BARRON'S BRIEFS– by Larry Barron
Pinnacle Ridge Revisited: by Anmore resident, lawyer Larry Barron, November 14, 2011
"Around noon on January 7, 2009 an engorged stream emanating from the Pinnacle Ridge development above East Road surged down the hillside and through several properties causing significant damage to houses and acreages along East Road..." To read the full article Click Here
Fixing the Noise Bylaw: Mayor Anderson’s Shell Game
by Larry Barron on November 1, 2011
"I recently did a Freedom of Information Act request to the Village Hall regarding complaints from 2009 to the present on infractions of several bylaws, and according to the records there have been during that timeframe the following type and number:..." For the full article Click Here.
3.1. Elections Views - by Larry Barron
October 21, 2011
Does Heather Anderson know what a Legal Issue is?
This article references some boring legal letters, which can’t be avoided since the whole point is to let Anmore residents decide for themselves whether 1) Mayor Anderson really believed it when she claimed repeatedly that a response to a federal agency stating the Village’s position on ownership of the solar panels sitting beside the Village Hall “was not a legal matter” nor a “legal issue; or 2) the mayor took that bizarre position for crass political purposes.
On February 28, 2011 Michael Fisher of the federal government’s Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) sent an email to Village solicitor Chris Murdy regarding the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation (AREF) and the bank of solar panels currently sitting unused outside the Village Hall:
- "…I have drafted a letter (attached) stating that the Village has no liability for the debts of AREF and asking whether the Village, as owner of the land occupied by the solar panels, intends to contest the title. Either way, it is most unlikely that WD will do anything as we want to wind this up. We’ll confirm the outcome to keep it legally clear."
The actual February 28, 2011 letter from Michael Fisher to Mayor Anderson states:
- "In order to avoid any confusion over the issue, could you kindly confirm in writing whether the Village is willing to release its claim over the solar panels to WD?
- For your convenience, we attach a simple statement form and ask that you or the Village legal counsel confirm your intentions by ticking the relevant box and returning the document to us. Alternatively, a letter may be drafted dealing with the same issue.
…
- CONFIRMATION OF THE VILLAGE OF ANMORE
- o The Village DOES NOT claim priority as the solar panels erected by the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation were attached to Village property. As a result, WD may, with appropriate legal clearance, seek to remove the panels from the Village property at their expense.
- o As owner of the land on which the solar panels were installed, the Village DOES claim priority over the panels attached to Village property."
The letter was placed on the agenda of the March 8, 2011 regular council meeting. This was very unusual in that it is Heather Anderson’s invariable rule that legal matters are only discussed in closed council meeting. And since Council hadn’t had a chance yet to consider the letter, this was not a case of simply announcing in public a decision already made by Council. On March 23, Mayor Anderson confirmed the Village’s position in a letter to WD:
- "At the March 8, 2011 regular Council meeting the council vote was in favor of confirming that the Village of Anmore does not have any claim of ownership of these solar panels."
So it is beyond dispute that a legal issue was discussed and Council adopted a legal position at the March 8 meeting. Yet when a resident at that same meeting attempted to raise the matter of the lawsuit which led to the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw, suddenly the mayor returned to her usual rule about not discussing legal issues in open Council meetings. (The lawsuit, commenced against the Village on February 25, 2011, seeks damages based on Mayor Anderson’s alleged interference in the daycare tender bidding process.)
- Andrew Robertson (AR): "…This question concerns the letter from Avion-Multiplex over an action against the Village for damages which is now public knowledge.
- …that would put the claim between 65 and 97 thousand – albeit adjusted slightly with the numbers….
- Can you also disclose your exact involvement on the issue that has caused Avion-Multiplex to take legal proceedings against the Village? Thank you."
- Mayor Anderson: "Again, Mr Robertson, you are talking about a legal issue that I’m not prepared to discuss in public."
- AR: "That’s what I said – If you don’t wish to discuss it, can you at least advise your involvement in it?"
- Mayor Anderson: "My involvement in the legal issue?"
- AR: "Or your involvement which has caused Multiplex to start legal proceedings against the Village."
- Mayor Anderson: "No problem. I am the Mayor of the Village of Anmore and we are discussing a legal issue that I feel really uncomfortable talking about because legal issues are handled In-camera."
…
- Councillor Sedergreen (CS): "Yes Madame Mayor. Earlier on this evening, we discussed in open council a legal matter, the matter of the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation and the ramifications, the legal ramifications of that. How can you therefore say that another legal matter cannot be discussed at an open Council?"
- Mayor Anderson: "That was not a legal matter."
- CS: "Absolutely it was a legal issue Madame Mayor."
- Mayor Anderson: "How? They wrote us a letter saying do you have a claim and we said no we don’t."
- CS: "A claim, a legal claim what part of that is not legal?"
- Mayor Anderson: " We are clarifying that we never owned it. I don’t know why that would be a legal issue. We didn’t discuss it in legal terms."
- Councillor Palmer Isaak (Interrupting): "Actually if I can comment. I actually feel that this letter from Anmore Renewable, I’m sorry from Western Diversification is a statement specifying that they don’t have a legal, this is not a legal issue. This is their claim actually in a statement in that letter that they provided that this is not a legal issue that they are bringing forward to the Village. That’s the gist of the statement."
- Mayor Anderson: "That’s why it is on this meeting. Otherwise it is a legal issue and would go into In Camera. Thank you sir for your comments."
- Mayor Anderson: "name and address please":
- Larry Barron: "…my question – you don’t think this is a legal issue?"
- Mayor Anderson: "No, no."
Under the Community Charter, if the subject matter is litigation involving the Village or information subject to solicitor-client privilege, then the meeting may, not must, be closed to the public. I don’t know how things were done in Hal Weinberg’s day, but the current mayor’s mantra is that legal issues are only discussed in closed meetings.
In a surprise twist WD informed Mayor Anderson on May 16, 2011 that:
- "We have carefully reviewed the situation regarding the solar panels and advise you that given the location of the panels and the possibility of liens, charges and costs associated with the department taking title to the panels, we respectively decline to do so."
So what initially may have looked to the mayor like good news to announce to the Village did not turn out in the end. But the question remains: why did Heather Anderson choose on this particular occasion to depart from her usual practice and bring before an open Council meeting the letter from WD regarding ownership of the solar panels when it is clearly a legal issue? Did she want to make the news public for political reasons, and was prepared to put forward a ridiculous and frankly insulting assertion that this was not a legal issue? Or is it the case that Mayor Anderson really does not know what a legal issue is?
3.0 Elections Views - by Larry Barron
The Case of the Vanishing Trustees
In 2005 former mayor Hal Weinberg was the main force behind setting up a trust known as the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation (“AREF”) to promote renewable energy systems in small communities. The original trustees of AREF were Dr. Weinberg and 5 others, including 2 Anmore councillors. Funding mainly came from a $75,000 provincial grant and a federal Western Economic Diversification Canada (“WD”) grant of about $72,000. The funds were to be expended on feasibility studies and the purchase and erection of a tower for wind power and a solar panel array. The tower has since fallen down and the solar panels are sitting unused outside the Village Hall. Neither ever generated any power.
