2025-12-03 GFPID meeting – Part 2

This is the second post in our series about the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement meeting that took place on December 3rd, 2025.

The first post about the 2025-12-03 meeting provides an introduction, links, and useful background information.

For your convenience we are providing a Table of Contents.

GFPID MEETING PART 2 - agenda items

1. INTRODUCTION OF LATE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
   • POINT OF ORDER 1: improper editing of report
   • POINT OF ORDER 2: improper discussion in email
   • POINT OF ORDER 3: chair’s failure to follow correspondence guidelines
3. CORRESPONDENCE

   • Copying correspondence on contracts to board

4. FINANCIAL REPORT
   • Reporting financial details related to lawsuit
   • Motion re HR consulting contract

GENERAL MEETING (OPEN) AGENDA

The Chair called the meeting to order and respectfully acknowledged the Snuneymuxw First Nation on whose traditional territory the meeting is held.

INTRODUCTION OF LATE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA

CHAIR: So we'll take the adoption of the minutes, and…

CORPORATE OFFICER: Agenda.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Agenda first.

CHAIR: Hm?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Agenda first.

CHAIR: Oh, I’m sorry. Introduction of late agenda items and adoption of agenda.

POINT OF ORDER 1: editing of report

(APPROX 00:39)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a point of order. I understand that the finance report submitted by the Chair of the Finance Committee was edited before inclusion in the agenda. I believe this to be improper, and I request that the report be circulated as submitted to the board and included in the minutes as submitted.

 

CORPORATE OFFICER: A report was not submitted. Two paragraphs in an email were submitted. So I asked, I asked—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The chair has to rule. This is not debatable. So, and I'm going to clarify that there's a report included in the agenda package from the Finance Committee chair, and correspondence was distributed to trustees from the Chair of the Finance Committee, indicating that that report was edited from what was submitted.

CHAIR: So who's the author of that? You want to speak to it? [to Finance Committee Chair, Trustee Chorneyko]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, it was, what ended up in the agenda package was not what I submitted.

CHAIR: Okay…

TRUSTEE MERCIER: This is not a debatable thing. You must decide, Chair.

CHAIR: Well, I’m debating it right now.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That's improper.

CHAIR: Well, there you go. We're gonna—we're gonna accept it as it is.

CORPORATE OFFICER: I took the paragraphs written in an email and made it into a report. In future, if you do not send me a “report” report, it will not be included.

[ED.: the report in the agenda package was several paragraphs of text under the heading “Finance Report—November 5^th, 2025.” It was not clear from the discussion what the requirements of a “report” report are.]

CHAIR: Does someone want to make a motion? So that we can decide—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Chair,  you must decide whether my point of order is correct.

CHAIR: Please don't interrupt while I’m speaking.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Point of Order. I request that the board elect a chair to decide this issue. Per bylaw 97 section 18, if the chair refuses to rule on a point of order, the chair must ––the board must elect, from among itself, someone to decide. The point of order must be decided. Section 45, [unclear] blah blah blah, you all know this. You've been trustees longer than I have. If the report was edited, that's improper, and you must declare so. If you do not feel this improper, you must declare my point void, or “not well taken”. Those are the options.

 

CHAIR: I don't have any indication that it was edited.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We've heard from the Chair of the Finance Committee that it was, that what’s present in the agenda package is not what was submitted as his report.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I emailed you and [the Corporate Officer] and you said you knew nothing about it.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Is the change material?

CHAIR: Hm?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Is the change material?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: My intention is to read it in full at the Finance Committee.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: At the Finance Committee?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: At the point where the committee reports, I'll read it in full.

CHAIR: We’ll make that motion?

CORPORATE OFFICER: No.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So you're saying the changes are—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The changes were made. If there were changes made, that's improper, and I ask you to acknowledge that. And if the, if there were no changes made, then I'm incorrect, and I'll apologize for taking up everybody's time. And if there were changes made and you deem that to be correct, then we can proceed from there.

CHAIR: Would you be satisfied with him reading it at the time we were talking about, the Financial Committee Reports, would that satisfy you?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It satisfies me, I don’t know if it satisfies [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If you acknowledge that my point is well taken and inappropriate editing took place, I'm willing to make a follow up motion to that effect, yes, but the decision must be made and recorded in the minutes.

