“SSI-115-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee requests staff to add to the standard Terms of Reference for Meeting Recording a mechanism whereby the recording contractor is able to publish a letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation regarding the allegedly defamatory content, as required by the Libel and Slander Act – CARRIED.”
The LTC should had also mentioned the FOIPP Act and other instruments which prescribe protection of citizens against “power corrupt” magistrates. Prominent among these prescriptions is that to which the resolution refers to as “a statement by way of contradiction”. The Trust has refused to comply with that in this, and countless other instances of Trustee and Staff malfeasance.
Trust Staff need no LTC permission to comply with LTC resolutions or with the Law of the Land. The Staff is obligated to obey the laws at all times and to resist “orders” from their “superiors”, at any level, requiring them to breach the Law and/or ignore instruments such as the aforementioned resolution SSI-115-12. It is pertinent that society has also provided protection to civil servants (Whistle Blowers’ Act) to enable civil servant to foil attempts to offend law and ethics.
“ISLANDS TRUST LTC limits participant's activities – Varzeliotis denied delegation and speaking opportunities
BY ELIZABETH NOLAN – DRIFTWOOD STAFF
Salt Spring's Local Trust Committee has acted to reduce participation by a resident with a history of frequent communications, outlining at the Jan. 14 business meeting how information from Tom Varzeliotis will be received in future.
During Thursday's agenda item on correspondence, LTC chair Peter Luckham informed Varzeliotis that staff have been directed not to answer any letter received by him unless the members [of the LTC] request that it be added to a meeting agenda.
“Further, we have decided, we will only consider your [Varzeliotis] requests to appear before the Local Trust Committee as a delegation, or to speak at a town hall session at a business meeting, if your remarks are relevant to a matter on our agenda for that meeting,” Luckham said.
Varzeliotis objected to the fact that his letter wasn't included as correspondence on the agenda, nor was his request for a delegation, even though those communications wouldn't be discussed.
“You are supposed to hold public meetings. This implies that the people are entitled to know what you are doing, entitled to answers . . . You have the opportunity to say we received a message about that, and we decided that we do not want the public to know about that message. That is the honest way,” he [Varzeliotis] said.
Varzeliotis also compared the LTC's actions those of Idi Amin and Muammar Gaddafi.
Salt Spring trustee George Grams explained after the meeting that for several years Varzeliotis has been alleging impropriety, if not illegality, by LTC members and staff in how they treat his communications.
“At times he has addressed matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Local Trust Committee nor Islands Trust Council. The tenor and content of some of his correspondence has been offensive and defamatory. He has been advised so in writing Grams wrote in an email to the Driftwood.
The Salt Spring LTC meeting bylaw, as amended in 2013, permits the chair to deny an individual the right to give a delegation or address a meeting in cases of irrelevance, defamatory or derogatory speech, or improper conduct.
Islands Trust Council has investigated Varzeliotis' claims and found them groundless, Grams added, and he has so far not taken his complaints further
"There is a limit to how much tolerance we provide someone who at each LTC makes allegations they fail to substantiate and who refuses to refer those allegations for independent and authoritative review by the Office of the Ombudsperson," Grams said. "His conduct is disruptive to the meetings and provisions in the Local Trust Committee Procedure Bylaw provide guidance on how this is to be addressed."
Varzeliotis remains free to speak at public hearings provided his remarks are related to the subject of the hearing.”
“January 12, 2016
Dear Chair Luckham
The Agenda for the January 14th LTC meeting, contains the following two items:
“8. CORRESPONDENCE. [None from Varzeliotis]”
“12. DELEGATIONS - None”
Neither of these is true, both of them are “disinformation by omission” about my person; and exposure of them to society is of additional significance due to the ongoing PARC attempt to build a Sports Multiplex in Brinkworthy and the Island Governance debate.
I, therefore, request that the LTC amend the Agenda to comply with the Trust’s mandate to conduct itself truthfully and honourably.
I suggest the following wording for these Agenda Items:
8.2 Dr. A.N.T. Varzeliotis – Dated December 20, 2015 - Concerning a pivotal aspect of the PARC Application for LTC consent to build a Sport Multiplex at 181 Brinkworthy Road – CENSORED.”
“12. DELEGATIONS - Dr. A.N.T Varzeliotis, regarding various aspects of the PARC Application to build a Sports Multiplex in 181 Brinkworthy Road – CENSORED.”