WD noted in December 2009:
- The 4 phases in the original project were discrete feasibility-study activities, related only by the recipient. As each phase was investigated, the phase was terminated if it proved not feasible. Wind power was not viable, support for a locally-based sustainable energy training centre did not develop, and run-of-river power had numerous barriers. The ultimate outcome of the project is a solar panel installed at the Village of Anmore town hall.
Michael Fisher of WD noted in August 2010:
- I visited Lake Buntzen to try to locate the wind tower that we partially paid for. That was not possible as it fell down well over a year ago and I confirmed that fact with a park warden called Norm.
The panels have never worked since being moved to the Village Hall and now sit idle. WD in March of this year estimated their value:
- The panels originally cost $17,493 although there were considerable additional electrical installation and foundation charges. It is likely that the current market value of used and installed solar panels is no more than 40% of the original cost – or $7,000.
This is despite the statement in Hal Weinberg’s Dec. 1, 2009 letter to Council on the occasion of his retirement as mayor that:
- The solar array is the only asset and has a replacement cost of $150,000.
The remaining assets of AREF are valued by the federal government at about $7000. Now what about the AREF debt? In his Dec. 1, 2009 letter to Council Dr. Weinberg noted:
- …WD alleges that by moving the solar array from Buntzen Lake to the Village Hall, the terms of the agreement were broken….
The Nov 22, 2010 Demand Letter from WD to AREF stated:
- …the Minister hereby immediately requires the Recipient to immediately repay the amount of $19,833 together with interest
The Mar 28, 2011 WD internal Memorandum from Michael Fisher to Phil Cappellini noted as well that:
- The electrical contractor was left unpaid when AREF ceased operations and the unpaid bill is $47,226…
So the remaining assets of AREF consist of solar panels which originally cost $17,493, and that the current market value is likely no more than $7,000; and debts totalling about ($19,833 + $47,226 =) $67,059; leaving a net amount owing of about $60,000 (assuming that $7000 was recouped from an actual sale of the panels).
The AREF trustees should have sold off the panels for whatever could be gotten, paid the two creditors on a pro-rate basis, and then wind-up (dissolve) the trust as they are permitted to do under Para. 3.1(m) of the Deed of Trust:
- In the event, in the opinion of the Trustees, of an impossibility or impracticability of continuation of this Trust, to wind-up the Trust herein created and to distribute the capital and income of the Trust Fund…
If this would have been done by the trustees at the time, those being Hal Weinberg, Kerri Palmer-Isaak and John McEwen, then this whole matter would have been properly put to bed before Dr. Weinberg’s retirement in December 2009. Instead they all shirked their responsibilities and purported to resign as trustees in September 2009, leaving WD to spend countless hours, meaning our federal tax dollars, chasing them to try to resolve the matter.
Reasons for the purported resignations:
On July 12, 2008, AREF’s charitable status at CRA was revoked, but Mayor Weinberg’s inaugural address on Dec 1, 2008 for the new Council gave no inkling of this. Rather:
- Finally, a comment on the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation….A Foundation has been set up with representatives from the public, Anmore and others and controlled by three Councillors of Anmore. Anmore is protected from any financial obligations…
Councillors Palmer-Isaak and McEwen in early 2009 became trustees of AREF alongside Dr. Weinberg. But as Mr. McEwen notes the duties were not heavy:
- …at no point did I ever attended (sic) an operating meeting in regards to this Foundation nor did I vote or sign any documents regarding this Foundation.
During the first half of 2009 the funding not only collapsed, but the trust actually went into the red. Mark Ferrari of WD explained the problem in March of that year:
- WD agreed to fund $120,000, or 55% of total estimated project costs of $220,000. The…total project costs were substantially lower at $141,005. As previously explained, government sources can only fund 90% of this amount ($126,905) , as per our contribution agreement. To date AREF has received $75,000 from the Province of BC as a grant for the project, and $72,760 from WD. Therefore the combined government funding of $147,760, or $20,885 more than what is permitted under your agreement.
There were several letters exchanged in the first four months of 2009 attempting to get around it through the assistance of the provincial government, and Dr. Weinberg was so stressed that in early April 2009 he sought intervention by Iain Black, the local MLA and government minister, through an email to his assistant:
- Here is the latest, please pass it on to Iain if necessary- I hope this can be resolved quickly because it is getting crazy and the whole Foundation will fall apart. Hal
On Apr 14, 2009 Lee Theissen confirmed the province’s position:
- I’m in no position at all to change the signed transfer agreement or to send a letter with an interpretation that is inconsistent with the agreement.
Five months later, on September 10, 2009, Mayor Weinberg and Councillors Palmer-Isaak and McEwen submitted their resignations as AREF trustees. And whatever their reasons were, it does appear that they abandoned ship without fulfilling their responsibilities as trustees to properly wind-up AREF.
The Purported Resignations as AREF Trustees
The Deed of Trust reads: 5.7 Resignation
- Any Trustee may at any time resign from the office of Trustee hereof on giving not less than thirty (30) days’ notice addressed to the other Trustees (if any), but if there be no other Trustee, then on the appointment of, and acceptance of such appointment by a new Trustee or Trustees in the place and stead of the resigning Trustee.
Since there were no AREF trustees other than Hal Weinberg, Kerri Palmer-Isaak, and John McEwen on September 10, 2009, then their resignations would only take effect “on the appointment of…a new Trustee or Trustees in the place and stead of the resigning Trustee.” There have never been any new trustees appointed.
It may be that these trustees ceased to be trustees upon the natural expiry of their appointed terms, which for Hal Weinberg would have been June 2011 (a 6 year term) and for Mr. McEwen and Ms. Palmer-Isaak sometime early in 2011 after 2- year terms.
Prior to that all three remained AREF trustees despite their purported resignations in September 2009. The legal (though not beneficial) ownership of AREF assets, including the solar panels outside the Village Hall, lay with these three people, but everyone trying to make sense of things was led astray that there were no AREF trustees to deal with anymore.
September 14, 2009 email from Howard Carley to Barb Steele at WD:
- This email is to advise that the Chair and the other two Council appointees to the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation resigned their seats on September 10, 2009 and that the terms of all the other members of the Foundation have expired.
Kerri Palmer-Isaak (in a note attached to the Dec 1, 2009 council meeting minutes) confused things further when she alleged that AREF had actually been dissolved:
- When the foundation was dissolved I merely resigned, not promptly, just in the normal fashion, is it possible to resign slowly?
Did she perform the impossible and resign from a foundation that had already been dissolved, or did she succeed in the equally difficult feat of resigning her authority and then dissolving the foundation? In fact, the actual council resolution from the closed council meeting of Sept 10, 2009 stated:
That Council allow the Foundation to dissolve.