CHAIR: Well, I don't know whether it was made it improperly or not, but I take your point, and it's a wonderful point, if that's what you're looking for, is acknowledgement of what you said, that I'll acknowledge that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I just want to be clear that you're saying that my point is well taken. [unclear]

CHAIR: Your point is well taken, what I'm saying is that I'm not in possession at this very moment, at the beginning of this meeting, to adjudicate, for lack of a better word, whether or not changes have been made or not. Okay?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Then I make a motion... Well, how can we consider that piece of business if we have inaccurate information?

CHAIR: Run that by me again?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, we need to consider the financial report as part of the business of this meeting. If the report we're considering has been edited from what was committed, submitted by the Chair of the Finance Committee, then we're not considering the report from the Finance Committee, we're considering some other report.

CHAIR: Okay, so I think that, from my point of view, we’ll get to a semantic battle here, as long as you're satisfied [speaking to Trustee Chorneyko] that you can read your—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, and just to clarify, there was just part—a sentence or two omitted.

CHAIR: That’s all.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah.

CHAIR: Okay, just for the audience. Did you hear that? There was a couple of sentences omitted? Okay.

TRUSTEE MOHER: And there were only two of us at that committee meeting.

CHAIR: Yeah, two people

[multiple people talking, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I move

THAT the Chair of the Finance Committee present his report as submitted, and that report as submitted be included in the minutes of this meeting.

[The motion is called and CARRIED.]

CHAIR: Okay, can we move on? Alright, we have the adoption of minutes to deal with right now.

[Multiple voices, unclear but apparently noting that the agenda must be approved first]

CHAIR: Oh, okay, do we have an approval on the agenda?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I move that we approve the Agenda. [CARRIED]

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Adoption of November 5, 2025, General Meeting Minutes

CHAIR: Next, we move on to the adoption of minutes. Everybody had the minutes, or has seen the minutes?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes, and thank you for all this information [unclear].

CHAIR: So what's the bottom line there?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m just saying thanks for—

CORPORATE OFFICER: Someone has to move it.

CHAIR: Hm?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Someone has to move it.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I will move that we accept the minutes of the previous meeting.

CHAIR: I'll second it. All in favor. Show of hands? Carried.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: There was a mistake in the October 1 meeting minutes. What's the appropriate process to fix that? Can we just fix that right now?

CHAIR: Do we have those?

CORPORATE OFFICER: I don't have those.

[Multiple voices, unclear, but clarifying the date of the minutes as October 1^st 2025]

TRUSTEE MOHER: That would have to come up at the next meeting, and you would email them with the changes so that we could review those changes. That's why we ask people to review them and send in the changes ahead of all the approvals, so, to be able to not have to go back two months and suddenly have somebody say, “Oh, we missed it.”

CHAIR: I understand where you're coming from, but, I mean, I think that the October 1st minutes were approved, were they not?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, but with a mistake in them.

CHAIR: Which wasn't brought up at the time.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah.

CHAIR: So how about we do this at our next meeting? Because this is going to be a humdinger as far as stuff we have to do.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Okay.

CHAIR: So we have approval on them. Okay?

CHAIR: Okay, correspondence—

POINT OF ORDER 2: improper discussion in email

(APPROX 9:00)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Point of order.

CHAIR: Yes, sir?

TRUSTEE MERCIER:  A member may raise a point of order when a breach of the rules has occurred. I assert the breach has occurred. Trustees engaged in discussion and debate of district business by email prior to this meeting, which is improper deliberation outside the duly convened meeting. So point of order and a motion arising from it.

The point of order is that an impropriety was committed and trustees engaged in inappropriate deliberation outside of a properly convened meeting, via email.

CHAIR: And you have proof of that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There's a 16 email chain, yes.

CHAIR: And you have those with you?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes, you are a participant in—

CHAIR: Yeah, I’m sure I am, and so are you.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I am not.

CHAIR: Oh, okay… You may be the only one, then.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: All the same, that email chain is, I raise a point of order, that that email chain is improper deliberation outside of a properly convened meeting.

CHAIR: Okay.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And should you approve my point of order, I have a motion arising from it.

