B.C.

To indemnify, or not to indemnify…

It is a strange irony to read that Coun. Tom Gill, finance committee chair, is dipping into public funds to cover legal costs that stem from a defamation suit filed in 2010.

This despite recently announcing an increase in local taxes in order to, as Gill explained, shore up funds to propel capital projects forward. Ironic that, as tight as it is, there’s still room enough to take care of a loosely justified indemnity.

Gill’s defamation case is centred on remarks he made in regard to an altercation between Radio India owner Maninder Gill, also a relative of the councillor, and the suit’s plaintiff, Harjit Atwal.

In the last few paragraphs of the Vancouver Sun article by Peter O’Neil was a brief summation of the current legal scenario:

The statement of claim in the Surrey lawsuit alleges that the quotes in the article defamed Atwal by, among other things, alleging “that Harjit Atwal wounded Maninder Gill with a knife” during the incident.

That, in turn, “seriously damaged” Atwal’s reputation, caused him “distress and embarrassment,” and resulted in social and economic “damage.”

Tom Gill’s statement of defence alleges the full context of the article doesn’t support Atwal’s claim that Gill alleged a stabbing, and says Tom Gill made “fair comment” and spoke “honestly and fairly, based on true facts on a matter of public interest.”

The problem, however, isn’t the defamation allegation against Gill, which, from an objective standpoint, does appear weak.

Here is a link to suspected Surrey Leader edition Tom Gill’s alleged defamatory remarks surfaced in: Surrey Leader, Wednesday Sept. 22, 2010. (*Note: This is an assumption given context of the article and publication date).

The problem rests on the flimsy justification to indemnify Gill.

As written in The Province:

City solicitor Craig MacFarlane told the Vancouver Sun Tuesday that the decision to pay Gill’s costs is based on a bylaw under which the city indemnifies employees and elected officials “against claims for damages arising out of the performance of their duties.”

In what instance was Gill in the performance of his duty during the conversation between him and reporter Kevin Diakiw?

Answering the phone from the office doesn’t necessarily mean you’re conducting business in an official capacity.

The context of the conversation is the crux. One would hope answering questions in relation to a wedding altercation isn’t a part of an elected official’s portfolio of tasks.

Further, what is shocking, frustrating, even illuminating about all of it, is the arrogance of the local political establishment to act in such a blatant manner with little regard for transparency.

And is it any better that administrators made the decision, not elected officials who are beholden to the people whose money they intend to shell out?

MacFarlane was quoted in the same Vancouver Sun article linked above, as stating:

“There are no guidelines outside of the bylaw, and the decision (to fund Gill’s costs) is based on legal advice, which is privileged.”

MacFarlane also confirmed, as indicated in the Province article also linked above, that the decision to cover Gill’s legal costs was made by Surrey administrators, and not by members of council.

The wonder, then, is who looked to those administrators to weigh in on the decision to indemnify Gill? Taxpayers deserve greater clarification, most especially if it’s taxpayers footing the bill.

As the fiduciary component, there must be greater transparency afforded to the public, especially on the decision-making that made the public as such.

Even more, the advice of the administrative personnel involved has no direct affect on the defamation case itself, just the crucial aspect of representation and who covers the tab.

Furthermore, if it’s the people covering the cost, then the decision thereof is of public interest. And if our municipal government were open, transparent and accountable, it would release greater information over such a matter that so affects the public.

Certainly hiding behind attorney-client privilege seems too far reaching of a privilege when the public’s wallet is on the line and when it comes down to a decision of representation and not any particularities of the defense to be made against the suit that is before the courts.

Gill, as the client, ought to waive attorney-client privilege in a limited capacity, focusing solely on the decision to indemnify. After all, if the justification is not fragile it ought to stand up to scrutiny, and due scrutiny, for that matter.

Where the politics lie

Kevin Diakiw’s article, Hepner says new $100 levy was necessary, points to Surrey First’s diminished credibility by way of planning and governance and should make most Surreyites concerned.

“Unexpected costs” in government means officials are flying by the seat of their pants or those involved knew what lay ahead, but failed to admit so for whichever purpose, likely political gain. Perhaps it’s a dab of both.

Diakiw reported that Mayor Linda Hepner acknowledges a $100 levy was never raised by her party during the fall election, but the tax became necessary to maintain the city’s capital program.

This admittance is shocking and alarming on two related fronts.

One, though the levy may have been a necessary evil post-election, where was this information during the election, or before, especially in regard to the capital program now at its fiscal breaking point?