This would make the Agenda factual and the Trust Democratically accountable. It would also bring the Trust to comply with its obligation to make its decision publically. But the LTC would not amend the agenda to undo the embedded misinformation and, instead they went on to defame me, so as to avenge my attempt to expose their act of censorship.
I would have ignored them, for such lies do not deserve replies. But the Trustees were speaking for a public body and were illicitly covering up things of consequence to the governance of the society, therefore I did not feel at liberty to ignore them and I didn’t.
1. "Further, [we will] only consider your [Varzeliotis] requests to appear before the Local Trust Committee as a delegation, or to speak at a town hall session at a business meeting, if your remarks are relevant to a matter on our agenda for that meeting."
Thus is Luckham quoted, conveyng a “decision” the LTC had made in hiding from the public eye, in violation of their statutory obligation to consider issues in front of the public. Inadvertently he is “pleading guilty” to my pivotal charge, that of the Trust is offending the Law, prevailing political standards and ethical conventions, by hiding in the dungeon to make decisions that they would not make in the open, in the light of day. And trampling the fundamental right of citizens to answer charges.
This is tantamount to saying: “we have decided to strip Tom Varzeliotis of his fundamental citizenship rights and we, the Trust, decided it secretly, unethically, illicitly. And what Tom does in response? He refuses to obey, and fights back seeking to protect his rights from us, the LTC, he the irreverent! ”
There is another highly important issue wrapped in this “ruling” – it is raw discrimination. This LTC ruling is directed against one individual only, Tom Varzeliotis – Chairman Luckham categorically denied, at the ensuing Town Hall session, that it would apply to anyone else. Every body else would be welcome to bring to the LTC meetings issues unrelated to the Agenda items. Bravoooo!
2. “Varzeliotis also compared the LTC's actions those of Idi Amin and Muammar Gaddafi.”
The short answer is that I did not compare the LTC to any dictators. Now, I will explain:
The LTC had painted itself in a corner, Luckham was desperately trying to “explain” the finer points of censorship and their hiding their indulgence in it. Peter Grove interjected with a “clever” idea on how to whitewash the lying out of their censorship practice, but keep intact and running their censorship system. Specifically, Grove suggested the LTC declare that Tom’s delegations “do not address an item in the agenda” and, then acknowledge receipt of submitions and annotate the acknowledgments with a declaration the LTC wastebasketed them on the pretext of irrelevance to items in the agenda...
I regained consciousness quickly and remarked that Peter’s clever trick may appeal to Idi Amin and Muammar Gaddafi, but it is alien to Canada. Perhaps it was an exaggeration, harmless I thought, but in line with Churchill’s suggestion:
“If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.”
In any event, suggesting that Peter Grove’s drastic scheme to maintain the Trust’s Line of Lying would not offend Idi Amin or Muammar Gaddafi, is not comparing the LTC to them.
But Luckham saw a life-ring in this and grabbed it to rescue himself and to demonize Tom, as well. Now he would “answer” Tom’s perennial challenge: “show me something I have said that was not true, or had better been left unsaid”, that which challenge had never been taken on before or after by anyone from the Trust. Brimming with pride Luckham said that was it which “Varzeliotis should have left unsaid” – presto, we got you, he bragged. He looked so happy saying that!
It is also reminiscent of Luckham decrying me as being a pornographer, so as to evade my call to protect and preserve Booth Canal – he would not relent on the characterization even after I informed him that that which he had declared being pornographia, was simply a verbatim quote from the CBC news of that morning.
Regrettably, the rendition of the Idi Amin incident is ambiguously worded in the Driftwood article, obscuring Luckham’s spin of my assertion.
3. “Varzeliotis objected to the fact that his letter wasn't included as correspondence on the agenda, nor was his request for a delegation, even though those communications wouldn't be discussed.”
This assertion has two parts separated by the word “nor”. The first one, is that I did not object to my “letter” being excluded in the agenda, or merely that. My thrust was to castigate the Trust for practicing censorship in my society. To expose the Trust in effect offending democracy which is more than omitting mentioning a letter.
The other part of Luckhams pronouncement looks innocuous, but it is pregnant with malice. He exclaims that I dared make a request for a delegation “even though those communications wouldn't be discussed”, Luckhams said.
