“Dear Peter, Peter and George
In the September 9, 2017 SSI incorporation Referendum campaign I took the position that the goals sought though Mayor-o-cracy were, virtually all, achievable through changing the Trust. This does not mean that I deem all of the goals of the YESS group who fought the battle for Party-o-cracy, desirable or adequate to answer the grievances brought up for resolution by that referendum.
On or about 2010 I was advocating reconsideration of the Trust with the Zero basis method, Starting from Scratch, if you will. After studying the Trust in the interim, I still believe that the Zero basis procedure is superior to its alternatives in this instance. In the aftermath of the Referendum, a consensus emerged that the Trust is in need of a serious transformation to a form compatible with our modern times.
Elated as I am at the consensus we now have to change the Trust, I am mindful that we are not uniformly minded on the need for a Zero-basis re-design. Many of us believe that the Trust is “patch-curable”, “heal-able”, if you will, and, methinks they may be right – judiciously chosen and adroitly done repairs may prevent reconstruction and this may be good, on balance. In any event, it is imperative that the voice of the people be given an outlet. It is my considered suggestion that for this we need the “Ideas Bank”. Doing it will energize Democracy and enable the evolution of the best possible solution to the problem of Trustnformation we face.
The Trust is claiming for itself the facility to control the reform process, as if it their right to decide the government we, the people, are to be allowed. I am used to Trust’s arrogance, I have been fighting it since 2009 and have the scars to show. This must be averted for the reasons encapsulated in the principle that a local government must be designed and decided by the “locals”. Indeed many of the reasons compelling us to do the Trustnformation are traceable to the Trust having been imposed on us – it is this that has arguably resulted in the failure of the Trust to compensate for its “illegitimate” genesis, which, if it had happened, would likely have averted the incorporation referendum.
Now, aware of the unavoidable Trustnformation, the Trust, seeks to do a self-reform job, or at least to take control of the process. Feeling their lack of public trust, but lacking what it would take to refrain from repeating what has resulted in the need for the referendum and the Trustnformation, they are making noises about soliciting public input to their self-reform event. But this they have been pretending doing all along in the past, every time they were out to placate people to inaction. My recent book, “RAR – Czarism in SSI” contains heaps of irrefutable evidence of the Trust’s strong aversion to public input and its propensity to suppress information the spreading of which would impede conducting itself Czarismatically.
Doing the Ideas Bank now would benefit the Trust considerably for it would signal to us a Trust’s will to depart from arbitrary conduct and show us it understands the need for Change.
On that background I am asking you, the Chair and the members of the LTC, to do an ad-hoc Ideas Bank, custom-designed to facilitate the Island’s “Trustnsformation Fascination”.
The Ideas Bank concept is well known to the Trust for I have been proposing it to them since 2009. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with it, I will outline it succinctly:
The Ideas Bank is a society-wide Forum for the people to communicate with their fellow citizens and with their government. Through it, citizens showcase their ideas by right, meaning without need for licence from anyone, as free people do, bound only by provisions enacted into the Laws of the Land by the Parliament and the Legislature.
In a sense, the Ideas Bank enables and popularizes the “Right to Publish” and secures for the society a “Free Press”, the importance of which is gauged by the Mass Media moniker “Fourth Estate”. Instituting the ideas Bank will curb, hopefully eliminate, the surreptitious suppression of Free Speech done by exclusion of people from the fora of society.
Submissions to the Ideas Bank are to be in writing, accompanied by a 30 (or so) words “Abstract”. It is the Abstract that will be showcased on the Ideas Bank’s window. This will be linked to the whole paper it appertains to and which will be stored in the vaults of the Ideas Bank to be readily produced by a Click on the Link. There are a host of other aspects to the concept, an important one being that it is self-evolving, and will self-destruct if it misbehaves or becomes redundant, all been in the nature of it – for it cannot prevent criticism and must welcome ideas affecting even its own fate.
I have been proposing to the Trust the Ideas Bank for several years by now. It did not materialize because the Trust could suppress my submissions about it, and this they did with a vengeance. But they could not have done this in the presence of the Ideas Bank. Hence the need for it.
My long standing offer to help the Trust to institute the Ideas Bank continues intact.
I am asking you to embed the Ideas Bank in the Trust, even if only in the SSI part of the Trust website. At least, institute an ad hoc “branch” of the Ideas Bank dedicated to ideas about reforming or restructuring the Trust, or even leaving it alone, for that matter.
Ah!, I almost forgot! Doing the Ideas Bank, would make palatable the Trust leading the Trustnformation process and will help the Trust make its position on the change listened to and considered fairly by the people. I for one would not hold back trusting the Trust, if it institutes the Ideas Bank, which manifests my faith in the potency of the concept.