This could not have cropped up out of nowhere, and if it did, that’s worst. Are there “unexpected costs” around the corner in quarter three of 2015? What about for 2016?

On the second front, the willingness to hide the need of a tax increase in the wake of fiscal concerns spells well sown cynicism within the ranks of Surrey First.

CityCentre
Last May, it was reported that 30 new officers were to be added to the Surrey RCMP force in 2014. Those 3o additions were then stretched to demarcate additions over 2014-2015.

Nevertheless, twelve of those officers were already on the books, accounted for within the budget, while the other 18 additional were said to be covered as part of cost-saving measures.

Seven months later, post-election, council decided: cost pressures – primarily from the hiring of the RCMP – put the city’s aggressive capital program at risk. The paraphrased words of finance committee chair Tom Gill.

A jaw-dropping 180 degree turn indeed.

Diakiw further paraphrased Gill as stating that there were other cost pressures that came as a surprise, including a benefits increase for the RCMP and a pay increase for Surrey firefighters.

That is interesting, annoying and shocking all in the same length.

In Surrey’s Financial Plan 2014-18, council directed that the following be included:

  • Property tax increase equivalent to $44 per year for a single family dwelling and $203 per year for a business with an assessed value of $1.0 million;
  • A 3.0% or equivalent fee increase;
  • Third party contract increases (maintenance, software, etc.);
  • Salary, benefit and in-range salary increases;
  • Full year impact of four firefighters added in 2013;
  • Full year impact of twelve RCMP contract member positions added in 2013;
  • Operating funding for new capital buildings, such as the Guildford Pool, the South Surrey Art & Cultural Space and community improvements at the Newton Athletic Park; and
  • Support for Council’s key priorities such as Social Well Being, Surrey Energy, Sustainability and Crime Reduction.

Not only are the operating costs for new capital buildings accounted for, so are salary, benefits and in-range increases, as well as the cost of (four) firefighters and RCMP members. This, less than a year ago.

Yet it’s the public is to believe the cost pressures came as a surprise?

Who does the analysis and accounting for the city? Who does their research and report writing? And if in months time, the costs inflated to the surprise of the finance committee chair, then there’s greater concern, one of competence and clarity of role.

Though it’s not difficult to see why Local 1271 was so supportive of the Hepner regime:

Hepner further stated, in Diakiw’s piece, that there were more unexpected costs in relation to the acquisition of new pools, going as far as admitting she didn’t know it would cost $2 million to operate a pool.

It was stated in Surrey’s Financial Plan 2014-2018, that the projects identified in the General Capital Financial Plan section included changes to Newton Athletic Park, advanced design for a new Clayton Recreation Facility, completion of the Guildford Indoor Pool and continued construction of the Grandview Indoor Pool.

Yet, it took until last month for the mayor to suddenly catch wind that previously documented costs were in error, that $2 million in operating costs were ill-accounted for.

The question is why propose something, let alone move forward with a project, before you knew the full cost estimate of? A strange way of management. And as mayor and a government official, it’s baffling, but not surprising.

My eyes weep, for ‘competent’ and ‘truthful’ fare not as descriptors of our leaders, but as antonyms to the actions of their whims.

(Late) post-election impressions

“There are many residents of Surrey who have not been immersed in the mayoral campaign,” said Mario Canseco, vice president, public affairs at Insights West, pre-election.

It’s impossible to know what ran through every voter’s mind, but it was clear the Surrey First brand held up better than alright following its first election without its primordial leader.

Surrey First, again, dominates council.

Greater accountability, now. That caveat so missing from democracy is even more brittle with a council woven from a single thread. Granted, from councillors Gill on downward, personalities among Surrey’s council vary, but allegiance does not and that should be concerning as the city moves forward.

Greater accountability, that is, sooner consequences for political leaders who fail to achieve results is absolutely necessary to make local democracy more efficient and effective. And the best tool to keep politicians sharp arrives only every few years.

So what was strangely surprising was the reelection of another Surrey First slate, especially given the city’s failings in areas of crime, provision of public transportation and by-law enforcement, to name a few.

Certainly clear was that the voting public differs from the opinionated folks active on social media. Those posting to Facebook and tagging tweets with #SryElxn14 took the time to engage in the local scuttlebutt. Many others may have left the decision to what felt familiar.

Ever more evident, returning to Canseco’s remark, is that the elections last month, in Surrey at least, felt like a tale of two voters: those immersed and “the many” in stark contrast.