Luckham did not attempt to explain why Varzeliotis’ communications “wouldn't be discussed”. Was it because I was exposing what the LTC wants to hide and the people want to know? What?
The Chairman was in effect complaining that I did not censor myself to spare the Trust the ugly optics of indulging in censoring of what they cannot legitimately refuse to discuss.
Who are the Czarismatic chaps who would suppress a citizens freedom of speech if the citizen does no censor himself, despite being aware that the Trust wanted the issue suppressed? Are they believing that they have terrorized citizens to the point that they would not dare address their local government? What?
“One member of the public spoke to practices concerning delegations and provided a written submission dated January 14, 2016 entitled “Tom's Town Hall Placard”. (Emphasis added)
“In Reply to: ISLANDS TRUST LTC limits participant's activities – Varzeliotis denied delegation and speaking opportunities” bylined Elizabeth Nolan, the Driftwood, January 20, 2016.
The article spreads libelous to me pronouncement and cries for corrective measures. It sources the information to Local Trust Committee (LTC) Chair Peter Luckham; to Trustee George Grams “statements” to Ms. Nolan; and to an email communication to the Driftwood from Trustee Grams, also mentioned in the subject article [at the time it was not known that Luckham had also written to the Driftwood. I will comment on the first item but I will defer comment on the others until I obtain Grams’ communications and assess my course of action.
At the LTC meeting, I had requested an amendment of the Agenda due to it containing, once again, entries that were not true and were, thereby disinforming the public. Unwilling to make the corrections to the Agenda, or dispute my request, Luckham elected to “justify” what I was objecting to. He read into the record of the meeting a letter he had mailed me, privately, on May 21, 2015, announcing yet another expansion to the Trust censorship apparatus and revving up its deployment. This the Trust has not the authority to do, and in any event, the Trust is commanded by law to do things in public, which explains why they did the censorship escalation by stealth.
It also explains why Luckham omitted mention of the fact that I had answered his letter, refuting his assertions; And hides the fact that he has censored my repeated request to make public my response, if he wants to use his letter.
The recent escalation of censorship and the outburst of personal attacks manifests the effects of my work on the Trust – work on issues such as the Brinkworthy Sports Multiplex, Island Governance, Government Transparency, reversing the demise of Booth Canal, etc. They are shooting the messenger because the message hurts.
I will repeat here a challenge I have posed countless times to the Trust, one occasion being the LTC meeting at issue, a challenge they have not even attempted to answer:
“Come and show me something, anything at all, that I said or wrote, that is not true, or that would have better been left untold – please do”.
It tells it all, does it not?
“From: George Grams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: TOM VARZELIOTIS
Date: January 18, 2016 at 12:32:31 PM PST
To: Elizabeth Nolan <email@example.com>
Cc: Peter Grove <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Carmen Thiel <email@example.com>, Stefan Cermak <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Peter Luckham <email@example.com>
For some years Tom has been alleging impropriety, if not illegality, by both the Local Trust Committee and staff. At times he has addressed matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Local Trust Committee nor Islands Trust Council. The tenor and content of some of his correspondence has been offensive and defamatory. He has been advised so in writing. His administrative complaints have been investigated by the Islands Trust and have been found to be groundless. We have suggested to him that if he is not satisfied with the results of the Islands Trust’s internal reviews into administrative fairness, that he lodge a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsperson. To date it does not appear that he has done so.
The Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee Procedure Bylaw regarding Delegations (an individual or a representative of an organization) and Public Participation requires that:
* the subject of the presentation must fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Trust Committee, or address an item within the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust Council;
* The Chair has the power to deny any individual or delegation the right to address a meeting if, in the Chair’s opinion, the individual makes defamatory remarks about any person or speaks disrespectfully of any person addresses issues not contained in the written application of the individual or immoderately raises his/her voice or uses profane, vulgar or offensive language, gestures or signs;
* The Chair may expel and exclude a person from a meeting of the Local Trust Committee for improper conduct; and
* individuals will not be heard at regular meetings of the Local Trust Committee on topics which are normally dealt with by Islands Trust staff as a matter of routine.
There is a limit to how much tolerance we provide someone who at each LTC makes allegations they fail to substantiate and who refuses to refer those allegations for independent and authoritative review by the Office of the Ombudsperson,. His conduct is disruptive to the meetings and provisions in the Local Trust Committee Procedure Bylaw provide guidance on how this is to be addressed.
