This continues the transcripts of proceedings at the regular general meeting of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District was held on July 2nd, 2025.
This section transcribes the Question and Answer period at the end of the formal meeting; in general, recognition and closing comments/thank yous are not included.
Chair Mercier asks the audience to consider the lateness of the hour when formulating questions and be concise.
CHARLEEN WELLS: So you earlier, right at the beginning of the meeting, you asked that if you were not doing things according to Robert's Rules of Order, that somebody let you know.
CHAIR: Yes.
WELLS: Which is why a few times I yelled out, “Is there a seconder?”
CHAIR: You see what it’s like when you’re sitting there and you want to yell something?
WELLS: When I was talking about the amendment that Diana was making right at the beginning, to the agenda, that was ignored, which, according to Robert's Rules of Order, needed to be dealt with. So that’s why I said “point of order,” because it was to help you go through. So that’s what I want to know—in the future, if you're not going to accept Point of Order from the floor, I thought the chair had to listen to the Point of Order and decide whether it was worth asking—
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Point of Order supercedes anything else.
WELLS: —before you proceed. So I want to know in the rest of the meetings if there's a Robert’s Rules of Order thing, or a true Point of Order, how do you want us to point those out.
CHAIR: Okay, so that's a fair question. I'll do my best to answer it. My current understanding, as I sit here, right now in the present moment, is that Points of Order must only be taken from the participants in the meeting and not the gallery. I could be wrong about that, and I will commit here in public to doing research, both in the book and with skilled parliamentarians with whom I am acquainted, to answer that question and proceed in the future. I confess that I missed trustee Moher’s amendment, and I think that that resulted in part from the rapid increase in formality and missing the language. So as the board becomes more familiar with the language, I expect that kind of incident to decrease in frequency. But I thank you for your contribution, and I absolutely will research it. In terms of people calling out stuff from the floor, it's ridiculous of me in particular, to be like, ‘No, you can't say anything from the floor.’ You're all familiar with how that goes, right? So if you feel strongly, follow your conscience. You'll say what you feel you need to say, I'll do what I need to do to make the meeting go forward and we'll proceed. That's how it proceeded for the last two years, it seems to have worked out somehow. At the same time, just before I turn it back to you, if you see that I'm screwing up, it's more helpful for me, if you like, right afterwards and be like, hey, maybe you want to consult on this, or think about this, or whatever, because I'll remember it more clearly.
WELLS: That was what how it started the meeting, and then it got shut down for a bit, and then you kept missing seconders. So going forward, we know, I appreciate you don’t want people to go on blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah, because then you never get anywhere.
CHAIR: But you know, if you want to heckle me to the point, that's all I ask, you know, some quality heckling, I can deal with quality.
LIZ CIOCEA: I have more of a comment, I realize you have a difficult task when you’re doing the budget, but I am concerned with the first responders and the emergency programs. Now I have spent almost 19 years of my life on the ambulance. We didn't have that fancy-schmancy place across the street, we were in that number one firehall for many years. So what I'm bringing up is this, is that the first responder program, in my opinion, was invaluable. Invaluable. Because, guess what, when we first started with the ambulance, our qualifications were OFA, Occupational First Aid, no training, no union, no uniforms, whatever you could find in one of the rooms we were allowed to use to wash it. So okay, moving on, moving on. But now, people are worried about a union. The union is okay. There’s no problem with unions. Unions have made this country stronger all over. But I do want to give the first responders credit. I've heard rumors that, oh, we're going to take money out of the budget with first responders because now ambulance is full time. Well, it wasn’t full time for many years, and our population is getting older, and yeah, we get the same calls I got when I was a paramedic, but we're getting more of them because it's just more people, right? So I want to make sure that there's no [?] money taken away from the first responder program. What do you call the EMR, Will?
CHIEF SPROGIS: Emergency Medical Responder.
CIOCEA: Because they’re invaluable. And I know, it was like 20 years ago I was on the ambulance. But it doesn’t matter. When we needed to have the responders there, they were [?] dispatched. They helped to save lives. I could never see that program ever disturbed or cutting back [?].
CHAIR: Thank you. There are clearly lots of things to be said about budgets, but I think we can all agree that the dedication and commitment—
CIOCEA: I’m at every meeting whenever I can make it, and I always support the firefighters, ‘cause they’re amazing.
DEREK KILBORNE (SOUNDER NEWS): I just want to ask to go back to the discussion about the back pay for the firefighters, that was dated for January 1st carried forward.
CHAIR: That's my understanding, yes, well, it's my understanding that that's part of the budget. That's the fiscal year. So that's the budget.
DK: So I just want to note that you have trustees voting on that, who, that may have financial implications for their households, and should that vote, could there be conflict of interest with that vote.
CHAIR: I appreciate your noticing that. My understanding is that the vote doesn’t do anything new, it just affirms an action that the previous board, at the time of budgeting—that board said, “We will do this thing,” which is apply payments. What the motion adopted today says is that we recognize that that was done by the board, and are committing to implementing it in this way on this timeline. So there’s not a new action.
