just six days after he voted in favour of the Beedie Group’s Restaurant Application, and just eight days before he voted in favour of a development permit application for an 8,451 m2 industrial building in the Gloucester Industrial Park (“Beedie Group’s Gloucester Application”) on July 23, 2018.53 He also voted in favour of other Beedie Group applications on September 17, 2018 and October 1, 2018.

NOTE – By the time the Beedie Group’s Gloucester Application was before Council, Mayor Froese had already received $3,600 in the last several weeks from persons connected to the Beedie Group.

July 25, 2018, Councillor Long received $2,400 from persons connected to the Beedie Group.56 This was just two days after the Beedie Group’s Gloucester Application was approved,57 16 days after the development permit for the Beedie Group’s Restaurant Application was approved,58 and about two months before Councillor Long voted in favour of another two of the Beedie Group’s developments on September 17, 2018 and October 1, 2018.

September 17, 2018, Council considered another Beedie Group development permit application for a 4,531 m2 industrial building, that was to be operated by Inno Bakery, also in the Gloucester Industrial Park (“Beedie Group’s First Bakery Application”).60 Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh and Councillor Long voted in favour, and did not disclose the fact that they had received substantial campaign contributions from persons connected to the Beedie Group.61

September 25, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $1,200 from Todd Yuen of the Beedie Group.62 This was only five days before Council would consider a development permit application for a 4,651 m2 industrial building adjacent to the property subject to the Beedie Group’s Bakery Application, which was also to be operated by Inno Bakery (“Beedie Group’s Second Bakery Application”),63 and only eight days after the Beedie Group’s First Bakery Application had passed.64

October 9^th, 2018, eight days after Mayor Froese voted in favour of the Beedie Group’s Second Bakery Application, he received $1,200 from Todd Yuen, the Beedie Group’s President, Industrial.

RE Vesta

May 16, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $1,800 from persons connected to Vesta.66 This was only nine days after Vesta’s development of 73 single family lots, 39 rowhouse lots, 18 semi detached lots, and 122 townhouse units (“Vesta’s First Latimer Development Application”), was approved.67 This was also only approximately a month before two significant Vesta projects would be before Council for first reading (June 25, 2018).68

June 18, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $600 from Marlene Best, Vesta’s then Senior Development Manager.69 This was only seven days before two significant Vesta projects would be before Council for first reading (June 25, 2018), one for 56 townhomes and 186 apartments (“Vesta’s Second Latimer Development Application”),70 and the other for 449 apartments, 3,398 m2 of commercial space and 10,033 m2 of office space (“Vesta’s Carvolth Development Application”).71 It was also less than a month from when the two Vesta contracts would be considered by Council on July 9, 2018.72 The contribution was made just over a month subsequent to when the bylaw amendments for Vesta’s First Latimer Development Application were adopted (May 7, 2018).73

June 26, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,000 from Kent Sillars of Vesta. This was only one day after Vesta’s Second Latimer Development Application and Vesta’s Carvolth Development Application passed first and second reading, and less than a month before both applications passed third reading.⁷⁴

NOTE – This contribution from Mr. Sillars to Mayor Froese was also two weeks before Council considered and approved a Development Cost Charges Front-ending Agreement between the Township and Vesta. At that same meeting on July 9, 2018, Council also passed an amendment to another by-law to allow for the execution of a Development Works Agreement between the Township and Vesta.⁷⁵Further, this contribution was also received less than a month before a 792 multi-family unit and hotel development of Vesta’s was considered before Council on July 23, 2018 (“Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application”).⁷⁶The contribution came less than two months after Vesta’s First Latimer Development Application was adopted,⁷⁷and approximately two and half months after a rezoning application for 153 Vesta townhomes passed third reading on April 9, 2018.⁷⁸

September 11, 2018, Councillor Long received $3,200 from persons connected to Vesta.⁷⁹This was only 20 days before third reading of Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application.⁸⁰This was also less than two months after Vesta’s Second Latimer Development Application and Vesta’s Carvolth Development Application had passed third reading but were still pending final adoption.⁸¹

September 18, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh also received another $500 from Braedon Sillars, Vesta’s Development Coordinator.⁸²This was less than two weeks before Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application was brought before Council for third reading.⁸³

September 26, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale also received an additional $1,700 from persons connected to Vesta.84 This was just five days before Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application was before Council for third reading.85

RE Lanstone

May 16^th 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $1,000 from Lanson Foster of Landstone. This was less than a month before Lanstone would have a 54-unit residential development (“Landstone’s Application”) before Council for first reading on June 11^th, 2018.

June 18, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $1,000 from Lanson Foster of Lanstone. This was just seven days after Lanstone’s Application passed first and second reading and less than a month before it would pass third reading on July 9, 2018.87

September 12, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from John Tilstra of Lanstone. This was approximately two months after Lanstone’s Application passed third reading.88

RE Infinity

May 16, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $500 from Timothy Bontkes of Infinity. This was approximately two months after Infinity’s 51 townhouse development (“Infinity’s Application”) passed third reading on March 5, 2018, and two months before it would be adopted on July 23, 2018.89

June 18, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $500 from Timothy Bontkes. This contribution was made approximately one month before Infinity’s Application was adopted on July 23, 2018.90

June 27, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Timothy Bontkes. This was approximately three and a half months after Infinity’s Application passed third reading on March 5, 2018, and less thana month before it was adopted on July 23, 2018.⁹¹

RE Polygon

June19, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Scott Baldwin of Polygon. This was just six days before Polygon’s 589 unit apartment building application came before Council for first reading on June25, 2018.⁹²

RE Essence

October 9, 2018, Councillor Long received $2,400 from persons connected to Essence. This was approximately two and a half months after Essence’s application for a 102 townhouse unit and 75 apartment unit development application passed third reading on July23, 2018, and two months before it would be adopted on December10, 2018.

D. The legal opinion

62. Importantly, the respondents engaged in this voting behaviour despite having received a legal opinion that doing so could constitute a conflict of interest.

63. In June 2016, the Township sought a legal opinion from Lidstone & Company as to whether campaign contributions from a developer would disqualify a council member from voting on that developer’s rezoning application. The opinion was received by Council on June 13, 2016.⁹⁴All the respondents were on Council at the time.