1. Grams letter oozes poppycock. He goes to a great length to cite the Trust’s procedure bylaw but he cites not a single specific case of breach of it. Nor does he relate anything specific that I have done that invites repercussions. Most pertinent is that Grams communication is void of anything that would, by any stretch of imagination, justify the character assassination of a citizen that Grams is engaging in. Yet on that bed of rubbish, he recklessly portrays me as a habitual criminal.
It is noteworthy that Grams has copied his missive to: Peter Grove, Carmen Thiel, Stefan Cermak and Peter Luckham. The primary purpose for this “circulating” would be to let the recipients know what he said so that they do not contradict “the Truth”. It reminds me of directive to Trust Staff “to report any conversation they may have with Tom Varzeliotis”.
2. “For some years Tom has been alleging impropriety, if not illegality, by both the Local Trust Committee and staff.”
I have done that for half a dozen years by now, over a hundred times, and I have done it in writing. I was never shown to be wrong by anyone, no less by Grams. I stand behind what I wrote and I challenge Grams to either refute what I say, or muster the decency to apologize for offending the Truth.
3. “At times he [Varzeliotis] has addressed matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Local Trust Committee nor Islands Trust Council.”
Heavens above! Have I done that? Arguably I have not done it, but if the LTC felt in an instance I had veered off topic, all they had to do is call me to order. Veering off the topic happens often, it is not a crime – a crime is the delinquency of the Trustees to address the important issues I brought to them at the rest of times, when, as Grams implicitly asserts, the issues I raised were foursquare “within the jurisdiction” of the Trust.
Grams would have been constructive if he had referred to the important issues I brought to the Trust and had shown some remorse for suppressing them. But, instead, he elected to justify stripping me of my citizenship rights for allegedly having veered off topic sometime, somewhere, on some issue ...
4. “The tenor and content of some of his correspondence has been offensive and defamatory.”
A prerequisite to being “defamatory”, is for an assertion to be false – I am not going to let Grams question my credibility and he ought to know that. In contrast, Grams epistle at hand is highly defamatory because he does not tell the Truth and he knows that, too.
Have I been “offensive”? Well let’s say I have been standing erect and firm for what is right – nothing wrong with that. In any event, Grams is not empowered to disregard whom he thinks is not as placid as he, Grams, would please.
Then what about the rest of my correspondence the “tenor” of which Grams implicitly admits, is neither “offensive or defamatory”? Did it skip Gram’s mind to tell the Driftwood what he did with it? To say it “instead”, or “as well”?
What about the LTC concerted assault on me, the insults, the censoring of my contributions, the defamation through the media that Grams letter at hand appertains to?
5. “He [big bad Tom] has been advised so in writing.”
Well, ok, I am not known for being obedient, I was born like that – some of us have some rebel in us, perhaps. No apologies for that.
The comment is a reference to the May 21, 2015 letter of Peter Luckham by which he ratchet up Trust censorship. I answered that letter point-by-point showing it to be Trust trash. But Luckham and Grams have been coming back with it, time and again, never mentioning, save attaching my rebuttal to it. What they do is unfair, but, it appears, they deem it preferable to letting people see the rebuttal.
6. “His [Tom’s] administrative complaints have been investigated by the Islands Trust and have been found to be groundless.”
Grams refers to my “administrative complaints”, over five years previously – it was handled entirely Kangaroo Court fashion by the Trust’s CAO Linda Adams and the Executive Committee. It was about refusing me an application to “subdivide” a homesite from my 25 acre parcel for my daughter “because the size of the proposed lot was LARGER than the MINIMUM allowable” – Yes, it is in writing, want to see it?
7. “We have suggested to him that if he is not satisfied with the results of the Islands Trust’s internal reviews into administrative fairness, that he lodge a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsperson. To date it does not appear that he has done so.”
Oh dear! It is like saying rapes not reported are not rapes!
Grams “omits” a serious aspect of that matter, lest it destroys his neat “argument” about me fearing the Ombudsperson: Time and again I have challenged Grams, Grove and Luckham to a fair Court trial. “Fair” being that if they lose they pay penalties and costs from their own pocket, as I would if I would lose. I have made them the offer a number of times, in writing and they invariably “answered it silently” by censoring it. They hang on the government fat purse to bring the resources of the state to crash me, if I go to court; and they want to do that secure in the thought that no matter what the Court decides, it would not cost them a penny! Nobody would accuse them of excessive courage ...