FRANK MOHER: I have questions for Trustees Bussler, Chorneyko and Mercier regarding conflicts of interest. I want to point out that I am the spouse of Trustee Moher, however I’m speaking in my capacity as a landowner, and in my view more importantly, a member of the community, and these questions are my own.
CHAIR: May I interrupt you just very briefly?
FRANK MOHER: Yes.
CHAIR: To the extent that any of your questions on conflict of interest relate to the ongoing civil action, the answers to the questions that you may pose will be, “We will follow the advice of legal counsel.”
FRANK MOHER: […] For a bit of context, the Improvement District Manual says this: “It is important to note that even the appearance of conflict of interest may cause as many problems as an actual conflict. …A trustee or improvement district employee should not be involved in any decision where they might be seen as deriving personal benefit (monetary or otherwise) from the outcome of the decision. In such a case, excusing themselves from the board meeting, discussion or vote, and in no way influencing the vote may insulate the trustee or employee from allegations of conflict of interest and any subsequent consequences. The public expects that elected officials and public employees to be independent, impartial and duly responsible to the people.” So my question for Trustee Bussler is this:
In a civil suit brought against the GFPID, Will Sprogis, Paul Giffin, and John Doe, your spouse, Glenys Bussler, is referenced as having come into conflict with one of the defendents, Will Sprogis. At the all-candidates meeting, you indicated that because your spouse is referenced in the suit, you would recuse yourself from any decisions related to the civil suit. Can you confirm that that is still your intention?
TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I would have to go back to the language on that, because I’m not sure that I gave a carte blanche—
FRANK MOHER: This was in response to a question from Gisele Rudischer. You said, “I feel like we are grown up enough that I, similar to what John has done, I would recuse myself from any decisions related to that.”
TRUSTEE BUSSLER: “Related to that” being, affecting my wife. I would limit it to anything that I gain personal benefit from.
CHAIR: And if I may interrupt the discussion, the determination of whether or not Trustee Bussler is in conflict of interest in a particular matter will be determined by legal counsel. And in all respects, the board will proceed in alignment with the instructions of legal counsel. So you and Trustee Bussler could go back and forth about what constitutes a conflict of interest, and what matter would fit into that definition, but in the end—
FRANK MOHER: I don’t wish to go back and forth, I posed my question.
CHAIR: So I’m going to forstall Trustee Bussler’s response, and say that a detailed response to your question would be out of order because it would touch on items which necessarily must be confidential. That said, your question is recorded, and will be noted and taken into account by the board. I hope that’s as satisfactory as possible, because I am obliged to curtain further answers.
FRANK MOHER: These are all matters of public record.
CHAIR: Yes, certainly. I’m saying that—
FRANK MOHER: So my question to Trustee Chorneyko:
During the election campaign your name appeared on campaign materials that used the first letters of your, Mr Bussler’s, and Mr Mercier’s first names to spell out the name DOW. That would suggest you are a proponent of the civil suit against the GFPID, among other things, which would place you in a clear conflict of interest. Will you be recusing yourself from all discussion of, and decisions relating to that lawsuit?
TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: No.
CHAIR: I’m going to forstall you again, and you can interrupt to correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m going to forstall because as you noted, my name also appeared on those posters. Now I am going to say that for my part, I had no participation in the generation of those posters, and I believe that to be true of Trustee Chorneyko—
TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Correct.
CHAIR: —those were put together by community members who do, yes, have an opinion. That is their opinion. My opinion is that the board will follow the advice of legal counsel, and I would advise the rest of the board to express just that opinion.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Did you approve those posters? […]
CHAIR: I will again answer for myself: I did not. I will further answer for myself that I think I’ve been pretty clear about my own communications—
FRANK MOHER: My question was to Trustee Chorneyko.
CHAIR: And I’m pre-empting him a little as Chair. But I believe him to have answered your question in the negative.
FRANK MOHER: Yes he has. I would point out that the “perception of a conflict of interest” is also noted in the manual. Finally, Trustee Mercier:
In the response to the civil suit brought against the GFPID among other defendants reference is made to emails that the plaintiff had sent to the Inspector of Municipalities, and according to the response, copied to you, I will now quote that part of the response. “Dow had emailed the Inspector of Municipalities regarding the,” quote, “‘payroll irregularities’ which Mr Dow referred to in those emails as ‘payroll fraud’” quote unquote, “and blind carbon copied them to a member of the public, Wayne Mercier. Later, during the January 15th2025 meeting, while Dow acknowledged that the letter to the Inspector of Municipalities had been copied to Mr Mercier, Dow suggested that they had been copied in error and that he had been attempting to copy his own personal email.” This could suggest to some members of the public that you had an ongoing relationship with Mr Dow, and thus create the appearance of a conflict of interest. On that basis, will you be recusing yourself from all discussion of, and decisions relating to, that lawsuit?
CHAIR: I will respond in two parts. With respect to my communications with Mr Dow generally, I did email the Corporate Officer of the improvement district a great deal and he was in that position, so that is a thing that took place. As to further detail, and to whether any particular matter places me in a conflict of interest, I will at all times be guided by the advice and recommendations of our legal counsel.
