The Trust is forging chains to shackle us – Beware ... - Alcyonenews

Go to content

Main menu:

Islands Trust
Posted February 12, 2021

The Trust is forging chains to shackle us – Beware ...

At the December 2020 Trust Council meeting a “Group of 8" rebels wrangled a Council decision to commission a “third party”, an “independent” Consultant, to Review the Trust as it ages 50.
In the past the Trust spared neither effort nor public money to suppress various attempts to “review” it. Since 2017 the Trust has been fighting hard to kill the  “Consensus” to Change the Trust. The Consensus comprised the two-ad hoc groups who debated the sides of that polarized referendum; and  the Ministry of the BC Government who financed it; and yes, the Trust who wangled itself in via false pretenses. We now know that.

After some “clever” attempts to snatch more power from the Ministry failed, in 2019 the Trust sought to neuter the Consensus by asking the Ministry to put the Trust under the auspices of the Auditor General for Local Governments. This bravado would demonstrate that the Trust would “have to behave or else”– Presto, the need for changing the Trust would no longer be. But the Auditor was discontinued for reason of gross pacivity, this being the very attribute that lured the Trust to seek that.

The Consensus left pending, the “Group of 8” was formed to handle the issue.  If it was incited is unknown, but it is certainly designed to put the lid on the Consensus. After the Group surfaced,  Peter Luckham lead the three vice-chairs of the ExCom (it has no “members”) and the two members of the SSI LTC (it has no vices), to  fake surprise and denounce the cause of the rebels. After chanting their  “Oh dear!” they all retracted into their cocoons of “neutrality”, lest they impede the “rebellion”.

The Consensus had its epicenter in  SSI; The SSI has over 40% of the Trust populace; The Group contains no SSI representation.  Lee Middleton, the “boss” of the insurgents publically characterized the SSI absence as being a “Blind Screwing” (appropriately acronymed “BS”) and with a straight face explained that it was “unintentional” but excusable due to the Groupies  being “blind”! Stay tuned, don’t drop out for there is more of this to come.

On January 18, 2021, under the auspices of the Trust, the Group redeemed itself and became a legit “Governance & Management Committee”, “GMC” for short. Lee Middleton the confessed “Blind Screwer” sat on the chair and grabbed the steering wheel of the GMC. Peter Luckham experienced a bout of amnesia of his fake opposition and quick as a wink flipped in to make it the “Committee of 9".

Middleton had second thoughts to having confessed  and now he leads the GMC to keep carrying on “screwing” SSI.

Sadly, the SSI “local” Trustees have given no indication of dissatisfaction with this situation in the Trust “confederation”, (as per the GMC appellation). Imagine how things would be if it was an attempt to  review the Canadian confederation without Quebec or Ontario participation!

Currently the GMC is hurrying to sign a $75,000 contract with a consultant,  thereby making more difficult to reverse this sham.  To that end they hobble and fence-in the potential consultants and fence-out everything that may disturb the Trust. They ask consultants to submit proposals on how they intend to improve the Trust without really changing it. Their “Scope of Work” paper is a hodgepodge, reading as if labouriously designed to result in “garbage in, garbage out.”

Submissions are to be screened by a “third” body, namely the “independent” Trust staff;   Shortlisted consultants will  be interviewed by staff, or joinly by staff and the  GMC. To enhance the “independence” of the to-be-selected “third” party consultant, Peter Grove, SSI Trustee and Chair of the Trust Finance Committee, insinuated that another $75,000 could be made available to double the amount of the initial contract – but certaily it would not be if the consultant is not thoroughly “independent”. I doubt that Peter did that intentionally, but this does not detract from the potency of the “message”.

In my Januasry 29, column I outlined the first phase of a potent review of the Trust. It is a 5-point scheme that I maintain is a very sound basis for an honest and meaningful fulfilment of the Consensus. Perfection is unattainable, but nothing is un-improvable. My scheme is pregnant with the seeds of improvement, for it invites debate, that highly  potent vehicle to evolution.

In a Representative Democracy, the mandate given the magistrates compels them to actively seek the best response to every task of governance they handle, including review of the government itself. Implicit to these is an obligation to refrain  from pursuing a response to a situation when there is not reasonable expectation for one better than the one already at hand. There is not, I say with certainty.

It is imperative that the Trust learn the simple fact that the government is ours and our mandate to them is to avert being reckless.

All the above converge to compel the Trust to abort the reckless Committee & Consultant route if they cannot show us “a reasonable expectation for a better treatment”  than that I propose.

Hic Rhodus, hic salta, Aesop suggested. It says: Here is your chance, come and show us. But if you can’t then clam up and retract.
Back to content | Back to main menu