As it happened, I have done so, I appealed the aforementioned Trust Administrative Complaint to the Ombudsperson, back then. The Ombudsperson eventually wrote me that they presented my file to the Trust; the Trust told them that they had done a fine dispute resolution job and had found that I was in the wrong. The Ombudsperson did not even honour my right to answer the Trust, they readily suppresed my right to defend myself, lest I interfere with their “decision”! This alone precludes perceptions of Ombudsperson’s infallibility, if not worse ...
My turn now to speculate. It appears that the Trust blasted that Ombudsperson’s referral off its files – purging files is not at all unusual with the Trust. In this instance they could have done that because it was incriminating them, as well as the Ombudsperson. Grams, now a member of the ExCom, found nothing on file and found no mention of it, likely because it was purged. Hence, with a straight face, Grams declares as he does, that I fear the Ombudsperson’s shop of justice.
I would be thrilled to bits with an opportunity to expose the whole file at any public forum Grams or the Ombudsperson for that matter, may choose ...
8. “The Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee Procedure Bylaw regarding Delegations (an individual or a representative of an organization) and Public Participation requires that:” (parentheses original)
The Bylaw Grams refers to is that which should be cited as the “Peter Grove Censorship Bylaw”. It was sired by Trustee Grove on August 26, 2013, at a meeting (Grove and Hartley v. Varzeliotis) held at the Trust’s conference room. Grove blew his top because I would not withdraw my analysis of Leah Hartley’s report on Booth Canal and, on the spot, asked Hartley whether there was “something they could do to stop people like Dr. Varzeliotis asking questions like that”, i.e. “why Hartley’s report on Booth Canal should not be reviewed?”
That is how this ass of a bylaw came to be and Grams knows all about that – he bears much of the blame for the aberration that is now on the Trust books. Perhaps that is why he recited the Bylaw instead of specifying the violation of it by me, which he recklessly alleges.
The bylaw flies in the face of the fundamental principles of freedom of speech, it beeen to protect critics, for “birds of one feather” neither need protection from each other – nor do they matter.
9. “Participation requires that: ...”
Under that heading, Grams lists provisions of the Bylaw, I cannot guess why he does. Perhaps he is out to create the illusion that Big Bad Tom has violated them all.
Grams would not look as bad for that as he does if he had brought out the “reasons for decision” in one of the several dozens of my submissions the Trust has recklessly censored. But he could no do that simply because the Trust never write down their “reasons for censoring” because they are illicit. And because he had a hand in the censoring.
10. “There is a limit to how much tolerance we provide someone who at each LTC makes allegations they fail to substantiate and who refuses to refer those allegations for independent and authoritative review by the Office of the Ombudsperson. His conduct is disruptive to the meetings and provisions in the Local Trust Committee Procedure Bylaw provide guidance on how this is to be addressed.”
This is Grams closing paragraph and it is ugly. For Grams to say that I am “someone who at each LTC makes allegations I fail to substantiate” is like the pot calling the kettle “black”. Each and every time I bring submissions, always in writing, I give reasons and I always offer to “take questions, any questions”. It is extremely rare that Grams or the others of the LTC pose a question and every time they did, I answered them without exception. In general the Trusteed answer my presentations with silence, it being the best they can come up with without becoming, God forbid, “positive”.
Having said that, I turn around and ask: Come and tell us a single case that I brought to Trust a question and got a straight answer! Yes I know my questions are tough, but I would not bother posing poppycock.
Hic Rhodes, hic salta”, come and show us anything, that I submitted orally or in writing, that I did not substantiate. Come and show us anything that you asked me to substantiate further than I had, or to otherwise explain, and which I failed to do, come on Grams, tell it the way it happened, level with the people.
As for Grams assertion that “His [Tom’s] conduct is disruptive”, I must thank him for the compliment. Yes, when that happens, it is because that is what I meant it to be. When you evade your duty to Booth Canal, and when you make bylaws which are an ass, when you burrow to evade the public eye and ire, I mean to “disrupt” it, yes I do. Just like Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition does in real parliaments.
I will close on George with a remark on his implicit call for public placidity, his “we screw you up and if you don’t like it go complain to Ombudsperson,” which boils down to abusing the law for illicit gain. I will add to what I have already said: Offices like the Ombudsperson, the FOIPPA Commissioner and even the court system, do not exist to serve as an absolution for crime by enabling public bodies to say: “Tom did not take me to court”, therefore it was ok stealing his bicycle or not paying back the money he had lent me”.