CHAIR: Mm… I approve your point of order.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Thank you. I move

THAT the board reaffirms that all deliberation and decision making must occur in duly convened meetings, and acknowledges that recent discussion and debate regarding district business took place through email outside such meetings, which is improper and inconsistent with open meeting requirements,

AND

THAT the board directs all trustees to refrain from discussing, debating or attempting to predetermine district business through email or other non meeting channels, except for scheduling or the distribution of background materials,

AND

directs the corporate officer to record in the minutes of this meeting that concerns were raised regarding improper deliberation by email, and that the board has reaffirmed its obligation to conduct all debates and decision making in open session.

CHAIR: Is that your motion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That's my motion.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I'll second it.

CHAIR: It’s open for discussion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If I may speak to it. First, I would like to remind the board that email deliberation is subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Protection and Privacy Act, that may be requested by the public, which is why we must conduct our deliberations in properly convened meetings. This is also properly done in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order by which we are bound; which explicitly states that deliberation takes place at properly convened meetings, and not otherwise.

CHAIR: Can you see that in the Local Government Act?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Bylaw 97, which is our procedural by law, binds us to Robert's Rules of Order … unless it's otherwise addressed. Robert's Rules of Order specifies that deliberation must take place in properly convened meetings.

 

CHAIR: What do you consider deliberation?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Any discussion, any attempt to—

CHAIR: Any discussion. Is that what you’re saying?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ve said what I’ve said, and so I am—I’m done. I've said my piece.

CHAIR: So if you send me an email concerning the data breach, that's in a discussion, is it not?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: No, if I send the board an email about the data breach or any other matter, attempting to influence the opinions of the board or advocate for particular course of action, that's inappropriate deliberation.

CHAIR: Which is what you've done.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe you'd be incorrect.

CHAIR: I can't believe that I'm correct on that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The matter remains that there's a motion on the floor. I made the motion. It's been seconded.

CHAIR: Any more discussion on that, anyone got something to say?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I find it very interesting to have this come up at this point, after some of the discussions we had earlier in the months back, when fulsome conversations were had about email, that people did not participate on purpose, and then suddenly it's become an issue and thrown back up at us. So I'm finding this really quite frustrating. [unclear]

CHAIR: I mean, I think the cat's out of the bag as far as that's concerned. As far as I'm concerned, I was off the email trail for a while, but when I’m back on it, I see a lot of discussion going on among everybody. Everybody, okay, I don't think it's illegal at all. I don't think it's unlawful or wrong. I do not think that. Okay, so that's my personal opinion. So we take a vote on this, or what?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Mmhm, we have to, it’s been on the floor.

CHAIR: You want to read your motion again?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Be it resolved

THAT the board reaffirms that all deliberation and decision making must occur in duly convened meetings, and acknowledges that recent discussion and debate regarding district business took place through email outside such meetings, which is improper and inconsistent with open meeting requirements,

AND

directs all trustees to refrain from discussing, debating, or attempting to predetermine district business through email or other non- meeting channels, except for scheduling or the distribution of background materials,

AND

to direct the corporate officer to record in the minutes of this meeting that concerns were raised regarding improper deliberation by email and that the board has reaffirmed its obligation to conduct all debate and decision making in an open session.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So basically just saying we should be making decisions in public, which seems pretty straightforward.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Or in camera, depending on what the issue is, which was why, when it was asked for a meeting to be called so we could discuss this, there was a huge block put up with people saying, “No, we can't do that.” So this is one reason why I'm frustrated by the fact that when we try to do certain things, people put blocks in place, and then they come back and say, once you said, why we think we should have a meeting, then that's thrown back at us, saying we did this wrong. So I'm very frustrated by policy and procedure being twisted to be used in a manner which is not appropriate. So we can put this to the vote if you want to, unless someone else has something to say.