64. In the opinion, Don Lidstone, Q.C. advised that campaign contributions without more did not constitute a conflict of interest. In the opinion’s summary, he stated the following:

…the campaign contribution by itself does not create a conflict of interest, even if that developer later applies for a rezoning. An exception would be if a developer gives a Council member a donation when the rezoning application comes before Council.⁹⁵

65. Mr. Lidstone also concluded his opinion by stating:

There could be a conflict if the Council member was personally or privately connected to the developer, if development was in-stream at the time of the election, or if the developer made a donation after the rezoning application was made. However, we understand that none of these apply in relation to the Brookswood rezoning applications.⁹⁶

The respondents’ evidence

66. For their part, the respondents do not deny that they received any of the contributions at issue in this proceeding, nor do they deny that they participated in, and voted on the various applications without making any declarations of conflict of interest. Rather, they universally say that: (a) there was never any indication from the contributors that the contributions were made with any intention or expectation of an agreement to vote a particular way; (b) none of their votes were influenced by campaign contributions; and (c) they were always motivated to vote in the best interest of the Township.⁹⁷

67. Much of the respondents’ evidence is focused on their recollection or knowledge of who made the impugned contributions, as well as their recollection of the development applications in question. As set out below, the petitioners say that, on the application of the proper legal test, the respondents’ subjective recollections or motivations as to how they voted on any particular project are irrelevant.

The interpretation of the conflict of interest provisions and the applicable legal test

72. The B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in Schlenker is the most recent and leading authority on the interpretation of the Community Charter conflict of interest provisions.98 In that case, the Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge’s decision that the elected officials were not in a direct or indirect pecuniary conflict of interest when they voted to award service contracts to societies of which they were directors. The Court held that the chamber judge’s reasoning that the elected officials were not themselves enriched, and therefore there was no pecuniary conflict, applied too narrow an interpretation to the phrase “direct or indirect pecuniary interest”. Such a narrow interpretation was said to undermine the purpose of the conflict of interest provisions.99

73. After noting the “modern approach” to statutory interpretation, Mr. Justice Donald, speaking for a unanimous Court, held that the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter must be given a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with its purpose,100 which is to prevent elected officials from having divided loyalties. The Court quoted with approval from the following passage in Re Moll and Fisher:

This enactment, like all conflict-of-interest rules, is based on the moral principle, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognizes the fact that the judgment of even the most well-meaning men and women may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose. And the Act, by its broad proscription, enjoins holders of public offices within its ambit from any participation in matters in which their economic self-interest may be in conflict with their public duty. The public’s confidence in its elected representatives demands no less. Legislation of this nature must, it is clear, be construed broadly and in a manner consistent with its purpose.101

74. In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal held that these provisions are “intended to enhance and protect the integrity of local government.”102 This is consistent the reasoning of other appellate courts with respect to the objective of similar conflict of interest provisions. For example, the Alberta Court of Appeal has stated that such a provision “sustains the right of an elector to the even-handed, independent consideration of his elected representatives on questions before Council, unaffected by any influence that could potentially flow from a direct or indirect pecuniary interest”.103

Summary:

This hearing wrapped up Friday December 5th, 2020. Justice Walker stated he expected to release a decision early in 2021. He went on to state that it is a very interesting case with interesting issues. Further he stated he is generally very quick at getting judgements out, but this one may take a while.

Obviously what I have published in this BLOG Post deals mainly with the guts of the Petitioners argument based on the “close temporal proximity between the contributions and votes on applications” as the Petitioners lawyer Mark Underhill has stated in his admissions. All of this in the face of asking for and receiving a legal opinion from a recognized municipal legal expert, Don Lidstone Q.C. a short two years before.

We won’t get into any discussion or debate on any potential Respondent culpability or finding by the courts however an objective assessment of “whether a reasonably well-informed observer would conclude that the campaign contribution might influence the duty of the elected official”, is the crux of the argument.In this case, there exists a unique constellation of facts, including:

1) the sheer number of contributions from multiple developers;

2) the timing of contributions while those developers had matters before counsel, sometimes within days of a vote on that matter;

3) the fact that there were several individuals making contributions from the same developer, effectively circumventing the restrictions on campaign contributions;

4) the proposing and passing of amendments to coincide with the proposal of a developer (in the case of the Williams Neighbourhood Plan); and

5) the. repeated pattern of conduct despite legal advice to the contrary

111. A reasonably well-informed person would conclude that, given these extraordinary facts, the respondents might have been influenced by these contributions to vote in the best interests of the developers or their own political careers rather than in the best interests of their constituents. Public confidence in the integrity and transparency of municipal governance cannot be maintained if these circumstances are deemed acceptable.

IMPORTANT – Message to Township of Langley Taxpayers and VOTERS!

Win, lose or draw, are you comfortable with your municipal politicians accepting donations in this fashion without at least disclosing receipt of contributions received while proposed development applications are “in stream” at the time of their vote? I am not!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

BETWEEN

JOHN ALLAN, PENNY LYNNE ALLAN, JANICE LORRAINE BRADDELL,

JOHN FULLERTON, JULIE FULLERTON, GRIT HIGH, ALEXANDER

GRANT SCHIERMAN, NORA ELIZABETH SCHIERMAN, GARY DAVID

SAWATSKY and LINDA ELIZABETH TEMPLE

PETITIONERS

AND:

STANLEY JACK FROESE, BLAIR GARNET WHITMARSH, ROBERT LONG and ANGELA DAWN QUAALE

RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

langleywatchdog.com (lwd.com) Preamble:

I was contacted by CTV News in late October of 2019 regarding a CTV Investigative Research item into potential serious and illegal campaign donations received by three members of the existing Township of Langley Council plus one member that was not elected in the 2018 Municipal election. I went on air that day, as requested by CTV from a remote location for broadcast that evening. That afternoon I received a package of information that was the source of information for CTV, which I reviewed very thoroughly, found it very newsworthy and published it in this BLOG – The Link to that post follows:

BREAKING NEWS – CTV Investigative Report on the actions of three current members and one former member of the Township of Langley Council! This is outragious!

I must add that in typical Langley Advance Times / Mathew Claxton fashion, their report of this serious issue is lame, pathetic but if nothing else consistent. It does not mention the fact that it was CTV’s investigative work and broadcast of the anonymous material THEY received that was the source of their investigation. I received the same package of information later that day which I made public. Mathew phoned me and asked for my source, which I denied. For the record, ALL the information I receive on any topic is guaranteed to be kept in confidence.

For your information the Langley Advance Times are paid a sum in excess of $150,000 per year by the Township of Langley for their advertising requirements, in typical fashion they are very careful as to what they provide in print; don’t upset the client! (Their two news stories are dated December 17^th, 2019 & November 20^th, 2020)

The result of all of this published information was an Application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (as indicated above) by TEN (10) resident petitioners, and voters of the Township of Langley. It has been a while, mainly due to Covid-19 shutdowns, however this application will be heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia Monday November 30^th, 2020 thru to December 3^rd, 2020.

I am in receipt of a copy of the “Respondents” court submission in support of their court petition to be heard on the dates above.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions:

PART V. ORDERS SOUGHT (Page 36)

113.The petitioners seek the following orders

1) A declaration that the respondents failed to disclose a direct or indirect pecuniary conflict of interest contrary to section 100 of the Community Charter.