As for the Ombudsperson, bit, I have already discussed my foray through the Ombudsperson’s Justice Dispensary.
“Hi Elizabeth, sorry for not being able to respond sooner.
I have been away since the meeting and fully occupied with other issues today.
Tom Varzeliotis has been interacting with the Islands Trust for more than 7 years that I have personally experienced and I know has been much longer than that.
Virtually all of his letters and delegations have been offensive attacks of a personal nature against, staff and trustees. It is one thing to treat Trustees who are elected and to some extent vulnerable in this way. It is however quite unacceptable to treat our staff in this way.
It is also unacceptable to expect a public body to entertain or publish such materials or conversation either in print or electronically through audio or video recordings.
We take slander and statements that are simply untrue seriously and will not publish them as a I am sure that as a member of the press you understand.
Mr. Varzeliotis has been treated generously over the years with responses to his many many letters to both the Saltspring Local Trust Committee and the Executive Committee.
He in my time he has not been denied the opportunity to speak to the LTC, I have asked him to bring his presentation to an end when it has degraded to slander and offense.
He has also made an unknown number of freedom of information request which I do know has consumed 100's of hours of staff time.
The letter we have written to Mr. Varzeliotis comes from a carefully considered decision to protect the public and staff from Mr. Varzeliotis.
I will note that Mr. Varzeliotis continues to believe that the Island Trust and staff conduct business in secret and that our methods and procedures as prescribed in legislation and policy are undemocratic and not good governance. Mr. Varzeliotis is on the only member of the public in the entire trust that I am aware of that holds these opinions and insists that we must stop our local government business and address these concerns in pubic debate, with him. Many of us, Trustees, past chairs, executive committee and senior staff have attempted to explain ourselves and even have had one on one conversations and meetings with him which always lead to a place that is either beyond where the local trust committee and the islands Trust jurisdiction lies or degenerates to personal attacks from which one is unable to answer or respond to his satisfaction.
The above is what I refer to as not finding constructive with regards to his line of inquiry and consequently we choose not to enter into debate with him.
We understand our obligation to the public and sworn responsibility to uphold democracy which is why we have written to Mr Varzeliotis providing him with alternatives to communicating with the LTC or to contact the ombudspersons office for direction.
Elizabeth, thank you for attending the last meeting and contacting me directly about this, I would be happy to speak with you with regards to this.
I would prefer all of the above not end up being quoted in print and ask that you respect that.
Your colleague Sean will no doubt have some history to provide you. I would suggest if you have not already, please review Toms website http://www.alcy.ca/ and any historical meeting audio or minutes available on the Trust website.
If you intend on writing about this I would be happy to engage in an interview with you.
Peter Luckham ConRes.”
This tweens with Grams’ assertion that:
“For some years Tom has been alleging impropriety, if not illegality, by both the Local Trust Committee and staff.”
These synchronous “facts” appear to have triggered Nolan’s assertion that Tom has “a history of frequent communications” with the Trust, this being the style Police use to introduce un-repentant crime suspects they apprehend. I do not say that Nolan is not implicated in that, for she should have resisted the nod, however both Grams and Luckham should answer for their part.
In any event, that I have trying to get word in the ear of the Trust, should have been deemed praiseworthy in these times of public “apathy”. Having said that, I would turn it around to observe that it is that it is all that long that the Trust have serially and seriously been maligning me.
The onus is on Luckham to substantiate this and his other serious allegations but he took the reckless road. He has not related even a single ad hominem communication from Tom. Pity it escaped him to do that, but I will respond, publicly, to any example Luckham may bring forth. Anytime!
I am sorry to hear Luckham condoning attacks on the “vulnerable”, whoever they may be, for I abhor it.
As for me answering Staff, again I have never hit below the belt. For example, I returned argument when CEO Linda Adams and the SSI RPM Leah Hartley, were out misinforming society by claiming having legal advice to censor Macpherson, Booth and me. Nothing wrong with answering them – bad is what they were doing and which elicited the exposure.
“Materials” such as what? Examples, svp!
It is easy to deduct in the abstract that no public body welcomes criticism. That is why most public bodies do not behave like the Trust.