But Council has no legal power to dissolve AREF since it was an irrevocable trust. (Deed of Trust: “6.1 Trust Irrevocable by Settlor”) Only the trustees can do that. And they cannot do it simply at the direction of Council. Once the mayor and councillors were appointed trustees, they had fiduciary obligations to act in the best interests of the trust (and even to the detriment of the Village if necessary – do you see the possible conflict?), and to exercise those obligations free of direction or order from the Village Council. So the resolution by Council to “allow the Foundation to dissolve” had no more legal impact than my passing a resolution at my kitchen table to allow AREF to dissolve.
And it is equally difficult to figure out why Dr. Weinberg would state in his Dec 1, 2009 letter to Council less than a year after the appointment of Councillors McEwen and Palmer-Isaak as AREF trustees that:
- The appointment of all the Foundation’s Board members has now expired.
The shenanigans continued into the following year. On July 2, 2010, Michael Fisher sent an email to Hal Weinberg:
- …I think the most valuable thing is if you could tell me who is on the Board of Trustees of the Foundation. To date the Village is denying any knowledge of the Foundation so you are currently our only “registered” contact as per the contract.
Later that same day Hal Weinberg replied:
- Currently the Council has not appointed any members to the Foundation and all of the previous members terms were up, or they are no longer on Council.
Again (for those nodding off), at that time neither Dr. Weinberg’s term nor that of his fellow trustees McEwen and Palmer-Isaak had expired. And the latter two are still on Council. Go figure.
Next week: AREF #2: Does Heather Anderson know what a Legal Issue is?
2.0 Election Views – by Larry Barron
The Issue that Poisoned Anmore Politics
2.1. Part 1 – Daycare Woes
September 19, 2011
2.2. Part 2 – The Anmore Secrecy Bylaw (Scroll down page)
September 20, 2011
2.1. Part 1 – Daycare Woes
The November 2008 municipal elections in Anmore were a watershed in that none of the four incumbent long time councillors sought re-election, so an entirely neophyte slate was elected. The resignation of Hal Weinberg a year later was as much a watershed. The current mayor, though having the benefit of long experience on Council, unfortunately appears to suffer the drawback of needing to personally control everything.
Two projects commenced by the long time mayor and councillors during the last Council term festered and erupted during the current term, diverting attention from environmental and fiscal concerns. The first, the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation (AREF), is more a sideshow best left for a separate column; the second, the daycare grant, is the issue that has poisoned Anmore politics and created lasting enmity among neighbours.
Sometime around 2005 there seemed to take hold among some Anmore residents both on and off Council the desire to build a community center and daycare. On August 31, 2005 the Anmore Youth & Community Services Society was set up with five directors including Heather Anderson, Holly Butterfield, Nancy Knauer, Deborah Laidler and Holly Koit. The society did some early fund-raising for the proposed daycare/community centre, and later applied to run the proposed stand-alone daycare. Councillor Piamonte’s opposition to both the stand-alone daycare project and Village funding of Linda Weinberg’s Anmore Garden Club, of which Ms. Koit is a prominent member, just might have something to do with her baying for a public airing of the offending words spoken by Mr. Piamonte after the conclusion of the July 20, 2011 special morning council meeting.
The last council created committees for building and operating both the daycare and community center; fundraising was commenced by the Anmore Youth & Community Services Society. The Daycare Committee was chaired by none other than Heather Anderson. Her Councillor’s Report in the October 23, 2007 Council minutes notes:
- Have been working with Karen Cobb on the information to bring forward our grant application for the daycare facility. Thanked Karen for her time and effort with regard to this grant application process.
On November 27, 2007, Council passed the following resolution:
- That Council supports the child care grant application for the creation of new child care spaces in the amount of $500,000 as prepared by Village staff.
On March 26, 2008, the Village entered into an agreement with the provincial government to receive grant funding in exchange for creating daycare spaces that would operate for at least ten years. The Council Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2008 state:
- Councillor Dunn reported that the Village of Anmore was presented with a cheque from the Provincial Government for the Daycare and Community Centre for a total of $499,500…The success was largely due to the efforts of Councillors Anderson, Councillor Vishloff and Karen-Ann Cobb.
It was envisioned by Council that the daycare grant would form part of the funding for a combined daycare/community center in Anmore. But in a referendum held in conjunction with the November 2008 municipal elections, Anmore residents voted by a 2 – 1 margin against a proposal to authorize the Village to borrow up to $1.26 million for a daycare/community centre in Anmore.
The 2008 election, seen in retrospect, threw the village into turmoil. The outgoing council had endorsed a combined daycare/community center with a cost approaching $2 million, the funding made up of the half million dollar daycare grant plus up to $1.26 million in additional funding by Anmore taxpayers. This was the capstone of both Dr. Weinberg’s long tenure as well as all of the veteran councillors, in particular its prime mover Heather Anderson. But it was overwhelmingly rejected by Anmore voters.
A whole lot of people in Anmore who voted in the November 2008 election thought the daycare/community center was dead and gone, at least for a while. They were surprised to learn shortly that this applied only to the community center. The daycare proponents were not prepared to let the provincial grant of $499,500 slip away so easily and determined to build it alone. So, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the Daycare Working Group was formed under the authority of the new council of which Heather Anderson was not a member. She was, however, one of the 11 members of the Daycare Working Group itself, along with Councillors Piamonte and Palmer-Isaak, and 8 other Villagers.
I am not an empath by profession, but let me guess how each side felt. The daycare proponents still saw half a million dollars remaining in provincial grant money earmarked for a daycare, regardless of the voters rejecting additional Village financing. With free Village land to build on, there is nothing to block the daycare going ahead on its own. Across the divide, though, the voters who rejected providing additional funding frankly distrusted the daycare proponents who assured them that the stand-alone version could be built without cost to the Village of Anmore.
As to the latter claim, the daycare naysayers were not comforted by the example provided by the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation. In his December 1, 2008 address to the newly elected council, Dr. Weinberg stated that “Anmore is protected from any financial obligations” regarding AREF. And in their infamous March 24, 2011 Letter to the Residents of Anmore, the members of the ruling clique make this assertion:
- Still, a few Anmore residents keep suggesting that the Village has an interest in the foundation. No one, outside of Anmore, has ever suggested that the Village is responsible for any debts of the foundation. However, it seems that the Anmore residents, who continually discuss this issue, want the Village to be legally liable for debts which are not the responsibility of Anmore taxpayers.
This view is contradicted, however, in a June 23, 2010 email by Michael Fisher, Senior Business Officer of Western Economic Diversification Canada, the federal government agency which provided a grant:
- This is an overpayment file – some $20,855 was over-advanced to the Foundation as the Recipient did not complete the project so when it stopped, they had received too much government funding (over the 90%) threshold.
- [AREF] is a wholly owned creature of the Village of Anmore and as a direct result of the fiasco over this project the Mayor and some councilors resigned and new ones elected. The file documentation appears to indicate that the Village is legally on the hook for any amount owed by the Foundation.