2) A declaration that the respondents attended meetings, participated in discussions, attempted to influence voting, and/or voted in a manner contrary to s. 101(2) of the Community Charter.

3) An order pursuant to s. 111 of the Community Charter that the respondents, other than Former Councillor Quaale, are disqualified from holding office until the next general local election.

4) Costs, including special costs.

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

The submission by the Petitioners is detailed, very complete and in my view very compelling! This is obviously being dealt with in a court of law so the outcome cannot be judged at this point. Having said that, the Petitioners submission is some 36 pages in length which cannot be fully copied into this Blog, however we will offer some excerpts that we find are of particular interest to residents of the Township regardless of the outcome.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW (Page 1&2)

1. The petitioners seek declarations that the respondents, three sitting members of the Council of the Township of Langley (the “Township”) – including the mayor – and a former city councillor, failed to disclose pecuniary conflicts of interest contrary to the Community Charter, S.B.C., 2003, c. 26 (“Community Charter”). As a result of that failure, the petitioners say that those respondents who are currently sitting members of Council must be disqualified from their positions in office.
2. This case is based on unprecedented (and largely undisputed) facts. In the lead-up to the 2018 municipal election, the respondents received numerous campaign contributions from multiple property developers while those same developers had applications before Council. In some cases, these contributions were received within days of the application coming before Council. Despite having received a legal opinion from the Township’s solicitor that a conflict of interest could exist if contributions were accepted while developments were “in-stream”, or if the contributions were made shortly after a development application was made, none of the respondents disclosed the contributions and sought legal advice, let alone made a declaration that they were in a conflict of interest. The respondents went on to vote in favour of each of the development applications.
3. To the petitioners’ knowledge, this pattern of campaign contributions, with such a close temporal proximity between the contributions and votes on applications, has never come before the courts. It in turn raises an important legal issue with widespread implications for the integrity of, and public confidence in, municipal governance in this province. To date, the jurisprudence on conflicts of interest arising out of campaign contributions has held that a contribution, and a later vote in favour of an application, does not constitute a conflict of interest without “something more”. The petitioners say that, in this case, the “something more” is the pattern and temporal proximity of the contributions and voting behaviour, which would lead a reasonably informed person to conclude that the contributions might have influenced the exercise of the respondents’ duty as Council members.
4. For their part, the respondents say that there is a much higher legal threshold, and that there must be explicit evidence that the respondents agreed to “deliver a vote” or a quid pro quo before a conflict of interest can be made out. The petitioners say that such a high threshold would be virtually impossible to meet from an evidentiary perspective and is in any event entirely inconsistent with the broad and liberal interpretation to be applied to the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter. The purpose of the provisions – to maintain public confidence that elected officials do not have divided loyalties – must inform the legal threshold that is to be applied by this Court. Public confidence can be undermined in circumstances short of an explicit “agreement to vote” or quid pro quo. It is also not restored by virtue of the fact that disclosure of the contributions is later required under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 18. It is the lack of disclosure, and the failure to seek legal advice, at the time of the votes that undermines public confidence.
5. In this case, the circumstances – the timing of the contributions relative to votes, the sheer number of contributions, the repeated pattern of behaviour, the ignoring of legal advice, and the perceived circumvention of legislative restrictions on campaign contributions – are sufficient to give rise to a conflict of interest. If the respondents are correct, and there is no conflict of interest in this case, the democratic principle of transparency will be substantially undermined given that the voting public would have no opportunity to even know about the contributions, and the possibility of divided loyalties, at the time of the votes.

PART II. FACTS (Page 2&3)

1. The Parties

• The Township is not a named respondent in this Petition but was served pursuant to s. 111(5)(b) of the Community Charter. It has filed a Response to Petition and affidavit material in support of the respondents.

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

IMPORTANT – NOTE: The Township of Langley has filed a Response to the Petition and filed an affidavit in support of the Respondents apparently suggesting Council members only followed staff’s recommendations on the respective proposal in front of them. That in my view and experience as a former Alderman and a Mayor is an insanity defense! Staff / the Township have no way of knowing what donations have been made to elected members of Council. This does not absolve members of Council from not removing themselves from the decision or at the very least announcing a potential conflict due to the donations received. Council members are not obligated to support staff recommendations, they knew better!

The question must be asked, WHY is the Township of Langley interfering in a legal question that only affects the politically elected? They have no business in getting involved, it could reflect a bias on their part for some unknown reason, what could that be? It should be explored further, it doesn’t make any common sense.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

B The Campaign Contributions (Page 3,4,5, &6)

12. As noted at the outset, this case does not involve a single contribution from one developer and a subsequent development application by that developer. Rather, it involves numerous contributions by persons connected to a number of developers made while their development applications were before Council in the lead-up to the municipal election held on October 20, 2018.

13. In short, Mayor Froese received at least $12,600,6 Councillor Whitmarsh received at least $8,900,7 Councillor Long received at least $8,000,8 and Former Councillor Quaale received at least $7,700,9 from persons who were owners, directors, officers, executives and/or employees of the various property development companies.

14. These are significant amounts, particularly in light of the recent amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act that had come into effect.10 Those amendments capped the maximum amount an individual could contribute to a campaign to $1,200.¹¹Further, corporations were prohibited from making campaign contributions.¹²

i) The developers

15. In total, at least 19 persons connected with seven property development companies made campaign contributions to the respondents. The following is a summary of the individual contributors and the development companies they are associated with:

1) “The Mitchell Group” (Mitchell Group Investments Inc.)

• Ken Mitchell (Director and Officer)

• Diane Mitchell (Director and Officer)

• Jacilyn O’Shea (Director of Development)

• Ryan O’Shea (Director of Residential development)¹³

2) “The Beedie Group” (The Beedie Group Developments Ltd., BDC (Langley Property) Ltd., 161884 Canada Inc.)

• Ryan Beedie (President, sole Director and Officer)

• Rob Fiorvento (Managing Partner)

• Todd Yuen (President, Industrial)

• Jason Tonin (Vice President, Land Development)¹⁴

3) “Vesta” (Vesta Properties Ltd.)

• Kent Sillars (sole Director and Officer)

• Dennis Wiemken (Senior Vice President)

• Braedon Sillars (Development Coordinator)

• Julie Sillars (owner)

• Marlene Best (Senior Development Manager)15

4) “Lanstone” (Lanstone Homes (Murrayville) Ltd.)

• Lanson Foster (Director and sole Officer)

• John Tilstra (Director)16

5) “Infinity” (Infinity Properties Ltd.)

 • Timothy Bontkes (sole Director and Officer)17

6) “Polygon” (Polygon Homes Ltd., Polygon Union Park Homes Ltd.)

 • Scott Baldwin (Officer, Senior Vice President, Development)18

7) “Essence” (Essence Properties Inc.)