To assist pubic bodies to carry on looking good, societies determined to remain free, “threaten” those with Czarismatic predispositions, with exposure – be they politicians, career civil servants or Judges. The Trust has the option of being good and looking good but opted to be bad and pursue fake good looks by hiding the things they do and which would mar their image. It just does not work, because, like Abe Lincoln observed, “you cannot fool all the people, all the time” ...
In any case, records are history; even “expletives must not be deleted”, as in Watergate; history is frozen; facts are not revise-able. We keep the doors of the Courtrooms open and we build public galleries in parliaments – it is to curtail, hopefully avert, shameful conduct that would necessitate “hide and seek” of the truth. Deplorable is “bad conduct” – exposure of it, unpleasant as it may be, is necessary. We punish the thieves, not the police. Nixon was hurt when Watergate was exposed, wasn’t he? Watergate would not have happened if Nixon’s claim to “being not a crook” had been truthful.
When Luckham’s Trust publishes “Delegations: None” and other such highly “untrue” stuff in meeting Agendas and Minutes, but there were “delegations”; and they have surreptitiously “eliminated” the delegations by censoring them; Luckham and his court are lying. They are lying twice or rather multiple times.
They lie when doing the censoring; and they lie when they bury the “body” under their staple tombstone “Delegations: None”; and they lie when they say they did not violate the Law that which compels them to do their business in public; and they lie when they subvert democracy by stealing information belonging to the public; and, of course, they are lying when writing epistles to Driftwood insinuating that I am lying; and when claiming to be champions of the Truth.
Your turn now: Hic Rhodes hic salta – Luckham, bring out a sample, of an “untrue statement by Tom”, please do, if you can.
The “responses” I received are too few and uniformly untrue. Moreover, Luckham’s drivel is grossly imbalanced because he does not counterweight it with my vastly more numerous communications which Trust processed by raw censoring them secretly, without any “generous” response, without the elementary courtesy of an acknowledgment, entirely rudely.
This may be true but this only because at “TownHall and Questions” there are citizens attending and Luckham has no facility to hide a denial of participation. This manifests the Trust’s propensity to lie the maximum they can hide.
As for Luckham cutting me off in mid-sentence, “asking him [Tom] to bring his presentation to an end when it has degraded to slander and offense.” I say, yes, he does that, almost routinely always rudely. And slandering, if it occurs, it is never authored or voiced by me. The Chairman of the Trust does not tell the truth when accuses me of being slanderous, because I have never been so and he knows that.
But it is worse than that really. Invariably I bring my message “TownHall and Questions” in writing via “Tom’s TowHall Placard”. I will only mention that at the LTC meetings of June 29, 2016 and other, the Trust had Deputy Claire Olivier pilfer all the copies of the Placard that I had left for the public and when I caught her in the act and brought to the attention of Luckham, and the other Trustees, they laughed at my face ...
What about Luckham telling the Driftwood how many submissions of mine has the Trust censored since 2012? Wouldn’t that be lovely?
I have made several FOI access requests, prompted by the secretiveness of the Trust and because the Trust would not abide by its own “Policy” and the FOIPPA Commissioner’s directives to provide information informally wherever possible. Another reason that FOI taxes Staff time is the work they do to evade answering honestly FOI requests.
Case in hand: Luckham made me file a formal FOI when I asked him to produce the email he had sent to Driftwood / Nolan, the one at issue. (Grams did provide it without FOI, which goes to his credit).
In any event, there is no statutory limit set for the number of FOI access applications a citizen may make
This has to be the epitome of Something or Other, I do not know which but, whatever it may be, it surely is Big. It is bigger than Peter Grove playing St. George to Maiden, Leah Hartley, Peter lancing the Dragon, me, who dared Review Leah’s Repot on Booth Canal, back then in 2013.
Big Bad Tom, he Public Enemy Numero Uno! Sherif Luckham and his deputies protecting the denizens of Ganges Town!
Except that it is cruel to children, at least to my grandchildren back East. I told them about Luckham proclaiming me the Primo Outlaw of SaltSpring and they became exited. Now they are aching for the “Wanted” poster of me.
“Vivere Pericolosamente” in the lingo of All Capone, “Living dangerously” in that of Agent 007. The Trust and I .... Exciting stuff!