I will welcome your response at any time it may come, but if I do not get it before Sunday, October 15 lapses, I will proceed as if you have answered my appeal in silence.
Wishing you a nice Thanksgiving,
Conscientious objector the Trust being imposed upon us”
Thanks for your e mail. You will be pleased to know that staff are already looking at what changes, if any, can be made in order to strengthen the Trust and better serve the islands. They will be reporting to the Executive and to Trust Council. Zero based planning is always a good idea and I will be interested to see what they come up with.
We have certainly considered the Ideas Bank. The difficulty is administration. Bare in mind that changes to the IT act will be difficult to realize so we must be focused on a narrow band of ideas to put before the Ministry
“Dear Peter, Good Day
I received your message and I have serious issues with it. In a nutshell it is deja vu – in effect your approach is to pursue the change of the Trust by the very same ways and means with which the Trust people generated the problems which pose the need for change we now face.
Please read again my message. I am trying to affect change painlessly to your side, to do what must be done without compromising my principles and the rights of all of us to fair governance. As you know, I have accumulated heaps of irrefutable evidence, mostly documentary evidence, proving the Trust relentlessly pursuing maximum secrecy to cover up conduct that democracy exists to prevent.
I suggest doing the Ideas Bank to affect the badly needed change of the Trust and do it without delving into how the Staff prevailed upon you and together you did that stupid “placespeak” (I think it was called) back in 2012, so as to pull the carpet from under my feet; and so on, ad infinitum.
Doing the Ideas Bank will funnel attention to the future. This may leave ugly things like Bylaw 473 etc, to wane unnoticeably, and spare us public battles for their elimination.
I invite you to meet me on the level field of reason. If you stubbornly insist on resolving issues in the arena of power, I would have to use what you have made available to me so as to maintain my position. It is the party with the power advantage who chooses the level and the type of confrontation.
My time-frame stands. I will await until October the 15th, 12:00pm to decide either,
a) to get together with me and do the Ideas Bank; or
b) to reason out why you would not do it, including a better solution, if you have any; or
c) fall silent and let us, the people fight for our future.
I suggest you elect “a)” from the above.
“You may be aware there is a group on the island which has met once and is planning future meetings aimed at brainstorming ways we can improve our local governance. The "SSI Community Forum". Might be a good place to share your ideas
2017 October 14, from Luckham to Varzeliotis
1. “Good Morning Dr. Varzeliotis, I am writing in response to your email to Trustee Grove this morning. I think it important to make clear that no individual trustee including myself speaks for the other Trustee's nor the Local Trust Committee or Islands Trust Council.
2. Any and all statements or positions of a Local Trust Committee are made in open public meetings and made by a motion that is carried by the majority.
3. In this context I have to tell you that we can not meet what I consider your unreasonable demands by the arbitrary date of October the 15th if we chose to.
4. I am not going to second guess what decisions the Local Trust Committee may make on any proposal brought to it recently or in the future.
5. I can say however that it will be difficult for me personally to consider favorably any proposal brought to us in veiled threats and founded in false allegations and misinformation.
6. With all of the above said, I will tell you that years ago, I am sorry I do not recall the date, I did speak favorably with respect to your idea of the "Ideas Bank".
7. At the time we were updating the Islands Trust Website and although some thought was put into how we might implement such an Idea it was evident that we did not have the resources neither financial or manpower to implement and manage such a data base.
8. I bring your attention to this Island Trust Webpage: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/connect/share-your-ideas/
9. Although this certainly does not embrace your idea nor uses your name for such a place to share idea's it is our implementation of what we were able to do at the time.
10. I consider your idea still very valid it is still however something that I am sure we do not have the resources to implement for the same reasons mentioned earlier.
I as Peter Grove has suggested recommend that you work with local groups to implement your idea who would be best suited to this task and of which the fruits we could all enjoy.
11. Finally I beg you to find a less confrontational approach to communicating with myself and the local trust committee your idea's.
12. As I have said before these are exciting times, the opportunity to improve the Islands Trust and governance on all the islands is before us.
13. We must carry this work out in a spirit of respect, trust and co-operation with all idea's being given equal opportunity to be heard and debated by all respectfully in an appropriate forum. We govern as best we can within the jurisdiction and mandate given to us in the context of Land use Management our abilities are limited by the Local Government Act and the Islands Trust Act.
14. Finally I must say in case you misunderstand my intentions this email is not an invitation to debate the merits of any idea nor the opinion of my colleagues, the Local Trust Committee or Islands Trust Council.
15. I wish you success in implementing the Idea's Bank.
Peter Luckham, Chair Trust Council
Trustee, Thetis Island”
“Dear Mr. Luckham
I will respond to statements you make in your letter and I have numbered your paragraphs for reference. “P–xx:” in my reply comments on your Paragraph “xx”.