 • Kevin Dhaliwal (Director)

• Seeta Dhaliwal (Director)19

16. Persons connected to The Mitchell Group contributed a total of $10,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.20

17. Persons connected to The Beedie Group contributed a total of $10,800 to all four respondents.21

18. Persons connected to Vesta contributed a total of $8,800 to all four respondents.22

19. Persons connected to Lanstone contributed a total of $3,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.23

20. Persons connected to Infinity contributed a total of $2,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.24

21. Persons connected to Polygon contributed a total of $1,200 to Mayor Froese.25

22. Persons connected to Essence contributed a total of $2,400 to Councillor Long.26

C. The timing of the contributions relative to the development applications before Council (Page 6)

23. At the same time that these campaign contributions were made, all of the developers listed above had matters before Council in which they were interested parties. Most of these matters were rezoning applications or development permit applications. The following is a list of the matters before Council at the material time:

1) The Mitchell Group: The Williams Neighbourhood Plan.27

2) The Beedie Group: Four development permit applications.28

3) Vesta: Five rezoning applications, and two different contracts with the Township.29

4) Lanstone: One rezoning/heritage alteration permit application.30

5) Infinity: One rezoning/development permit application.31

6) Polygon: One rezoning/development permit application.32

7) Essence: One rezoning/development permit application.33  

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

The Petitioners submissions go onto explain in detail the timing of each case before Council, the actions of each member of Council towards the respective application(s), the dates, timing and amount of donations received all supported in detail by the minutes of the Council meeting involved.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

D. The legal opinion

62. Importantly, the respondents engaged in this voting behaviour despite having received a legal opinion that doing so could constitute a conflict of interest.

63. In June 2016, the Township sought a legal opinion from Lidstone & Company as to whether campaign contributions from a developer would disqualify a council member from voting on that developer’s rezoning application. The opinion was received by Council on June 13, 2016.94 All the respondents were on Council at the time.

64. In the opinion, Don Lidstone, Q.C. advised that campaign contributions without more did not constitute a conflict of interest. In the opinion’s summary, he stated the following:

…the campaign contribution by itself does not create a conflict of interest, even if that developer later applies for a rezoning. An exception would be if a developer gives a Council member a donation when the rezoning application comes before Council.⁹⁵

65. Mr.Lidstone also concluded his opinion by stating:

There could be a conflict if the Council member was personally or privately connected to the developer, if development was in-stream at the time of the election, or if the developer made a donation after the rezoning application was made. However, we understand that none of these apply in relation to the Brookswood rezoning applications.⁹⁶

E. The respondents’ evidence

66. For their part, the respondents do not deny that they received any of the contributions at issue in this proceeding, nor do they deny that they participated in, and voted on the various applications without making any declarations of conflict of interest. Rather, they universally say that: (a) there was never any indication from the contributors that the contributions were made with any intention or expectation of an agreement to vote a particular way; (b) none of their votes were influenced by campaign contributions; and (c) they were always motivated to vote in the best interest of the Township.

(lwd.com) Summary:

The Respondents evidence above in (a) (b) and (c) is out of step when measured against numerous items of case law extensively outlined in the Petitioners Submissions. In summarizing numerous articles on case law including the Appeals Court the Petitioners state the following:

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

78. Thus, three key points emerge:

1) The conflict of interest provisions are to be interpreted broadly and liberally.

2) The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that the public has confidence that their elected officials do not have divided loyalties, and therefore it does not matter whether there is any personal gain or not.

3) The test is an objective one – whether a reasonably well-informed person would conclude that the interest might influence the exercise of the public official’s duty.

(lwd.com) Summary Cont’d:

If you weigh the language contained in the Community Charter, if you weigh the decisions coming out of various case law examples as outlined in the Petitioners submissions, it only makes sense that these Council members plea rings hollow. That they act responsibly and honorably must be displayed by their actions (a declaration of a conflict or potential conflict of interest), not in words after the fact. Put another way – Talk is Cheap! If all one had to do was to tell a judge, just believe me, our society would be in far more trouble than is the case today.

If you wish to receive a PDF of the Petitioners submissions, reply to this email and I will send you a copy.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

There has been a lot of controversy in our recent provincial election, some of it written about in this BLOG. In reality there has been an underbelly of discontent in our community for years. Our just retired MLA, Rich Coleman, is and was at the center of much of it – again many of those issues we have written about.

Staunch supporters of free enterprise have, since the mid 90’s, gravitated to what they considered to be their only free enterprise political option in British Columbia, the B.C. Liberal Party. Unfortunately, that old saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute Power corrupts absolutely” can best be found in the make-up that provincial party and locally by extension a small Cabal of power brokers closely aligned with the Langley East Liberal Constituency Association. Obviously, not everyone associated with it, because most innocently align themselves with parties that best represent their personal philosophy. Unfortunately, in my experience many are innocently being taken for granted and have been taken for a ride for years in Langley East.

To put Megan Dykeman’s victory into an historical perspective, the constituency area which is now known as Langley East has been redistributed many times over many years. The various free enterprise options (Social Credit and then B.C. Liberal) were created out of the Delta Constituency in 1966 and certainly since that date the free enterprise option has been the party of choice, before and since in our community.

Why have we promoted the need for change, why have we endorsed Megan Dykeman and why, for the first time in my life have I endorsed, worked for, and donated to the NDP? Well, a great candidate with a strong resume, first of all, with an ideal opportunity to make a significant difference in our community. Positive change has come to the Township of Langley! Read ON-

Back just prior to the 2017 election I had received a strong favorable opinion about the NDP and its new leader from a good friend. We were able to arrange a meeting with then candidate John Horgan and had a great conversation in a two-hour meeting. I was a strong free enterprise supporter, but NEVER at any cost. The fact remains, BAD government is BAD government, left, right or center. In our view John Horgan had done a particularly good job over the last three and a half years and we feel he deserved a solid mandate for a full term.

There is a long list of wrongdoing by the B.C. Liberal Government and its members over their sixteen years in office which we will not go into detail here. Having said that, the Cullen Commission into money laundering currently underway has received some very damaging and critical public testimony against our former MLA Rich Coleman. We are not accusing anyone of anything, but we are reporting based on very recent public testimony. In the areas of property deals there is the debacles with Western Forest Products on Vancouver Island, the Little Mountain and the Burke Mountain property sales, all that carry a stench with them.

As to how our MLA’s actions have affected the Township of Langley, there are many? For our purposes today we will illustrate just a couple of examples I am personally aware of that in my view raise alarming questions.

Provincial MLAs should NOT be involved in the local politics of their constituency(s), in any way, that is IF you care about political independence and/or the potential for undue influence in your municipal government. Why? Municipalities have to be able to work with whatever Provincial Government is elected. MLAs should not be exerting pressure or influence on locally elected officials. That has happened in the Township of Langley for decades.

Over the past two decades it has reached the point where this office is not attempting to hide their endorsements, as a matter of fact they are openly flogging their endorsements.