So, aside from their attempt to trash the Anmore Alternative News, Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte, the federal government, and yours truly, the assurances by the ruling clique about government grants with no strings or liability attached were not so reassuring. And when one went back and took another look at the terms of the provincial daycare grant, it was discovered that the possible liability to the Village had not yet been fully appreciated. The essence of the grant is that the Village gets $499,500 for operating a daycare for at least ten consecutive years. If it ceases operation at any time short of that, the Village must repay to the province a pro-rated amount of $49,950 for each year short of ten that the daycare fails to operate. And for each of the next ten years, $49,950 would have had to be added to the Village’s debt servicing limit calculation which, due to provincial law, would limit the amount the Village could borrow without seeking specific voter or provincial government approval.
The Ministry confirmed by letter on April 22, 2010:
- For clarification, if the child care facility ceases to be operational before meeting the 10 year operating commitment the Village of Anmore would be obligated to pay back a pro-rated amount of calculated on the number of months remaining in the 10 year commitment.
The additional cost to the Village is the land that the daycare would have been built upon. This is a prime piece of real estate that can now be used for other purposes by our couple thousand Village residents rather tied up exclusively for the thirty or so children that would be enrolled in the daycare. Nevertheless, in 2009 the new council, with Mssrs. Sedergreen and Piamonte in opposition, approved rezoning which resulted in Village land being set aside for a daycare. To those who thought that the daycare had been soundly defeated in the November 2008 referendum, this proved particularly disconcerting and confusing.
Newly-elected councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte came into office determined to restore fiscal soundness to the Village books. In addition to opposing Village liability for a daycare grant, they scrutinized the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation, a project championed by Hal Weinberg and funded by federal, provincial, and corporate grants. They scrutinized grants the Village traditionally handed out, including two of a minor nature to organizations in which Linda Weinberg was deeply involved, the Anmore Times and the Garden Club. They wanted proper documentation detailing how the grant funds were to be used and how the funds had been spent in the past.
Kerri Palmer-Isaak and John McEwen were on the opposite side from Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte on all of these funding issues. But the Anmore Times grant is only $3500 per year and the Garden Club another $1000, and if consenting to these grants would bring peace to Anmore, Mssrs. Sedergreen and Piamonte might have done so long ago. Nevertheless the memory of their opposition would still rankle such Garden Club stalwarts as Holly Koit and Linda Weinberg.
My own opposition to the Anmore Times grant was not so much money-based as a reaction to the one-sided attacks in that Village-funded publication immediately before and after Hal Weinberg stepped down in December 2009, which consisted of repeated calls from a few residents (who I will not dare all to name, hence no references to mark out or deny are seen) for the resignations of Councillors Piamonte and Sedergreen.
In this writer’s view, the daycare grant was the only issue that involved a large enough sum of money and deep enough well of emotion capable of causing the gigantic rift which split the village. There was so much hope invested by the proponents, and equally strident opposition by those concerned about the potential liabilities, that relations between the two sides became fractured and downright hostile.
And what was a family squabble about finances has been allowed to progress to the point where both sides would prefer a divorce. The mother, the daycare proponent, says that nothing is more precious than the children, and that all of the costs of their upbringing must be borne and accepted. All else is unthinkable, because a daycare in the neighbouring community is not the same as one next door, and in fact shows an outright disdain for the children in our community. “You don’t really love them.” The father very gingerly replies that, as much as he loves the children, there is excess daycare space in the neighbouring community and hence there are other priorities for the family finances.
Tough choices, but the functional family then proceeds to work it out amicably. This is not what occurred in our community. Heather Anderson had the unique opportunity following her mid-term election to bring the village together or further tear it apart. She could either exhibit the balance and openness necessary of a mayor presiding fairly over all interests coming before Council, with fiscal soundness being the primary benchmark; or she could partisanly push for the daycare, because she viewed it as truly important, and anything that stood in its way be damned. Part 2 tells the tale.
2.2. Part 2 – The Anmore Secrecy Bylaw
Heather Anderson was elected mayor on May 15, 2010 with a 77% plurality. She had an incredible wealth of experience in both Anmore and on Council; and as mayor she was now again the acknowledged leader of the daycare effort. It was natural then for Ms. Anderson to attempt to take the reigns of the Daycare Working Group (even though its co-chairs were Robert Tribe and Tracy Green). Since funding for a joint community center/daycare had been rejected by Anmore voters in the November 2008 referendum, it was now the task of the Daycare Working Group to determine whether a stand-alone daycare was feasible. The Working Group sought bids in the form of tenders for proposals that fit within the budget restrictions that relied mostly upon the daycare grant.
- …So I contacted Britco because I knew that their price initially on some informal discussions that some people in this community have had over the last year or so came in lower. And I was curious as to why their price was so much higher. So I talked – I had a chance to talk to Bruce Matkin who I think several people talked to over the course of the year. And said so, you know, what – before your prices seemed lower and now it was quite a bit higher and I’m wondering why that was….And we have a price from Avion….So what I want to do for my own purpose is give him the revisions and see what he comes up with as a price….
Avion Multiplex found out about the contact with Mr. Matkin, and in October the Village received a letter from Avion’s lawyer seeking damages from the Village for the mayor’s actions. And it was in her reaction to that letter that, in my opinion, the mayor really went wrong. As baby boomers like me will recall from both Watergate and Clinton-Lewinsky, it isn’t so much the office holder’s initial mistake that gets them into trouble, since we all make honest mistakes; the sin is the attempt at cover-up that follows.
Though the October 2010 letter from Avion’s lawyer was addressed to the Village councillors as well as her, Mayor Anderson chose to withhold it from them. Instead, without any forewarning or discussion with Council, the mayor had an item placed on the November 9, 2010 council agenda for the adoption of Policy No. 43 (which in January 2011 was re-codified as Village of Anmore Bylaw 507-2011, and which I like to refer to as the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw).
The ruling clique on Council passed Policy No. 43 on November 9. It stipulated that documents passed out at closed council meetings would be retrieved by staff at the end of the meeting. The effect was to deny councillors the ability to take documents with them to study further or to obtain independent legal advice on, even at their own expense, when they doubted the advice (if any) provided by the Village solicitor. So the mayor and Ms. Cobb in effect have carte blanche to look at confidential documents for as often and long as they like while councillors are permitted to do so for only so long as the closed council meeting lasts.
Not until a week after passage of Policy No. 43 were the councillors shown, at a closed council meeting, the letter from Avion’s lawyer. The mayor’s explanation for withholding all knowledge of the letter from the councillors for almost a month, from October 21 until November 16, and after the intervening passage of Policy No. 43 on November 9, is:
- After Councillor Piamonte told me that he would be out of town on November 2, 2010, Council determined that the next available date agreeable to everyone for holding this in-camera Meeting was November 16, 2010.
Ironically it is difficult to see what harm could be caused to the Village by the letter being released to the public. No actual tender figures were included in the letter. It was the mayor’s own act in contacting the high bidder in order to obtain a lower bid that created the potential liability to the Village and to her.