CHAIR: Can I just say something? I think it's inappropriate that decisions are made outside of this body here. I think that's—I’m absolutely with that. But people have got to understand that in order to have a meeting, particularly a public meeting, requires at least a week's notice and a lot of fooferaw to do so. And I think this is true of any body, any public body, people have to discuss things between each other before it comes out in front of the public. The decision has not been made, but people have things to say about them, and so that's how I feel about it. I don't think we have to walk around not speaking to each other for fear that it will be, that people will think we're making decisions without going before the board, and because really, the board knows it. You know, the email goes to everybody in the board, so nobody's out of the loop. And that's why, why, Trustee Mercier knows this. And Trustee Mercier and I have been back and forth on email. I mean, I got proof of that. He's got proof of it. So where are we at with this? I mean, this is a crazy way to run an organization, where you cannot speak to your fellow trustees out of, other than a situation like this. I’ll say again, I totally understand that decisions cannot be made outside of either this or an in camera meeting. I'm totally with that.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I'm just gonna say that sometimes there's things that are time sensitive. An example would be format of an agenda, for example. Sometimes it’s time sensitive, the agenda comes out, it's going to be up in a week. If you're going to call a meeting for the same day that the meeting is being held, it's not going to work. If someone's got a problem with something that's time sensitive, it doesn't work. And I've been in the situation before, and I don't have a solution for it, but that is certainly the problem.

CHAIR: We had a time sensitive issue. We've had two lately that I tried to set up a meeting under bylaw, [unclear] Bylaw 220 in the Local Government Act that allows me to do basically an emergency meeting, and I was shut down both times by Trustee Mercier, who says that under no conditions can you do that, and that there has to be a week's public notice of any meetings, which has not been the case here whatsoever. Now I demurred to Mr. Mercier, because I don't think that we have time to argue every little thing. At least I don't. So I demurred to your request—or not your request, your demand. And here we are. There are time sensitive things, particularly with the nonsense that goes on around here that has to be dealt with in a time sensitive sort of way. And we can't do that as a body assembling here very often. We have to do it through through email. [to audience] But please, please understand that, other than a couple of things that I'm not happy about, that we may discuss in the next couple of meetings, no decisions are made via email between the trustees or officers or anybody else involved. I just want you to know that. So show of hands on your motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I request that those voting for and against be recorded.

CHAIR: I’m sorry, what—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I request that those voting for and against be recorded in the minutes.

CHAIR: I haven’t got a problem with that.

One trustee being absent, there were six trustees voting. In the event of a tie, motions are considered to be defeated.

CHAIR: So put your hands up if you agree with Mr. Mercier’s motion.

 Trustees Bussler, Chorneyko, and Mercier vote in favour of the motion. The Chair did not ask for hands to be raised in a vote against the motion.

Okay, we're shut that one down for now, anyway. Okay—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Was that carried or defeated?

CHAIR: Defeated.

[Background conversations among board members while the chair confirms that the Corporate Officer has the details of the motion]

CHAIR: Moving on—

POINT OF ORDER 3: chair’s failure to follow correspondence guidelines

(APPROX 20:30)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a second point of order.

CHAIR: All right, then.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I raised a point of order regarding the handling of correspondence, and have a motion arising from it. At our last meeting, the Board decided that all the incoming correspondence would be acknowledged and then sent to the Communications committee so the right person could respond on behalf of the board. Since then, the chair on the [unclear, sounded like Zone Initiative] replied directly to two correspondents and asked one of them to conceal the exchange. That goes against the process the board agreed on. The board, not any individual trustee—that's how the correspondence is handled. When we adopt a process, we all have to follow it. I’m asking that we return to the process that the board approved, and that any replies made outside that process be brought into the record so the board can deal with the correspondence properly.

CHAIR: All right, then let's talk about that, then. Do you want—

[multiple voices talking over each other]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Respectfully, a point of order is not debatable.

[multiple voices talking over each other]

TRUSTEE MOHER: [to Chair] It’s a Point of Order and you have to decide whether or not you feel like it’s an appropriate Point of Order or not. [to Trustee Mercier] I would like to know how many more you have, since we actually have a lot of business to get through tonight, so could you please give us an idea of how many more Points of Order you [unclear] because that’s some of our working time.

[some side conversation]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: This is improper procedure, and I will not respond to it.

TRUSTEE MOHER: [to Chair] Point of Order, sir, could you please ask Mr. Mercier how many more issues he's bringing forward to take up the working time of the board?

CHAIR: Wayne, could you please tell us how many more—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I request the chair decide the point of order.