In Langley’s case openly getting involved in who is or is not running municipally and who they will support including having candidates in for interviews. Our residents should be shocked!

In proving that we are not talking conspiracy theories here, we offer the following:

Leading up to my announcement as a candidate for Mayor in early February 2008 I requested and had a meeting with our MLA Rich Coleman which I had requested as a courtesy to introduce myself as a candidate for Mayor of the community he represented. In that meeting I received three very clear messages from Rich Coleman – 1) They are OK with the job the current Mayor is doing – 2) The CAO of the Township (Mark Bakken) is a good friend of mine and 3) You have been making noises about municipal land deals, I want you to know we are OK with them. My responses were – to #1, we are not – to #2, that is interesting and – to #3 we are not OK with it, it is bull shit, and it is going to stop. It did not take a rocket scientist to realize I would not be his first choice for Mayor, nor after that meeting, did I care.

Facetiously I ask – Who is we Rich? (to the statement made by Rich that we are OK with the Municipal land deals)

The good news? We won the Mayoral campaign that year. The bad news – Be careful what you wish for?

Further proof are some internal emails received and statements made by one local realtor Joel Schacter, good friend of Rich Coleman in an email to the realtors in his office (full content of emails in our March 2013 BLOG Post) and signatory to an RCMP complaint against me that received significant media exposure. For the record it was found to be baseless. Excerpts from those emails follow:

Schacter: I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors…. they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out.

A fellow realtor stated the following:

Reply to Schacter: It is likely, that most of the people in the office are not aware of your behind the scenes smear campaign against what I consider to be ………..a very intelligent, honest and fair guy who is being slammed by a bunch of self-serving idiots that have their own hidden agendas…..just like you do.

Are you scared of losing your inside connections to all of the Township and School Board real estate deals?

Pretty easy to prove my point.

In a further response:

Reply to Schacter: Why is it, that you and Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken all hang out together and scheme about how to “take out” Green??  What is it really about Rick Green that has got your collected attention?

I was told a long time ago, to find the truth……. simply follow the money.

It seems however, that you have a lot more energy than me……… as I see various political figures in your office at the end of the day……….  You seem to be very popular, so you should try closing your office blinds when nighttime arrives.

In summary: This is a great day in the Township of Langley. We now have an MLA that will truly represent the Township of Langley and the interests of all of our residents, as opposed to that of special interests. It has been a long time coming and we are excited for our communities future.

As to the B.C. Liberal Party and its future, the jury is out. The internal fights are just beginning; Do they change the name? Do they seriously undertake renewal and take a deep internal look at who and what they represent? When will they conduct a leadership contest? And one thing that to-date has not been talked about, what was the net effect of the NEW Political Campaign Financing rules. This was the first election conducted under this NEW campaign financing legislation.

Campaign Financing rules just may be the toughest hill to climb for the B.C. Liberal Party in their attempt to comeback.

The B.C. Liberals (or whatever name they use) has a long way to come back, if they do? We have seen some relevant B.C. history of a political party that has so damaged their reputation and image with the public that any thought of a come-back was a non-starter. Of course, a lot of this will depend on the performance of the NDP over the next four years, we believe they have a great opportunity if they play their cards right!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

In an on-line Langley City All-Candidates Meeting moderated by former Editor of the Langley Times Frank Bucholtz candidates were asked about their position on the question of support for the Reactivation of the Interurban Corridor – Mary Polak’s answer showing her ignorance of the issue was on display in full color. What it shows that many of us have known for some time, is that the B.C. Liberals are in support of CP Rail not having to live up to the signed terms and obligations of their $6.3 Million purchase of freight rights over what is known as the Pratt Livingston Corridor in 1988! This attitude of working against the public’s protected passenger rights is fitting with the title of my last blog post –

Is this deliberate or are they just ignorant of the facts!

“When the B.C. Liberal Party tells you who they are…. Believe Them!

The Master Agreement that represents the freight rights sale and obligations over this corridor was uncovered and its renewal led by me as Mayor of the Township of Langley in 2009. This renewal was supported in writing by the Mayors and Councils of City of Delta, City of Surrey, City of White Rock, City of Langley, Township of Langley, and the City of Abbotsford. It was renewed a short 6 weeks BEFORE we lost it forever. Since that time, the Mayor and Council of the City of Chilliwack are registered in unanimous support! So, let us set the record straight shall we:

Master Agreement Synopsis

Introduction – Press Release: 2:00 PM July 27^th, 1988

B.C. Government names ITEL Rail Corp. as successful bidder in sale of B.C. Hydro’s Rail Freight Division. C.P. Rail acquires operating rights to strategic trackage for Roberts Bank Coal Port.

NOTE: 

Sale of FREIGHT operating rights on entire corridor to Itel of Chicago for a price of approx. $32

Million. (These FREIGHT rights are now owned by Southern Rail)

Sale of FREIGHT operating rights on the joint section (Pratt Livingston corridor) to CP Rail for a

price of $6.3 Million.

The Master Agreement is an agreement made between the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Canadian Pacific Limited on the 29^th day of August 1988 covering what is known as the Pratt-Livingston corridor, or otherwise known as the Joint Section. (This section is roughly from 232^nd Street through the Langleys to Cloverdale). This agreement was for 21 years as well as the renewal clause, both permitting renewal at either party’s option.

What are the key points of interest found within this agreement? Excerpts follow –

Page 2 – E.

“CP Rail has also agreed to grant Hydro running rights over certain tracks owned by C.P. Rail.”

Page 3 Part 1

Pratt Livingstone 1.01 – Sale of Assets on Pratt Livingston Line to C.P. Rail. “Hydro agrees to

sell, and C.P. Rail agrees to purchase the Tracks and Equipment free and clear of all liens,

charges and encumbrances.”

Page 4 1.02    

Grant of Statutory Right of Way over Pratt Livingstone to C.P. Rail.

“Hydro agrees to grant to C.P. Rail on the closing date a statutory right of way over the Railway Operations Easement Area in the form attached hereto as Annexure III.”

Page 4 1.03

Survey of Railway Operating Easement Area

“The Railway Operations Easement Area shall encompass the Tracks and an area sufficient to enable C.P. Rail to double track, construction of such double track to be at the sole cost of C.P. Rail including the cost of removal and relocation of the works of any other party on the lands required to double track.”

Page 5 1.05

Running Rights over Pratt-Livingstone Tracks to Hydro

“Hydro hereby reserves unto itself the right in perpetuity to operate a railway on the Tracks and Equipment and on the double track, when constructed. The reservation shall be in the form of running rights agreement attached hereto as Annexure V.”