PAULA MALLINSON: I haven’t got a question, could I just say something about the letter I sent? I’d like the trustees to just look at the letter I sent, because I believe if you hadn’t put so many motions forward, suggestions, that it could have gone faster, because there wouldn’t be so many amendments to what was said, and it would show … that you’re not so partial, because by putting those words, you’re saying, “This is what I want.” And you can say no, that’s not it, but that’s what the public’s going to see, and that’s what the trustees are going to look at, but if the trustees themselves made the motions, I think there’d be less amendments and more thought about putting it in at the time. There’s nothing to stop you from having them on hand, to say, “Well okay, you want to make a motion, what about this?” But let the trustees do it first.
CHAIR: I believe that in practice that’s what took place, and in putting suggested motions on the agenda I was the best practices used by other improvement districts, by the RDN, by the Islands Trust. It’s a procedure that is advocated, though not explicitly required, in Robert’s Rules of Order, and I think that we achieved quite a good result. Thank you for your opinion, we’re here to be methodical, not quick.
MALLINSON: I think the meeting would have gone a lot faster had Trustees put their own opinions in rather than try to amend yours.
GLENYS BUSSLER: Just two more things. The first one was, at the all-candidates meeting, I asked a question about the adoption of the recommendations made by the select committee on governance of the board. The former chair had advised me that motions had been made or things were passed in particular, and that everything had been dealt with. I’ve gone through the minutes of the meetings and I cannot find the motions that were claimed to have been made. So it would be my request that you go through the recommendations and provide the list to the community in this transparency, what motions were adopted, which ones weren’t, and then reference to the minutes or the meeting where that was done, because nothing in there should have been done in camera in my opinion. So it’s just to close the loop on that, because it is something, I was on the select committee so I think the work we did was valuable, and I would not like to see it just thrown under the table or said, “yeah, it was dealt with.”
CHAIR: If I can respond to that—my hope, though it wasn’t explicitly specified, was that the policy review process that we initiated today will look closely at those and provide just the kind of report you’re requesting. So it wasn’t explicitly spelled out, but I hope that that process of review that you are requesting and recommending is taken up seriously by the policy review subcommittee.
GLENYS BUSSLER: Thank you. And my second question—and where I’m going from this is a “moving forward” point of view—everything that happened has happened—but in a moving forward point of view, I unfortunately had to submit a Freedom of, an Access to Information request, because my formal request was not dealt with. In receiving the information I got, I found that certain documents pertaining to this not-secret, public complaint that I have, in the email copy that I have from, the redacted copy, seven trustees at the time, all were utilizing their personal emails. I would like a commitment that this doesn’t happen any further, because […] I don’t like the fact that my personal private information was shared amongst personal email accounts, which I never ever got to speak to anyone about. So district business—I have a copy of a redacted email dealing with a harassment complaint that has seven email addresses, none of which are corporate. So I would like, that is not a good practice, it is in violation actually, and I would like moving forward that when you are looking at your next commitment that this be a specific point, that this is not done in the future.
CHAIR: I hear your comment, I hear the seriousness with which you have made your comment, and would ask respectfully that you submit some version of your comment in writing to the board, so that we can receive it as information so that your concerns be logged. Whether or not we’re able to receive that correspondence publicly, or must receive it in camera, if you submit it to us I can commit that it will be distributed to the board and taken under consideration in that way.
GLENYS BUSSLER: Thank you.
PENELOPE BAHR: Can I just say that I liked the larger agenda. It gave everybody time to see what would be discussed. And it gave the board, I think for the first time, what would be discussed, and they had a week or whatever to respond to it. I thought by Trustee Moeller having a suggested motion, that that was evidence that the board was allowed to make suggestions. Anyway, it’s an opposing opinion, but I liked it and thank you.
CHAIR: Fair enough, and one of the things that I believe I made clear to the board and that I’d like to reiterate to the public is that it is absolutely the right of any board member to raise any motion or any piece of business for the agenda. There are different processes for doing that, whether it’s through the generation of the agenda, which requires consultation with the board, whether it’s at the time where we adopt the agenda, or whether it’s through the inclusion of matters as late additions to the agenda. That is the right of the trustees, to bring business forward and propose motions.
BURTT FIDLER: Yeah, I would just like to echo, I guess, a little bit of Ms Bahr’s comments, it’s very refreshing to come to a meeting that was as transparent as this one, and to actually see some deliberation, as a change, in the actual conducting of the business of the trustees. I hope we’ll see a continuation of that.
TRUSTEE JOHNSON: Since I’ve been a trustee here, I and my fellow trustees have been outed, oh, three or four times, with our personal email addresses. Personal email addresses in public—and I’m with you on that, I don’t like it. There’s no reason why anybody’s FOIs have to demand my personal email addresses. And this is something that I think the community’s kinda gotta look at. Never mind trying to out people all the time. I don’t think that’s the way you carry on the business of governance. Just keep it simple and stop trying to out everybody.
[Public meeting adjourned.]