In early January 2011, my wife Mary Jane Atkins commenced a petition in BC Supreme Court, with me acting as her counsel, seeking to have Policy No. 43 overturned. That case was argued in mid-February, and the decision is still reserved. Legal action was actually commenced against the Village of Anmore (abovenoted) on February 25, 2011 by the bidder, Avion-Multiplex, based on Mayor Anderson’s alleged interference in the bid tender process.
- It is expected that the topics discussed in an In-Camera meeting will not be exposed to the public by any member of Council. However, some confidential information from these meetings has been given to some members of the public. In response to these concerns, Council passed a policy, and then replaced it with an amending bylaw, to try to maintain the confidentiality of these meetings.
Since it is assumed they are not referring to themselves, then the ruling clique must have been alluding to either or both of Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte as having leaked confidential information. My wife and I chose to reply in a mailout:
- In A Letter to the Residents of Anmore distributed March 24, Mayor Anderson and two councillors claim that the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw was passed because confidential information from closed council meetings had been leaked to the public.
- But when the time to prove this came on February 15 – 16, 2011, in the Atkins v. Anmore court case, neither Mayor Anderson nor the councillors were able to identify any instance of a leak from a closed council meeting. So that appears to be a smokescreen.
- Mary Jane Atkins alleged that the real reason for passage of Policy No. 43 (and the ensuing Anmore Secrecy Bylaw) in November 2010 was the mayor’s hurried attempt to hide an October 2010 letter from a lawyer for one of the bidders on the flawed Village [stand-alone] daycare project. The letter seeks money from the Village for damages allegedly caused by Mayer Anderson’s improper interference in the bid tender process.
- The court transcript confirms Ms. Atkins’ lawyer arguing that the real reason for instigation and passage of the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw was an attempt by Mayor Anderson to avoid personal and political embarrassment. The mayor did not want there to be any chance that the letter from the lawyer, damning as it was to her personally, would be seen by the public.
Meanwhile, returning to the autumn of 2010, it was becoming apparent by that time that a stand-alone daycare project would not work within the budget constraints. So at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention in Whistler during the last week of September 2010, the mayor’s apparent need to control everything came to the fore again. She deliberately excluded Councillor Piamonte (a Daycare Working Group member) from a meeting that she had arranged with the provincial minister to discuss options regarding the daycare grant, while ensuring that Councillors McEwen (not a DWG member) and Palmer-Isaak were able to attend.
The majority of the members of the Working Group did not support going forward with the daycare grant. This was made known in or about October 2010 when members each prepared their own recommendations. On November 9, 2010, supported by the other members of the ruling clique, Heather Anderson disbanded the Daycare Working Group. The mayor stated that she would henceforth be the “lead person” to “connect with the ministry” regarding the daycare grant.
On December 16, 2010, the mayor conceded for the first time that a stand alone daycare was not an option. Then the mayor and Councillors McEwen and Palmer-Isaak passed a motion to instruct staff to initiate discussions regarding the inclusion of the daycare in the Middle School.
Heather Anderson was at the centre of the daycare saga from beginning to end:
- as a councillor she took the lead in pursuing the grant
- once mayor, she assumed de facto leadership of the Daycare Working Group
- as de factor leader, she allegedly improperly interfered in the tender process for the daycare construction bids, for which the Village has now been sued
- she then disbanded the Daycare Working Group and unilaterally assumed the task of “lead person” to “connect with the ministry”
- when the Village was threatened in an October 2010 letter with a lawsuit for damages caused by the mayor’s alleged interference, and before showing the letter to any of the councillors, the mayor caused the passage of Policy No. 43. That policy and its spawn the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw prevent councillors from obtaining independent legal advice regarding documents revealed at closed council meetings.
What has the mayor’s fixation on the daycare issue cost the Village? If you’re wondering why there’s been no movement on environmental issues such as development permit process, revisions to the noise bylaw, overhaul of the OCP and Village finances, then look to the daycare and how the fixation of Mayor Heather Anderson and Councillor Kerri Isaak on the daycare issue has caused the ruling clique to focus on that issue alone to the detriment of all other significant Village business.
One can only pray, now that the village is assured of its own local daycare and there is not the concern of a possible $49,950 per year liability should it fail, that peace and healing will finally come to Anmore.
Heather Anderson gets the most credit for bringing daycare within the Village boundaries. But along the way crucial aspects of the mayor’s governing style and ability have come to light which reflect poorly upon her. She had a choice to make in, and an ability to crucially affect, how the neophyte councillors could or would come together as a cohesive group around the council table during the remainder of the council term from May 2010 through to November 2011. Would she exhibit the balance and openness necessary of a mayor presiding fairly over all interests coming before Council and always with a bow to fiscal soundness, or would she surrender to the temptation of preferring her own pet project because she viewed it as truly important to the community?
In the result the mayor disappointed. The capstone of her effort was nothing less than the alteration of the Council Procedure Bylaw to prevent councillors from seeking an independent legal opinion on important legal documents even if the Village solicitor has failed to provide one. And we still don’t know the outcome of the Avion claim.
So congratulations to Heather Anderson, Karen-Ann Cobb, Holly Butterfield, Kerri Palmer-Isaak and others who were instrumental in securing the daycare grant; congratulations to Chris Sedergreen and Mario Piamonte whose efforts saved the Village from a contingent liability of $49,950 per year for 10 years, and for freeing up a valuable piece of prime land in the middle of Anmore for future Village use; and congratulations to Mayor Anderson for getting the Village sued and for trying to hide the threat of it in the first place.
1.0 Election Views – by Larry Barron
1.1. Part One - The Election Bylaw and the Censure Vote
August 26, 2011
1.2. Part Two - The Voting Machine Bylaw and the Censure Vote
September 6, 2011 (Scroll down page)
1.1. Part One -The Election Bylaw and the Censure Vote
Karen-Ann Cobb is the Village of Anmore Corporate Officer, and she held that position in the autumn of 2008 as well. She took on the responsibilities at that time of being the Village’s Chief Election Officer. One of those responsibilities, naturally, was ensuring that each candidate met the basic candidacy requirements.
The election for mayor turned out to be a fiasco. Ken Juvik, a four-term councillor, ran for mayor against incumbent Hal Weinberg. Three or four weeks before the election, it was all of a sudden discovered that Mr. Juvik was ineligible (and had been all along) to sit on Council due to his employment by the Regional District. The time for new nominations had passed, so Hal Weinberg basically ran unopposed.
When Mayor Weinberg resigned unexpectedly a third of the way into his term in December 2009, there was disagreement between the four remaining Council members over who should be Chief Election Officer. Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte opposed using Karen-Ann Cobb, one reason being the failure to date of Ms. Cobb to accept any responsibility for the election fiasco which disqualified Mr. Juvik shortly before the 2008 election. The entire blame gets laid solely at Mr. Juvik’s feet. Councillors McEwen and Palmer-Isaak saw no problem with Ms. Cobb. In the end the provincial government appointed an independent Chief Election Officer.