Page 5 1.05(b)

“if the railway operations of Hydro are sold to and operated by the Successor Rail Company,

provided it is not owned or controlled by Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) or

Burlington Northern Inc. (“BN”), on a without charge basis, so long as the use thereof by the

Successor Rail Company does not exceed 33% of the total annual wheelage of all trains

operating trains in the Railway Operations Easement Area.”

Page 12 5.03  

Regulation “C.P. Rail will not take any action intended to bring Hydro or Successor Rail

Company under the jurisdiction of the Railway Act R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, as amended or the

National Transportation Act, 1987 S.C. 1987, c. 34, as amended.”

P. 21               

Entire Agreement

Section 10.07 “Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that there are no covenants,

representations, warranties, agreements, or conditions expressed or implied, collateral or

otherwise, forming part of or in any way affecting or relating to this agreement save as

expressly set out in this Agreement and this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement

between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.”

Annexure V     Page 2 Sect. 1.2         

“Hydro shall have the exclusive right to operate upon any Hydro trackage connected with the

Joint Section to serve present or future industry from the Joint Section, to pick up or discharge

passengers, freight, or express business upon the Joint Section or to handle directly any

passenger, freight, or express business originating at or destined to points on the Joint

Section.”

Page 3 Article II Section 2.4  

“CP Rail shall initially at its sole cost and expense, maintain and keep the Joint Section,

including all mainline turnouts, in good condition and repair suitable for use by all parties.”

Section 2.5     

“CP Rail shall make such reasonable rules and regulations as are from time to time customary

among railways for the operation of the Joint Section. All train schedules, rules and

regulations shall be reasonable among all railway companies using the Joint Section and shall

not reasonably discriminate against any of them.”

Section 2.7     

“This agreement does not contemplate the operation of passenger trains upon the Joint

Section by any railway company other than Hydro. Hydro shall have the right to operate

passenger trains over the Joint Section. The cars and engines of such passenger trains shall be

included in the wheelage count made pursuant to Section 4.4.”

Summary:

The Master Agreement lays out in very specific terms the rights and conditions of the sale of the freight rights over the Joint Section (known as the Pratt Livingston Corridor) by all parties concerned. A review of the B.C. Government Press Release spells out the intent of the then B.C. Government to #1 – Continue ownership of the full Interurban Corridor in the right of the people of B.C. and #2 – protect corridor for passenger rights on said corridor. The rights were renewed by B.C. Hydro in June of 2009, two months prior to the 21-year term of expiry.

The Master Agreement and relevant additional pages number 88.

IMPORTANT – A full copy of this Master Agreement is available for review to substantiate its authenticity, but it will not be released from our possession.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Anti LGBTQ decisions or sexist comments are not acceptable.

Political campaigns have a way of exposing candidates and political parties, good or bad. What we are seeing exposed in this-years provincial campaign are telltale signs of what those involved in the B.C. Liberal Party are really all about. Our elected representatives MUST be held to a much higher standard in public discourse than the general public – tweeting an apology by the leader of the party does not cut it! As I said, when a Political Party or Candidate tells you who they are…. Believe them!

The B.C. Liberal Party has for years sent a message to the people of B.C. about who they are, their 16 year deplorable record has been laid out in spades; from extensive give away land deals on Burke Mountain and Little Mountain; to a promise not to sell B.C. Rail BUT after winning the election they awarded CN with a 999 year lease option deal followed by extensive court proceedings surrounding this debacle that stunk; to robbing ICBC of over $1.2 Billion dollars to balance their budget, the B.C. Liberals have told all of us who they are! The list of lies and corruption are extensive throughout their time in power.

Check out the Tyee feature 117 BC Liberal Falsehoods, Boondoggles and Scandals over 16 years of governance –

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/04/10/BC-Liberal-Falsehoods-Scandals-Whole-List/

So now we are faced with the real social views that underpin the B.C. Liberal Party. In June of this year it was discovered and published that 14 B.C. Liberal MLAs had expensed more than $1,700 (in public constituency funds) to advertise in The Light Magazine. They describe themselves as a “free monthly Christian lifestyle magazine”.

However, the magazine also promotes highly controversial views, including something called the “West Coast Christian Accord” on “gender identity and human sexuality”, which condemns “homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous” marriages and those who “adopt a homosexual or transgender self-perception.”

According to constituency expense receipts, B.C. Liberal MLAs Laurie Throness (Now resigned!), Rich Coleman, Shirley Bond, Marvin Hunt, John Martin, Joan Isaacs, Todd Stone, Mike deJong, Simon Gibson, Michael Lee, Sam Sullivan and Mary Polak have each disclosed that they have billed taxpayers varying amounts for ads placed with Light Christian Media Inc.

In answer to this revelation, B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson, when confronted by the media he states that the B.C. Liberal Party are inclusive as are all members and will not be advertising in any of these identified periodicals. This apparently, by his lack of action or comment, did not impress MLA Laurie Thrones, he has refused comment or assurance that he believes in the words and stated position of leader Wilkinson. He resigned today. Why wasn’t he fired?

So now, at virtually the start of the election campaign, the B.C. Liberal candidate for Langley East, Margaret Kunst as a councillor was one of three members of Council who voted against endorsing the installation of a Rainbow crosswalk between the RCMP headquarters and the School Board offices.

During the 30-minute debate on the issue she did not comment once – which stands out as someone who wanted to slide below the surface as far as media is concerned. This was no-cost to the residents of the Township of Langley; it is a show of support for the LGBTQ community and it was supported by the RCMP and school board. She claimed she was only against the process.

Really? That has proven to be incorrect since that vote and that excuse! – The Langley Chapter of the Association of Reformed Political Action Canada which encourages Reformed Christians to get involved in political issues sent out a questionnaire to all candidates prior to the last Municipal Election.

Question – Langley Township has painted a rainbow crosswalk within the last few years. Would you support the painting of such crosswalks – Margaret Kunst Answer WAS NO! She believes our Canadian Flag represents freedom and inclusivity for all in Canada. Fact – The Rainbow Flag is a widely displayed symbol (internationally) of support for the LGBTQ community.

So, this crosswalk is to be between the SD35 headquarters and the RCMP detachment in Murrayville supported by both organizations to signal inclusiveness to all visitors and had been in the works for about a year! Clearly Margaret Kunst, based on the uncovering of her answers to the questionnaire, did not tell the truth when asked for the reasons behind her vote by the media. Therefore the only possible conclusion is this is her personal view, and the leader, Andrew Wilkinson did nothing about it and has shown ZERO leadership in the matter!

So in the face of wide criticism from all corners of British Columbia of support ads in a slanted religious magazine and now of the Langley East candidate which has displayed such bias, we have a Leader in Andrew Wilkinson who has shown demonstrably poor leadership in dealing with these issues.