Please recognize that I am adhering to established jurisprudence: Plaintiff raised issues > Defendant answers the Plaintiff > Plaintiff answers the Defendant.
P-1: The meaning of this is not clear to me.
P-2: Your assertion that “Any and all statements or positions of a Local Trust Committee are made in open public meetings ...”, simply said, is not true.
P-3: You assert: “In this context I have to tell you that we can not meet what I consider your unreasonable demands by the arbitrary date of October the 15th if we chose to.”
Which “demands”? Which “unreasonable demands”? Which “demands” you could not meet “by the arbitrary date”? Why did you not contact me for clarification? Why do you not suggest a non-“arbitrary date?
My mention of a timeframe for answer to my query on your position vis-a-vis the Ideas Bank was invited by your habit of stonewalling dialog either by falling silent or by promising a response in the future, a “future” which usually never arrives. Such conduct is in the hub of the Trust “deficiencies” those which lead to consensus that the Trust needs “fixin’ ” or rather “Trustnformation”.
P-4: You inform all and sundry that you are “not going to second guess what decisions the Local Trust Committee may make on any proposal brought to it recently or in the future.”
I did not ask you to “guess” nor did I cause a need for guessing. You and Peter Grove and George Grams, each, have the power to place the Ideas Bank on the SSI LTC Agenda, on the Council and on the ExCom agendas as well, if need be. But, each and all of you decided to exclude it from consideration in front of the public eye.
P- 13: “We must carry this work out in a spirit of respect, trust and co-operation with all idea's being given equal opportunity to be heard and debated by all respectfully in an appropriate forum.” You say and I answer:
* Yes indeed, so we must. But how can you say that and keep a straight face, while in effect, you are excluding the Ideas Bank?
* What other ideas do you have about forcing the Trust to practice Open Governance”? Line all them up and let the people see you evaluating them.
* Any way, doing the Ideas Bank would satisfy your professing respect for the proposition that “all ideas are equal in the eyes of the Trust” – this because the Ideas Bank will facilitate the evaluation of all ideas, including ideas for the abolition of itself and/or comparison of itself to other concepts. Ok?
* In a democracy respect is earned – it is despotism where “respect” is demanded and “disobedience” is punished.
* Your letter pretends to co-operation while in effect denying my offer of co-operation.
* The Trust history of efforts to suppress the communication of ideas is legendary – have you no remorse?
* The Ideas Bank will enable us, the people, to assess ourselves your claim that, you “govern as best we can within the jurisdiction” of the Trust; and whether the “best you can” is good enough for us. Conversely your continuation of suppressing the Ideas Bank, adds large dimensions to the need for Trusnformation.
P- 14: To your “Finally I must say in case you misunderstand my intentions this email is not an invitation to debate the merits of any idea nor the opinion of my colleagues, the Local Trust Committee or Islands Trust Council.”
I say: Yavol Commandant! And having said that I will explain the “disobedience” patent in the sarcasm.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent me from answering your polemic. It is reminiscent of your January 2016 request that the newspaper hides you who had unleashed that churlish defamation tirade against me. Incidentally in that instance you conduct was reaction for me exposing what you, the LTC, were hiding so as to do upon the people what you knew the people loathed. This time around it is no much different.
P- 15. You “wish [me] success in implementing the Idea's Bank”!
I read it to mean: “We, the Trust, will not do the Ideas Bank and what are you going to do about it, eh?
Well, I wrote this analysis of your epistle to give you a sample of what I will do, and which I tried to avoid doing but you would not appreciate the generous gesture. I am guided by that chap, Churchill, who recommended “Persistence”, and advised that when one advances a good idea and is not listened to, to whack with a “Pile Driver” if necessary to penetrate otherwise impermeable crania.
I will close by reminding of what I wrote in my original submission of October 8:
‘I will welcome your response at any time it may come ...’ But ...
“Subject: Re: Trustnformation the best way all around
Thank you Dr. Varzeliotis I have forwarded your letter to staff for the public record.
Peter Luckham, Chair Trust Council”
“Re: Monitoring the Performance of the SSI RAR Bylaw #480
I would appreciate the answer to the following question:
How many applications that could conceivably be or not be RAR affected has the Trust received and how many of these has the Trust accepted for processing bare of: either a “Report by a QEP”; or an Applicant-sworn Affidavit of “RAR-Innocence”; or for procession conditional to Applicant producing a QEP Report or an Affidavit?
Please, identify the Applications, if any.”
Do you have an estimated time for delivery of the answer to my September 1, 2016 Question?
Would you spaRARe an answer?