CORPORATE OFFICER: [unclear]

CHAIR: [to CORPORATE OFFICER?] I don't think—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Shall the chair be sustained? The correct procedure for appealing a point of order, which I've just done, is for the member to call, “Shall the chair be sustained?” Members present, other than the chair, then vote whether or not to support the chair’s ruling, Shall the chair be sustained? Anyone…

There is clear confusion about process and people attempt to review documents to determine what rules apply.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Can Trustee Mercier provide just a bit more explanation around this process, please? So, what are we—[unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So, the chair has ruled. The remaining members of the deliberative body must now answer the question, Shall the chair be sustained? If the vote is in favour of the chair being sustained, then the chair's ruling stands. If the vote is against the chair being sustained, then the chair’s ruling is overturned, and the opposite ruling, since there are only two options, is held. And then I have a follow up.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I'm assuming you've researched this ahead of time, but this is all kind of new to me. I will be the first  to admit I have not memorized Robert’s Rules

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It’s Bylaw 97, sections 45 to 48.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Okay, so do you get to vote in this, does the chair get to vote in this?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The chair does not get to vote.

CHAIR: I'll pick my chairmanship here, uh, chairpersonship, and say that for the last two and a half years, I've heard nothing but complaints from people who sent in correspondence to the trustees, including the chair. I'm newly the chair, but all chairs, and we've had a lot of people really, really upset. And some of the people, and there’s a couple of people in this room that I’m going to include in that, that they were not responded to. I took it upon myself to finally do that. I was really tired of that [flapping mouth hand gesture] going on from people saying “you didn't get back to me, you didn't get back to me.” So I did. And I take great, I take umbrage, I take umbrage to the idea that I told anybody that they should keep our conversation secret. Okay, what I said was, in normal cases like this, it would be a man to man situation, but you're free, and I think I'm almost quoting myself, now, you're free to do with it what you want with it, because we're not [unclear]. It's not gentleman to gentleman anymore, is it? We have a whole new set of rules in the world, which is, you know, I can't tell you anything in confidence, not that I was telling you anything in absolute confidence, that the whole public doesn't know already. But if you don't want me to respond, we go back to the same nonsense of every letter that comes in here, we'll have to, we'll have to get all the people, all seven people here, to decide on the wording, and who is responding, and how they are responding. Now I mean, it’s just, it's ludicrous. It's absolutely ludicrous, when you think about it. Put yourselves, and certainly there are people in this room have been in this situation, put yourselves in our situation, trying to answer one person's question with answers, with seven people answering it and going, “No, I want to use that word. I want to use that word. I want to use that word.” Let's not kid ourselves. It would be really nice, and I've been pushing this for a while, that we have a communication person that just is authorized to make, to make those, to answer those questions. But we haven't seemed to get there yet. We haven't gotten there yet. And I want to make it clear that I was addressing in one case, an issue we have about public belittling, harassing, bullying and the like, of our staff in public discourse, and we can't do that. I guarantee you, that WorkSafe BC says we are not allowed to do that. We cannot be part of that. But we'll discuss that later if you want. But that's what I got to say about it at this point.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The question on the floor is, shall the chair be sustained? I believe that you all heard the chair disclose that he of his own volition, contacted landowners individually, which—

CHAIR: [overlapping speech, unclear] Wayne, why don’t you tell them who I contacted?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: —contrary to the correspondence policy adopted at the November general meeting.

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: Do we really want to do this? Because you can do it. Do what you like.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I put the question, Shall the chair be sustained? It’s your job as chair to call for a vote on that.

CHAIR: What's that?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I put forth the question, Shall the chair be sustained? I've appealed your ruling that, regarding my point of order, so now it's your responsibility to call for a vote of all members present, other than yourself.

CHAIR: Call for a vote.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And those voting for and against the question shall be recorded in the minutes.

CHAIR: For? Against?

[Lack of hands, some background conversations, possible confusion as to what the voting choices represent.]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So if you think the chair should be sustained, you vote “for”.

CHAIR: Listen, listen buddy, I'm the chair here. Just keep your pants on, will ya? For? Against?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I vote for.

CHAIR: What do you vote for?

TRUSTEE MOHER: To sustain.

CHAIR: You vote to sustain…

TRUSTEE MOHER: Which is for your…

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Correct.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’m not entirely sure which way it… was.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Okay, it’s for his declaration to be sustained. I know this is very, because we've never had to worry about—if we had gone through this in the last four months, every time we had a meeting, we would never have gotten through a meeting, because we could have called multiple points of orders at every meeting that we had had in the past. So, we’ve never done this.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So sustain is—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Sustain is in support of him saying, “No, this is a frivolous motion.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. It’s not. It’s just insane.