If all of that was not bad enough, we now have a Zoom MLA retirement / roast of Ralph Sultan that has been posted extensively on-line showing MLA Jane Thornthwaite making sexist and suggestive accusations against NDP MLA Bowinn Ma. In the aftermath of this telling debacle the B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson was seen as a party to this retirement function and was seen laughing at the remarks by Jane Thornthwaite. An apology via Twitter from Wilkinson was all that was received until the day of the Leaders Debate. In the view of most, Andrew Wilkinson and the B.C. Liberals have clearly sent a message to the people of B.C., they are out of touch with today’s societal expectations – they are a dinosaur.

As I have said in earlier BLOG Posts, my decision to support the NDP and Megan Dykeman has not been made lightly but is being made in what I believe to be in the best interest of the Township of Langley and our Province. In my view, given the reality of politics in our province, a vote for the Green Party would be a vote for the B.C. Liberals. The reality is, regardless how you cut it, the Green Party cannot reach the numbers required to have any significant impact this time around on the political scene in British Columbia or our community.

A Vote for Megan Dykeman in Langley East is a vote for our community that will serve the Township of Langley well.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

To Respectful and Effective Representation…. For Langley East Vote for Megan Dykeman…. We are!

It is no-secret, over the best part of 45 years I have been actively involved in free enterprise politics. An activist, life member, Constituency Vice-President, President, Candidate and Provincial Convention Plenary Chair, an Alderman in Delta, and Mayor of the Township of Langley. Throughout my political life I thought I had seen everything – the good, the bad and the ugly side of politics – until we moved to Langley. A fantastic and great community, one that our family loves deeply, but a community with a sleazy political underbelly of political control that I have written about earlier on this BLOG. This cadre of power brokers has held us back in so many ways to benefit themselves. It is our time to turn the page, break loose and move forward in a positive way. Let us break free of the past deplorable political representation at the provincial level towards a progressive representative and political party that meets the needs of 2021!

I do not make my decision of support lightly, without very-serious thought and weighing what is in the best interest of our Province and our community! We need the strong visionary leadership of John Horgan as well as that of a very bright and compassionate individual, currently the Chair of our Langley School Board, Megan Dykeman who is proud to be part of Premier John Horgan’s NDP Team! Her background in leadership is extensive, impressive, and very worthy of being our MLA!

Megan is very qualified to represent you – An experienced leader who has served 6 years as Community Chair of the Langley Agricultural and Economic Advisory Committee and Chair of the Blueberry Cannon Taskforce. As a Trustee, she has also served on the Provincial Conflict of Interest Committee and various BCSTA committees, including the Finance and Audit Committee.

Active in her community, Megan is the President of the Langley Farmers Institute and the Parliamentarian’s Association of British Columbia. She is a founding “A” leader of ‘Otter Flying Feathers’ 4-H club, the first 4-H poultry club in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley in over 25 years.

While raising her two kids and running her business, Megan studied Farm Business Management at the University of Saskatchewan, completed her Bachelor of Professional Arts in Governance, Law and Management from the University of Athabasca, and obtained her Masters in International Relations from Macquarie University. Her thesis focused on food security, an international and local issue that she is passionate about. There is no question, she is very bright and articulate, a Provincial MLA we could all be proud of, someone who will fight for the Township of Langley’s present needs and its future!

While most of us will know and understand our past, with very polarized politics in British Columbia, there comes a time in my view where, regardless of left, right or center, bad government is bad government. Regardless of a particular philosophical bent, sometimes it makes abundant sense to stand against that bad government. A few key things have happened to change my mind in reaching our decision today.

Being very politically involved all of my life I have watched the progression of the B.C. Liberal Party since its inception and growth coming out of the 1991 election. I ran for Social Credit for Delta North in that election and know that transition very well, I will not regurgitate any of that here, possibly in a later Blog Post. My point is, I have been up close and personal with the growth of the B.C. Liberals from Gordon Wilson, to Gordon Campbell, to Christy Clark and now Andrew Wilkinson. Unfortunately, thanks to the likes of Gordon Campbell and then Christy Clark and their collective gang (a number still hanging around), the B.C. Liberal Party began to pull off a number of stunts. Check out the Tyee feature 117 BC Liberal Falsehoods, Boondoggles and Scandals over 16 years of governance.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/04/10/BC-Liberal-Falsehoods-Scandals-Whole-List/

I do not like who they are, what they stand for, the decisions they have made and their lack of any ethical standards? They have had a chance to rebuild and renew and they chose the route of “don’t worry the public will forget”. Our old Social Credit Party chose the same course of inaction – they are no longer in existence and rightfully so.

Then something happened, John Horgan was elected leader of the NDP. A group of us had a chance to have a 2-hour meeting with then candidate John Horgan in March of 2017, and I was very-impressed. In my opening introduction I stated – “Well hell has frozen over; Rick Green is in an NDP office”. Based on our meeting and conversation I felt he deserved a chance to form government. I am 74 years old and the 2017 election was the first time our family has ever voted NDP and I have to say we have not regretted that for one minute. Shocking to some, we have also donated to the NDP in each year John has been Premier. We will get into their record of achievement in future posts during this election.

An MLA must represent all of his or her constituents, regardless of who that may be. It should never be based on some kind of hierarchical ranking of citizens within their constituency, based on some kind of perceived inner circle. That is exactly how the Township of Langley has been controlled, for the best part of two decades.

With Megan Dykeman we will have an MLA who is deeply committed to serve all of our residents regardless of their position or who they are within our community. The Township of Langley deserves so much better and we have many needs that can only be delivered from our Provincial Government as lobbied and fought for by our MLA.

We believe Megan Dykeman is the only choice in Langley East to serve ALL of us in the Township of Langley in Victoria!

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.

Langley Politics has a terrible reputation province wide, and the Langley East Liberal Constituency Association and its past small cabal of leaders and hangers-on are at the center of everything political – Provincial and Municipal within the Township! All of this at our expense, do not believe me, the latest plus a few stories that should disgust all taxpayers.

We moved to Langley from Delta in 1997, bought our farm, our horses and settled into semi-retirement. A condition of our move, I stay out of politics. Free enterprise politically very active in Delta dating back to 1975 unelected and elected. The issues I uncovered in the Township after 10 years of living here changed all of that. There were about 9 major issues, so I started my campaign for Mayor, we worked for 1 ½ years and we won! Be careful what you ask for?

What I uncovered during the 2008 campaign and after our swearing in were bombshells, one after the other. I uncovered them through challenging staff with questions – from the Financial Boondoggle with the Langley Events Center, to numerous questionable development approvals, to landfill on agricultural land – there were many areas where those responsible should have been dealt with severely and legally; however it certainly didn’t take long to realize who most of those elected owed their election success to. I have written a lot about many issues, over 120 posts since 2013, so I will not get into any of that here. This is important, Mark Bakken, Township of Langley CAO, is Rich Coleman’s very-good friend, as told to me directly by Rich in Feb. of 2008! In that same meeting he advised me that “they were OK with the land sales that were going on”, I was making noise about them at the time. Do we have to say any more?