In March of this year, it was time to select a Chief Election Officer for the November municipal election. The ruling clique of Mayor Anderson and Councillors McEwen and Palmer-Isaac voted to use Ms. Cobb again, over the objections of Councillors Piamonte and Sedergreen. We were all assured that Ms. Cobb knew what she was doing.
On the afternoon of July 8, a Friday, the agenda for the July 12 meeting of Council was posted on the internet, and it contained the text of a proposed new Anmore Election Bylaw. The big change was that the new bylaw made provision for the use of voting machines in Anmore. This was the first time that Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte learned of an election bylaw in the works, or any reference to the use of voting machines in the Village election. We do not know when Mayor Anderson and Councillors Palmer-Isaak and McEwen learned of it. Councillor Piamonte was censured in trying to find out, but more on that later.
By virtue of provincial requirements, any changes to election bylaws this year had to be passed by August 8. On July 12 after little discussion, mainly because no one had a chance to research the issue, the ruling clique of Mayor Anderson and Councillors McEwen and Palmer-Isaak gave the bylaw 1, 2 and 3 reading, all at the one meeting. They could not pass it into law at that point because provincial law requires at least a day between final reading and adoption of a bylaw.
Even though Council still had until August 8 to meet to adopt the bylaw, and could have set it for any evening between July 14 and August 8, for some reason the ruling clique chose to set a special Council meeting for 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday July 20, just 8 days after the July 12 meeting. This is only the second daytime open Council meeting going back through at least 2004. Perhaps due to the strange and inconvenient timing of the meeting, only one member of the public, Donna Webber, was in attendance. By this time, though, Councillor Piamonte in particular, with much aid from distinguished Anmore resident Elaine Willis, had contacted several smaller municipalities in BC to find out how they were dealing with the voting machine issue.
At the July 20 meeting Councillor Piamonte voiced concerns that in a polling of like-sized communities Harrison Hot Springs, Bowen Island, Lions Bay, and Cumberland all have no intention of using voting machines; the only one that does is Chase, but it is going to cost $2000 more than the normal budget.
The $3900 cost of renting the machines is, according to Village CAO Howard Carley, about the same as the cost of hiring people to count the ballots. This may or may not be true; the problem is that there was no adequate opportunity to confirm the accuracy of this assertion in the short time between staff first revealing the draft bylaw in the Council meeting agenda published July 8 and its passage on July 20. One is puzzled by the race of the ruling clique on Council to pass the bylaw just 12 days after it first was introduced to the public and Councillors Piamonte and Sedergreen, at a meeting at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday when most residents were unable to attend.
In any event, when Mario Piamonte asked Ms. Cobb why Council had not been informed earlier of the intended bylaw, she replied that Mr. Carley knew about it. It was then that Mayor Anderson jumped in and accused him of harassing staff. Check out the report on this by Todd Coyne in the Tri City News. Although Councillor Piamonte attempted to find out why Council, or at least he and Dr. Sedergreen, had been entirely left out of the loop, he was unable to overcome the mayor’s tactics and, since she chairs the meeting and is unswervingly supported by Councillors McEwen and Isaak that was the end of that.
Except that, immediately after the ruling clique managed to shut down the meeting, Councillor Piamonte apparently rose and uttered an epithet reflecting his view of the manner in which his inquiries had been so bluntly blocked. Ms. Palmer-Isaak, fearing that 5 foot 7 Mario Piamonte would do physical harm to Heather Anderson (who outweighs him), and regardless of the presence of 6 foot 10 John McEwen, felt it necessary to involve the RCMP.
The adults in Anmore are still waiting for some basic accountability. Back in March of this year Villagers were assured by the ruling clique that Karen-Ann Cobb knew what she was doing and was a suitable Chief Election Officer. Yet a controversial new Election Bylaw is suddenly introduced and passed in just 8 days, and one naturally asks: why was it necessary to rush it through on a weekday morning in just the second daytime open Council meeting on record going back through 2004?
Whether or not Councillor Piamonte was potty-mouthed at the end, why couldn’t and why won’t the mayor explain who was at fault in leaving it so late: was it Ms. Cobb and Mr. Carley in not alerting Council to it, or did the mayor know about it and neglect to inform Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte? If it was the fault of the administration, then measures should be taken to recognize and correct it. If it was a communications problem between the mayor and Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte, then that should be addressed.
But rather than attempt to address these issues, the Anmore ruling clique decided it was more pressing to teach Councillor Piamonte a lesson. And that is how, at the following meeting of Council on August 9, and just before election season, a censure vote was passed for the first time in the history of Anmore.
But is this a lesson well taught, Madam Mayor? The ruling clique may think that their censure vote makes Councillor Piamonte look silly, when in reality it reflects on the entire village.
What true lessons can we draw from this?
1) The ruling clique on Council can move at lighting speed when it wants to: just 8 days from introduction to passage of the Election Bylaw. You might wonder, then, why we still do not have a construction noise bylaw with some teeth, even though the ruling clique promised this a year ago;
2) You might also wonder why we still do not have a development permit process bylaw to provide more effective control over both small and large land alteration in Anmore, even though the ruling clique has controlled Council since Heather Anderson was elected in May 2010;
3) If you are satisfied with the way things are going at Anmore Village Hall then re-elect Heather Anderson, John McEwen, and Kerri Palmer-Isaak, the three members of the ruling clique.
Next week:
a) the close family ties of Heather Anderson and Kerri Palmer-Isaak to prominent Anmore developers,
b) the continuing problems at the Mossom Creek Hatchery due to siltation and contamination resulting from development run amuck. Heather Anderson’s position, as of August 23, is that the Village has done all it can do to help Ruth Foster and the hatchery. In fact, according to the mayor’s email of that date, “there has been no reason to put this issue back on a Council agenda.” Is that good enough?
c) an introduction to the lawsuit in which Donna and Rick Webber are suing the Village over alleged irregularities in approval of Hal Weinberg’s development of his property next to the Webbers. Mr. Carley, the Village chief approving officer for the development, worked hand in hand with Mayor Weinberg for the better part of two decades at the Village Hall.
1.2. Part Two - The Voting Machine Bylaw and the Censure Vote
Holly Koit expresses continuing interest in the censure vote, so let’s continue there. The censure vote was passed as a result of alleged actions by Mario Piamonte at the Special Council Meeting held Wednesday, July 20, at 9:30 a.m. to pass the Anmore Election Procedure Bylaw, so the two are inextricably linked.
The Voting Machine Bylaw
The facts:
- the election bylaw, which I will hereinafter refer to as the Voting Machine Bylaw, was first made known or available to the councillors and the public on the afternoon of Monday, July 11, at about 4:08 p.m.
- the ruling clique of Heather Anderson, Kerri Palmer-Isaak and John McEwen voted in favour of the bylaw on its first, second, and third readings, all at the July 12 Council meeting about 27 hours later. They could not give it final reading and passage that night due to provincial law.