CHAIR: But may I say, I would like this dealt with ASAP, but not tonight. We've got a lot on our plate.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The other—there’s still a motion on your plate.

[More unclear conversation trying to figure out the process and what it means]

TRUSTEE MOHER: They have to vote in favour of you saying that you're not allowing for his motion and his [unclear]. So we sustain that.

CHAIR: That's what the vote is. In the affirmative, raise your hand. [3 hands raised]

TRUSTEE MOHER: So we sustained it.

CHAIR: In the negative, raise your hand. [3 hands raised] It’s carried by the negative.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Since the point was well taken, I have a following motion, which is

THAT the corporate officer record in the minutes the correspondence with landowners was handled improperly, and that the board recommit itself to adhere to the correspondence policy adopted at the November general meeting.

CHAIR: I'll second that, and we will have discussion on that, then, okay? And the discussion is this. I do not want to answer your letters. I don't. I'd like to, but I don't want to, if you know what I mean, some of them are just horrible. Some of them are nice. Most of them are not helpful in any way, shape or form, and, but I just, in my defence, and I don't think I really need to defend myself on this particular thing… Somebody had to say something. Okay. Because as long as we get the same people writing the same tired diatribes and screaming about how they are being ignored by the hall, we're going to have this problem. But I do not want to be that person. I got a lot on my plate, and I don't want to be responding to every single one of them. I tried my best, in this case, in both cases, to explain something that I think needed to be explained. And in fact, one of the letters that I wrote to that particular person, they're not at the hall here now, so that's how much interest they have in it. Did I say that? So we can move on? Handcuff me now. Can we move on, or we got something else?

 [multiple voices, unclear, one notes that there is a motion on the floor]

CHAIR: There’s a motion on the floor to do what?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion on the floor, which was made by me, seconded by you, is

THAT the corporate officer record in the minutes that correspondence with landowners was handled improperly, and that the board recommit itself to adhere to the correspondence policy adopted at the November general meeting,

TRUSTEE MOHER: Which within itself outlined that some correspondence will be directed directly to a person, and some correspondence will be answered directly, including the motion made by Trustee Mercier, that it would be answered immediately by the Corporate Officer, and that some correspondence would go straight to committee chairs to be dealt with at that level. So I think there might be some confusion around who might be doing that, and maybe the motion should say that some trustees need clarification on how to read the policy and understand what's going on. And perhaps the work that John Moeller has done to clarify, the work on the communication policy that was going to be brought up, but I'm not sure we're going to get to that, will possibly help that. So my understanding is that because there was a possible legal implication in the email that came in, having the chair respond to it in a timely fashion was possibly not inappropriate in and of itself. Thank you. That's my comment, and that's all I'm going to say about it.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I’m not sure that it was due to confusion of, and we can debate this point of the policy, because [unclear] from what I saw is, I saw an email come in addressed all the trustees, and then I was not aware of correspondence having been sent out in response to that, to that, that letter that was addressed to all trustees, and—

CHAIR: You did get it.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I didn't get your response—

CHAIR: You got a global on that.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I got your response because the person responded back again.

CHAIR: To you.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: To everybody. So that's, so it seemed to me that there's an attempt made to not disclose to the other trustees, which I, I do have a bit of a problem with. That doesn't deal with this motion, I mean, it deals with this motion, but I'm just saying that, in my opinion, there was [unclear because of a side conversation]

CHAIR: Well?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I've said what I've said, and I believe what I've said, and I think that at some point, because of the nature of the email, there are some times when a person that is dealing with those [unclear] of something makes the initial… So if the wrongness of it was that we were not cc’d or bcc’d on it, perhaps that might have been the thing, but not the intent behind the response.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: But there's also in that response a request made by Trustee, by Chair Johnson, to not have have that respondent share the information, so—

CHAIR: No, no, that's not true, that, that's a lie. Okay? Because you have the email, you know that's not true.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I will show—

CHAIR: Oh no.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me, wasn't there a motion that the Corporate Officer just write this down, and then we could get on the meeting? [multiple voices] She should be writing it down anyway, so this is sort of a moot thing, let’s just get—I'd like to hear the meeting.