So, what is the real story behind the almost launched Eric Woodward BC NDP Campaign? The HIT job that just happened?

First, the announcement of Eric’s candidacy leaked out prematurely on Saturday which left everyone scrambling, nevertheless everything was quickly put together. The Langley East B.C. Liberals freaked out at their serious prospects of losing the Rich Coleman “FIEFDOM”! Everything was looking very-positive for Eric in this constituency that to-date has been considered the exclusive domain of one Rich Coleman! But they would not let that happen!

The just announced HIT job on Councillor Eric Woodward, is despicable by any measure. There is a Cabal of Fort Langley residents who have had it out for Eric Woodward for some time. It is no secret that I have published a few BLOG posts against Eric a number of years ago; having said that I also met with Eric a few times prior to the last Municipal Election and we had a good discussion about the Township, his ideas and his vision. Remember he did not support my campaign in 2011, however I was only interested in what he would do to help correct the ills of the Township. I liked what he had to say, endorsed him along with 4 other Councillors in this BLOG prior to the last election and in my opinion, Eric has performed head and shoulders above anyone else on Council, and he has only been there for two years.

I have to point this out – Prior to the last election and before I published any endorsements, I received very inflammatory statements and commentary about Eric of a personal and slanderous nature from a few in Fort Langley – and they know who they are. I would never entertain anything against anyone that is based loosely on rumor, gossip, and innuendo. I have been in politics too long and have seen what unfounded rumor, gossip, and innuendo can do. I was the target of a few of the same people directly tied to the Langley East B.C. Liberal Cabal (See below)! These people and their leader do not take kindly to threats to their power base.

The interesting part of this HIT job comes from those directly connected to the B.C. Liberals in the Township of Langley, non-other than Jordan Bateman (Liberal spokesperson with the ICBA, former President of Rich Coleman’s Constituency Association and now identified as the Treasurer of said Association) who has been spreading unfounded gossip, rumor, innuendo or suggestions against Eric Woodward with his media buddy contacts; in their effort to protect a fledgling new candidate Margaret Kunst and the B.C. Liberals in Langley East who was in clear trouble, potentially losing this previously safe B.C. Liberal seat and they knew it!

Through an endless number of Tweets from Jordan Bateman to all his media buddies and everyone political stating “there was a big reveal coming” and “just wait until the media finds out what the real story is”, you can see why Eric, due to past rumor, gossip and innuendo he faced in the Municipal Campaign, his responsible action was to withdraw. The reality is, due to a short campaign period, and what he has faced before which was spread by word of mouth, he could not effectively respond in such a short time frame to effectively correct any misinformation! While not appropriate at this time, I would be preparing a lawsuit for defamation of character if this ever raised its head again! Let us not lose sight of the fact that all of this is tied directly to the B.C. Liberals in Langley East, to deny this is to deny the facts.

The latest just in: (Mathew Claxton Sept. 28^th, 2020) Jordan Bateman in the Langley Advance Times sounding like he is still a spokesperson for the Langley East Constituency Association. “He filled out Liberal Nomination Papers” – really Jordan, that is the best you can do? Now given his track record of this whole saga I wouldn’t believe a word he says! But all of that aside, let me see if I have this straight – If I take the B.C. Liberals at their word and they didn’t want Eric as a candidate, they are coming unglued that he was going to run for another party? Really? So, in the face of that reality you go out and spread unfounded rumor, gossip, innuendo plus that infamous political line “if you knew what I knew or something similar” garbage. Absolutely despicable, there is no other word for it. You are a coward Jordan. If you have something to say go for it – let the chips fall where they may, and you will be seen for who you really are!

Further evidence, if we needed any, is laid out within the following issues that I experienced during my three years in the Mayor’s Office! I remember a candidate for Township of Langley Municipal Council in a Municipal Election past received a call from one Rich Coleman requesting he come in for an interview. What? Really? This is what is really happening, if you don’t fall in line you had better rethink your position!

Issue of interest – In 2010, I had numerous breakfast meetings with citizens throughout the Township. Through those meetings I was advised numerous times of a company called Brownshack Developments, with well-connected owners of the day. Per the Community Charter my responsibility was to keep members of Council informed which I did.

A meeting, no staff present, no accusations, the political HIT job commenced. A Complaint to the RCMP was made by Councillor Grant Ward (former RCMP) and Joel Schacter that I released in-camera information; it clearly was not. This resulted in over $150,000 in Township legal bills and $25,000 for me personally, defending myself. A 7-month RCMP investigation through 2 Crown Counsels and finally a Special Prosecutor, releasing his report 2 months before the 2011 election. I was cleared, but I paid a high price politically and financially. That was their plan!

Another Issue of interest – As published in my March 23^rd, 2013 BLOG Post, leading up to the 2011 election campaign, we received a thread of emails from a Realtor in Joel Schacter’s Real Estate Office which we found very-interesting. The full email thread is available on the above post so I will just highlight items of interest – This is just another example of interference for dubious reasons by those connected with the B.C. Liberal Langley East Constituency Assoc.!

1^st email – from Joel Schacter – Tuesday 11/15 2011 3:00 PM

“I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors…. they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out.”

He goes on to list all candidates for Mayor, Councillor and School Trustee that he recommends.

2^nd Email – The response from Glenn Duff (Then Langley Realtor) –

“It is likely, that most of the people in the office are not aware of your behind the scenes smear campaign against what I consider to be ………..a very intelligent, honest and fair guy who is being slammed by a bunch of self-serving idiots that have their own hidden agendas…..just like you do.”

“Are you scared of losing your inside connections to all of the Township and School Board real estate deals? Pretty easy to prove my point.”

3^rd Email – Further response from Glenn Duff (Then Langley Realtor) –

“Why is it, that you and Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken all hang out together and scheme about how to “take out” Green??  What is it really about Rick Green that has got your collected attention?”

“I was told a long time ago, to find the truth……. simply follow the money.”

“It seems however, that you have a lot more energy than me……… as I see various political figures in your office at the end of the day……….  You seem to be very-popular, so you should try closing your office blinds when nighttime arrives.”

In Summary:

The unfortunate part of this whole story is the charade that has been perpetrated on the residents of the Township of Langley.

I would suggest that the vast majority of those who take out a membership in the B.C. Liberal Party are just not aware of the ulterior motives of those in leadership roles. I understand that in everyone’s busy lives and basic trust that they put in the hands of those elected wonder, how can any of this be true? Why would anyone have such a lust for power and control?

In the world we are living in, and in the Municipality, we are living in, with our developable land base, trust me it is NOT a conspiracy theory! Quite frankly, it all makes me sick, we can only hope it has the same affect on the citizens of the Township of Langley in future elections.

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors, and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left-hand corner under recent posts.