- rather than set the matter for passage in two weeks’ time, on the usual Tuesday night at the usual 7 p.m. (or on any weeknight up to August 8), the ruling clique instead chose to set a Special Council meeting for the morning of Wednesday July 20 at 9:30 a.m., only the second daytime meeting of Council going back to at least 2004. Only one member of the public managed to attend.
- the main issue addressed in the bylaw is the use of voting machines in Anmore for our approximately 1320 voters (of which perhaps 60% would actually vote). The cost to use the intended two voting machines is $3912.
- neither Ms. Cobb nor the ruling clique has ever questioned the accuracy or reliability of people counting the ballots at Anmore elections in the past, or pressed the need for more reliability in the future.
- the only reason given in the July 20 transcript by Ms. Cobb (or anyone) for passing the bylaw is to make the vote counting quicker:
Karen-Ann Cobb: Actually it started at the last election when we were down at the school and I had the school board people, school district people wanting to know why we were still using the gym at 10:00 at night when everybody else was gone and gave us supreme I don’t know what... and, so that started me thinking along that line.
- whether any money would be saved, or whether it would actually cost more, by using voting machines rather than people counting the ballots appears to have been irrelevant to the ruling clique:
Councillor Piamonte: Has any...have you been able to give us a quantification of the amount of money that would be saved on staff pay for not having to do the counting of the…
Karen-Ann Cobb: Not yet, no. I have not yet had the opportunity to do so yet.
Despite this lack of information, the ruling clique passed the bylaw. Before they passed it, though, Councillor Piamonte managed to ask why it had taken until July 12 to inform Council of the voting machine bylaw in the works, and Ms. Cobb replied that she was “busy trying to get caught up with other things”, and “trying to find prices and a contractor”, and that “Howard was well aware of what was going on.”
So Ms. Cobb is swamped and a bylaw is late getting drafted. This is not unusual since everything of importance (other than required financial/funding bylaws) has been put on hold over the past year and a half as the mayor and Ms. Cobb and Ms. Palmer-Isaak focused on the fatally flowed Anmore stand-alone daycare center (with the mayor getting the Village sued) to the seeming exclusion of all else. But was Council even informed that a voting machine bylaw was in the works?
Councillor Piamonte: But why was it done in isolation, without anybody in council, I assume nobody in council knew about this.
Karen-Ann Cobb: Umm...I can’t answer that…I have no comment on that.
And, before Councillor Piamonte had a chance to say a single further word to Ms. Cobb, the mayor cut him off, berated him, and continued:
Mayor Anderson: Excuse me…you’re... you’re in my opinion, you’re harassing our staff.
Councillor Piamonte: I am not harassing staff.
Mayor Anderson: Yes, I said in my opinion, you are harassing our staff.
Councillor Piamonte: Everything I am asking is germane to my rationale for why I am voting against it. I would like to be able to finish my questions, and then tell you why I am voting against it. And I don’t think it is right for you to interrupt and tell me that I’m harassing. I’m asking questions that are very germane to why I’m voting against it.
Mayor Anderson: No, you are, you are harassing our staff and suggesting that something...
Councillor Piamonte: No, I didn’t suggest (inaudible).
Mayor Anderson: ... is underhanded or behind the scenes was occurring when that was not the case at all. She told you what, how it came about; she gave you the background and you are pushing it to a point where you are trying to make it look like somehow this is some sinister plot to do something to the election....
And in this way the mayor protects her own butt and let’s Ms. Cobb take the heat, even while purporting to defend her. The mayor could have simply stated whether or not she knew beforehand of the voting machine bylaw, and if so then defend why she neglected to inform the councillors; but rather she chooses to deflect the issue back at staff by accusing Councillor Piamonte of harassing them.
And if someone has the audacity to question why the ruling clique is rushing to pass the voting machine bylaw before Karen has had the opportunity to provide a quantification of how much money would be saved or how much more it would cost to use voting machines instead of people counting the ballots, they are accused of “trying to make it look like somehow this is some sinister plot”. So, assuming there is no plot:
1) why the need for the rushed passage at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday, a full 17 days before the deadline?
2) why was it considered unnecessary to await from Karen a “quantification of the amount of money that would be saved on staff pay for not having to do the counting” before the ruling clique rushed to pass the bylaw?
3) did the mayor have advance notice of the bylaw, and, if so, why did she keep this knowledge from Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte, leaving them just a matter of days to investigate and consider the merits of the bylaw?
But the mayor will answer none of these questions, in effect leaving the spotlight to shine upon Ms. Cobb and her to twist alone in the wind.
The Censure Vote
When the ruling clique decides to cut off discussion, vote on the bylaw, and end the meeting, there is not much that Councillors Sedergreen and Piamonte can do about it. The “question” below is the vote on the bylaw, which passed 3 – 2.
Councillor Palmer Isaak: Call the question.
Councillor McEwen: Call the question.
Councillor Palmer lsaak: Call the question, I’m done.
Mayor Anderson: All those In favour? Opposed?
Councillor Palmer lsaak: Move to adjourn.
Mayor Anderson: I vote in favour…it carries.
This was the denouement to the stonewalling and accusations of harassing staff that were visited on Councillors Piamonte and Sedergreen on the morning of July 20, with only one member of the public to bear witness. After the abrupt ending, Mario Piamonte, outraged, uttered some angry words. Kerri Palmer-Isaak decided that the police needed to be called, but on what basis?
 |
Mayor Anderson
|
|
 |
Councillor Piamonte
|
|
Mr. Piamonte was angry but never threatened to harm anyone. The mayor is a substantial physical presence herself, and by her side was 6 foot ten John McEwen. It’s difficult to imagine either Ms. Palmer-Isaak or the mayor really thinking that Mr. Piamonte would track them down and harm them later. Or maybe the purpose was (the mayor being of delicate disposition) to have him charged with swearing in public. Or (and I’m not saying that she told me it was) could it have been a pre-election stunt?
For Holly Koit’s benefit, and in response to her continuing curiosity on the subject of “whether the police being called in and the subsequent censuring of Councillor Piamonte was indeed appropriate”, the founding editor of the Anmore Alternative did some digging. Although we could not find a previous case of an Anmore Councillor being censured, Dr. Burton did locate a court decision regarding the last sitting Anmore Council member who police were called in to investigate as the subject of a complaint.
As the trial judge relates, it was late on a warm mid-summer afternoon on the last day of July, 1993 when Cst Daniel Smith of the Port Moody Police drove up Eaglecrest Drive off Sunnyside Road searching for a stolen Corvette. After some distance the pavement ended and the road became dirt.
As he entered the dirt portion of the road, dogs came out and barked at the car such that the officer closed his window in expectation that the dogs would jump up at him. He radioed that there were dogs "that hate people" so he wouldn't be getting out of his car. He continued along the dirt road until it was impassable and apparent that the Corvette could not have come that way. He turned the marked police vehicle around and headed back towards Eaglecrest Drive . As he approached the residences still on the dirt road, his path was blocked by a backhoe that had been placed across the road in the two minutes that it had taken for the officer to drive up and turn around. There was no way around the backhoe. Constable Smith radioed the other officers that "some joker [was] trying to block me in with a backhoe here" and asked for another car to help. The plaintiff, Harry Anderson, was standing beside the backhoe.
