Trusts' Many Dives to Dungeon - Alcyonenews

Go to content

Main menu:

Posted April 8, 2016

Trusts’ Many Dives to Dungeon

On October 1, 2015 I exposed the collusion and the shared hidden agenda of Salt Spring Island PARC&Trust to impose surreptitiously the Sports Multiplex on SaltSpring. One aspect of the exposure was that the reasons for which PARC & Trust were proceeding surreptitiously was their recognition that their project would meet strong public resistance if attempted honestly. But, in a democracy, conspiring to subjugate the will of the people is not a legitimate pursuit.

We know that what the Trust discusses behind closed door is not always legitimate. Adding to that the serialized censorship the LTC and Trust Staff engage in,  the picture becomes bleak. Concern about governance by stealth made me bring to the LTC at its April 8th  meeting a request for an independent review of their frequent behind closed doors sessions.

Following is the request I brought to the LTC today, April 7th 2016 with a similar message I had taken to them in 2012 appended to it. In neither case did the LTC dispute the need for an independent review of what they do behind  the peoples’ back.

Tom’s Town Hall Placard

April 7,  2016

Seeking a review of the Trust affliction of shutting the people out

On April 26, 2012 , that is to say,  1,441 days ago, the then politically young Local Trustees Peter Grove and George Grams fought and won an important battle against governance from the dungeon.

This was 2012.  In the year  2015 the same Trustees, this time around lead by Chairman Peter Luckham, evicted the public from the meetings, at least 10 times. In the first three months of 2016, they  have already done  the same thing thrice.  It is too much of a bad thing and considering the questionable credibility of the Trust,  people want to know what the Trustees do onto us behind our backs.

On June 24, 2014, I requested a Review of the “Legal Advice” for which the Trust evicts the public from its meetings.  After the recent revelations, the need has grown to that for a blanket review of the legitimacy of what the magistrates do when they heave us out of the doors. I will reproduce the Placard article in the back side of the sheet at hand.

On April 1, 2016, I sent the following self-explanatory email to LTC Chairman Luckham:

       “Re: Obfuscated closed meeting justification

The LTC meeting agenda of March 31, 2016, in effect, consists of one item of no immediate  interest in SaltSpring;  and of one other item scheduled to be discussed by the LTC in a “closed” session, the pair being certain to ensure public absence, resulting in privacy for the LTC.

To justify closing the meeting, you claim the subject matter comes under s.21 of FOIPPA.  This is inadequate because s.21 has many subsections covering a wide spectrum, ranging from concerns about inhibiting secret police informers to protecting the recipes of medicinal marijuana cookie bakers.

Since the law entitles the public to a disclosure of the reason for which the LTC would meet behind closed doors, I will appreciate it if you would identify the subsection of FOIPPA on which you based the exclusion of the public from the discussion of the subject matter.”

“Answering” for the LTC, the Chairman  fell silent ...

Would this LTC order an independent review of their “reasons” for evicting the public from their meetings at the drop of a hat and of the frequency that you do this?

Tom Varzeliotis


NB: this is the 2014 Placard, referred to in today’s Placard article:

Tom’s Town Hall Placard

June 24, 2014

A supplement to Delegation:To Be Equal in the Eyes of the Law (censored)

---- * ----

Seeking a “Peer Review” of “Legal Advice”

Dear Madame Chair Malcolmson:

On June 7, 2012 , when the two current Local Trustees were politically young, they fought you and RPM Hartley and won a  battle against keeping legal advice secret. It was fought mostly behind closed doors, however, when the LTC “rose and reported”, the battle spilled  out and both local Trustees spoke eloquently about the right of citizens to know the legal advice bureaucrats use to justify  sinister conduct. Such as CEO Linda Adams was doing at the time by claiming legal advice supporting  the censorship scandal then unfolding in SaltSpring.

The  Meeting Minutes read:   

“With regard to the Young Anderson legal opinion, dated May 23, 2012, regarding broadcasting council meetings which was introduced during Item 5 – Rise and Report, the following motion was introduced:

SSI-138-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee instructs staff  to restore the uncensored version of the video recording of February 23, 2012 and append appropriate disclaimers with regard to defamatory statements. CARRIED” (Emphasis added)

The reference to  the “uncensored” version recognizes the fact that you had not “edited” as you had been claiming but you had “censored”, as I was stating, which is refreshing.  However,  the reference to “defamatory statements” is depressing because you failed to identify any, because there was not any!  And because the “disclaimer” morphed into an infamous “Box of Lies” which the Staff appended to the “uncensored version of the video recording of February 23, 2012."

From Then to Now  over 25 months have gone by without you ever divulging any legal advice, plenty of which I understand you have bought and which we, the people, are entitled to see.  Since our Local Trustees have been “tamed” and we cannot any longer rely on them to protect us from the Trust bureaucrats, I hereby request  the commissioning of an Independent Review of all the legal advice, complete with the queries issued to each  lawyers who authored it and which  the Trust obtained from January 1, 2012 to this date. The Reviewer to be charged with the mandate to determine which, if any legal advice was indeed privileged and to cause the rest to be released.

You may want to call it a “Peer Review”,  for the word-appeal this appears to have on you.


A.N.T. Varzeliotis

Back to content | Back to main menu