I would say NO, but again ... Well NO by a long shot, I am not the only one holding these opinions. But if the Chairman goes about saying that I am, and as much as I feel sorry for his inability to read the public mind, I am flattered by his “recognition” of my uniqueness and accordingly reluctant to curtail or dilute the Chairman’s accolades. It is sweet being both Outlaw Numero Uno and the Lone Trust Menace.
As for “stopping the business” of the Trust, well, there are certain “business” that must be stopped – look how many business the cops stop everyday, including some highly profitable ones ... The judges too ... and, sometimes, the firemen do, too ...
What a load of stuff! Is it “personal attack” if I say Luckham broke his promises to put in the Agenda the predicament of Booth Canal? Or that he negated on his promise to rescind the “policy” of demeaning people who address the LTC, by referring to them as an amorphous “member of the public”, in lieu of their name?
Yes, I pose questions about Booth Canal, and about Censorship, aware that the LTC will be “unable to answer”. It is regrettable that the LTC finds hard to answer my questions, but that is their problem – the people are entitled to answers.
These questions have to be aired because they must be answered if the society is to remain free – if the LTC clams down, well, that is their answer to the questions and is eloquent. I have no sympathy for the Chairman trying and failing to make me limit the grade of my questions to the level they can dispose off – I am proud for raising issues that matter.
I have advised the LTC, more than once, to “stop doing things they have to hide and, instead, do things they could brag about”. It is a simple formula and had they heeded it, they would not worry about their inability to answer because they would have answers to give and I would have no questions to pose.
There is an innocuous-appearing comment in Luckam’s diatribe that is “dynamite”. It is the one about the “executive committee ... having attempted to explain ...” things to me. The truth is that once upon a time I sought to appear before the ExCom at its ostensibly “public meetings” only to see them slamming the door shut in my face. This because it would break the long established tradition of “pubic-free ExCom public meetings”. They defended the segregation of the Trust “inner circle” from the people, as if it was a bus in Alabama. I did not break though it like Rosa Parks did, but I exposed it and that is important.
“The above” which? Luckham has been going on as nauseam voicing platitudes as evidenced by that he cleverly refrains from attempting to sustain any bit of the defamation he recklessly spues out.
The truth to be told they did not “choose not to enter into debate with him” They do not talk because they would lose, as Luckham observed in item #13, above. Why
Luckham and the Trustees do not let the people judge who makes sense and who voices male bovine excrement? That is what democracy is all about, it is to let the people see, listen and judge for themselves.
The only time that the LTC has shown signs of democratization was in the first half of 2012, but by the anniversary of their first election, manifestation of democratization vanished, as the “Trustees for Change” we had elected became “embedded” into the system.
Luckham names no “alternatives to communicating with the LTC” offered. Which would they be? Why the discrimination? Why deny Tom, the ususal, the “normal, if you will communication venues? Why discriminate against Tom?
Evidently, Luckham appear ignorant of the Gnothi s’ afton (Know thyself) advice. I will try to help him a bit by asking him some questions myself: Are you honouring your “obligation” to society, are you honouring your office when you censor over a hundred papers of mine, never admitting it, everytime turning around and censoring your censorship mess in a statement of shame? Do you understand that each and every time you censor public input or hide the censoring from the people your are stealing from democracy?
Yes, Luckham would be happy to speak to the media reporter under a cloak of guaranteed secrecy – explain why should anyone rejoice on being governed like that.
This is exactly what the Trust is adept at, deception. For example on Booth Canal the LTC insisted they had two secret scientists, who have convinced the Trust that Booth Canal is doing fine and I am wrong predicting its demise. I spoke publically, I have stated my assessment in writing – they lined against me Trust’s “scientists”, wearing brown paper bags on their heads, Igor Gouzenko style! That is to say, if the scientists are not a figment of the imagination of the LTC.
Here we have it, hanging out in all its glory, in front of our face, straight from the babes mouth. This is not plain cowardice, it is more than that. What more can I say? Surely I am not comfortable being governed by such a people, I detest being governed by fugitives from the light of day.
Yes please, do review the Alcy.ca website – I stand proud of it. Alcy is free and friendly and offers to anyone we name and who may ever take exception to anything we say “equal space” to answer what he/she may take exception to. The offer has been and is available to Luckham.
If she “intend on writing about this”? What more would Chairman Luckham had in mind to say?
“8 CORRESPONDENCE ...
Chair Luckham called a recess at 10:52 am. The meeting reconvened at 11:02am.”