Mr. Anderson, holder of a large chunk of Anmore real estate, had, moments before, heard his dogs barking and a car going up the road, and decided to teach the driver a lesson.
[10] Firstly, Harry Anderson was one of the original creators and aldermen of the Village of Anmore. He had been on council since inception of the village in 1987 after a struggle to keep the village separate from the Municipality of Port Moody…
[11] Secondly, Mr. Anderson had trapped people going up his private road before, at least eight times, and had called the RCMP three or four times. He considered that if a person trespassed knowingly on his property, he/she could suffer the consequences. He assumed that anyone who went onto the property knew that it was private because of the sign. He would hold their car depending on their manner, whether they were "winners or losers". This made them leave their car and walk to the nearest phone some distance away.…Harry Anderson told the constable that he was going in for supper and walked away.
…The officer said that he asked Mr. Anderson to remove his machine because he was searching for a vehicle involved in a police pursuit. The plaintiff refused to move the vehicle and Constable Smith told him that if he did not do so, he would be arrested. This was repeated twice. The plaintiff still refused to move the machine and told Constable Smith to call his boss.…The watch commander replied: "Arrest him for obstruction"…
[14] The plaintiff…said that he walked away because the police officer would not answer the simple question of what was he doing on Anderson's private property. This placed the officer in Mr. Anderson's "loser" category…
[16] Constable Smith said that as he got out of his car, the dogs came charging at him and he sprayed one of them with pepper spray…The plaintiff continued to walk away. Another dog came after the officer and he also sprayed that animal. He again told the plaintiff to stop as he was under arrest. The plaintiff still continued to walk away...Constable Smith said that he then told Mr. Anderson that if he did not put his hands behind his back, he would use mace…
… after the first spray, he walked another few feet, struggling to get to the house. …Constable Smith thought that the accused was struggling against him and feared that he would be unable to get the second handcuff on. He pushed Mr. Anderson to a bobcat parked nearby and sprayed again from very close range in the face. Constable Smith then managed to handcuff Mr. Anderson to the bobcat.
…
[22] By the time other police officers arrived at the scene, eight minutes had elapsed from the time that Constable Smith entered the private road. The dogs were still barking and milling around such that one police officer used pepper spray against a dog near his door that bared his teeth. Mr. Anderson was untied from the bobcat, handcuffed behind his back, and removed to a police van. He told his wife to call the mayor.
In the result, Mr. Anderson was convicted of resisting arrest. He then sued Constable Smith and the City of Port Moody for damages for “nervous shock and personal injury from the incident.” After a 12 day trial that claim was dismissed.
The original incident took place on July 31, 1993 and Mr. Anderson’s criminal conviction occurred at the conclusion of trial on May 17, 1994. He did not run in the November 1993 elections for Council, but his daughter Heather did. She then served uninterrupted on Council until 2008, when she did not seek office again until the mayoral by-election of May 2010.
Harry Anderson, and no one doubts the spine of a man who nonchalantly turns his back on an angry police officer, must surely be wondering what it has come to when a councillor is censured for uttering a few naughty words after a council meeting.
Heather Anderson comes from an old Anmore family with large local land holdings, a long history on Council, and an apparent sense of entitlement to be left to run things as they see fit. One might want to consider this when trying to figure out why (besides her time-consuming and costly pre-occupation with the boondoggle stand-alone daycare project) she has been so lax in pursuing the passage and implementation of 1) a construction noise bylaw with some teeth, and 2) a comprehensive development permit process for the Village of Anmore.
Election Views – by Larry Barron
0.0. Introduction - The Upcoming Election
Municipal elections for Anmore take place on Saturday, November 19, 2011.
Residents will elect a mayor and four councillors for a three-year term. The main issues facing the Village of Anmore are 1) the fiscal position of the Village, and 2) development-related issues such as the permit approval process and giving noise/nuisance bylaws some teeth for enforcement.
The last general election for mayor and Council took place in November 2008. At that time Hal Weinberg was re-elected as mayor; the four councillors are Mario Piamonte, Chris Sedergreen, Kerri Palmer-Isaak, and John McEwen. In December 2009 Hal Weinberg resigned as mayor under mysterious circumstances, and in May 2010 Heather Anderson was elected as mayor.
At the time of this writing, I assume that Ms. Anderson will run again, and that Councillor Piamonte will challenge her for the mayor’s chair. Dr. Sedergreen is not expected to run again. I assume that Ms. Palmer-Isaak will run for a Council position; Mr. McEwen is a mystery.
In January 2011 my wife, Mary Jane Atkins, commenced a lawsuit against the Village of Anmore, with me acting as her counsel, alleging that Mayor Anderson caused the passage of the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw in November 2010 as an attempt to hide an October 2010 letter from a lawyer for one of the bidders on the flawed Village stand-alone daycare project. The letter seeks money from the Village for damages allegedly caused by Mayor Anderson’s improper interference in the bid tender process. The bidder has commenced a lawsuit against the Village which is still unresolved.
During the course of preparing the petition challenging the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw, I had occasion to review all of the minutes of open Council meetings that are available to the public. Those posted online go back to 2004. In addition I have closely followed Council proceedings as they have unfolded since Hal Weinberg’s resignation in December 2009. I have had personal interaction with the current mayor and all of the councillors, as well as the Village administrator Howard Carley, the Corporate Officer Karen-Ann Cobb, and the Manager of Public Works, Tim Harris. I am familiar with the issues of which I intend to write.
This is an introduction to a series of articles regarding Village issues and politics which is intended to run over the next three months leading up to the November election. The content and opinions expressed are entirely my own; whether the majority of Village residents agree with them will, I suppose, make itself evident in the November election results. Intended topics include:
1) development permit bylaw passage;
2) noise/nuisance bylaw revision and enforcement;
3) lack of adequate Village financial reserves, and the fiscal responsibility of Village elected officials and senior staff;
4) a dissection of the fatally flawed Anmore stand-alone daycare project;
5) the status of the Anmore Renewable Energy Foundation;
6) the Anmore Secrecy Bylaw;
7) an analysis of the records of the candidates for mayor and Council, as well as the close family ties of Mayor Anderson and Councillor Palmer-Isaak to local developers;
8) the rival factions on Council, including the ruling clique of Mayor Anderson and Councillors Palmer-Isaak and McEwen;
9) the supposed need to pass the Anmore Election Bylaw on Wednesday July 20, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in the morning, when most residents could not attend, at only the second daytime open Council meeting on record back to 2004; and
10) the puzzling censure vote of Councillor Piamonte arising from the July 20 meeting, and instigated by Mayor Anderson against her expected rival for the mayor’s chair just before the kickoff of election season.
To my fellow Villagers, thank you in advance for having an open ear!