CHAIR: Yeah, me too.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: There’s a motion on the floor—

CHAIR: We got a vote on the floor. In the affirmative, raise your hand in the affirmative. End of the discussion. Do we have an end? Anyone else got something to say?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You’ve got a motion on the floor, Erik, you’ve gotta hold a vote on it.

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: Well, we've gone from, we've gone from, a motion to seconding and discussion. I think we're at the point though.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You can hold a vote, or you can table it. You can table the motion, or [unclear] you can take a vote on it, on the motion [unclear]

[multiple voices]

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So comments are allowed from the floor, now?

CHAIR: What’s that?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Comments are allowed from the floor?

CHAIR: Yeah, sure. Why not.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Oh!

CHAIR: If I can just say this, there's going to be a, there's going to be a question and answer period later, okay?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: That’s usually the way it is.

CHAIR: So can you keep it to the, what we're talking about now?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So everybody has to abide by that? [pause] Just asking.

CHAIR: Just go ahead.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, I have nothing. There's just comments coming from the floor, which is not normal procedure. Normally, we're supposed to wait until the question and answer.

CHAIR: Yeah, I agree. I think we're giving [former Trustee Charleen Wells] a little bit of a, a little more freedom, because she recently was a, but, yeah, I take your point. So what do you want to do now?

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: We need to vote, and let's get on, because it's twenty before five—

CHAIR: Okay, I’ve said that several times now, in the affirmative, put your hand up.

TRUSTEE MOHER: But are we voting on voting in the affirmative for his motion?

CHAIR: Yes.

TRUSTEE MOHER: To go against our policy?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: [unclear but seems to be a request to restate the motion]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion that has been put on the floor and seconded is

THAT the corporate officer record in the minutes the correspondence of landowners was handled improperly, and that the board recommit itself to adhere to the correspondence policy adopted at the November general meeting.

I will clarify by quoting from the correspondence policy, which reads, “When correspondence, such as letters and or documents are received, the correspondence is sent to the Communications Committee, the correspondence is categorized and discussed with the corporate officer as it can fall into several categories.” So that's what the policy says. That's not what was done.

CHAIR: According to you.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Let’s just vote on it.

CORPORATE OFFICER: We have another correspondence policy in our package.

 

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: So we're kind of between a rock and a hard place here. Like I said, I had no, I have no opposition to taking, to not ever communicating. [multiple voices, laughter] You got me on that. Didn't want to do it. Felt it was necessary. Won't do it again, gladly. But we're going to need some, we have to have something.

[quiet voice, not the Chair]: All in favour?

CHAIR: All in favour?

CHAIR: Carried.

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: Anything else, you got another before I speak again? Would you like to speak?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a motion arising later from the correspondence that will happen, but I don't have the point of order to interrupt the flow of business.

CHAIR: You don't! Thank you. Thank you for that, sir.

CORRESPONDENCE

(APPROX 39:35)

CHAIR: All right, then we've got, okay. Are we on correspondence now, without the preamble?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

CHAIR: Four emails have been received regarding the Privacy Breach. Each email will be responded to once more information is available. Okay? Now I have a question on that. I wonder who's going to do that? Okay, we're going to have, we actually have a policy that we're going to bring forth to deal with this sort of thing. So you're going to have to hang fire on the answer on that particular thing. I wish that I could just email people who wrote these and do that, but that’s not happening, so. Okay, we're gonna move to receive those correspondence. Any discussion? All in favour?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We're voting to…?

CHAIR: Receive the correspondence.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR: All in favour?

COPYING CORRRESPONDENCE ON CONTRACTS TO BOARD

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I do have a motion relating to correspondence.

CHAIR: Excuse me?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a motion relating to correspondence.

CHAIR: All right, then make that motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I move

THAT staff provide the trustees with a copy of all correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, or Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department, and SOS, for the calendar year 2025;

AND

the correspondence about the Rogers contract to be similarly provided;

AND

the correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff with Amui (A, M, U, I) Inc, HR, Inc, be similarly provided.

AND

that correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff and other oversight regulatory bodies, including, but not limited to the Office of the Inspector of Municipalities, Ministry of Finance, BCEHS and CRA be similarly provided.

CHAIR: Anyone second that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Sure, I’ll second that.

CHAIR: Any discussion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Bylaw 97 requires that the Corporate Officer report on pertinent correspondence sent and received by the board; no sent correspondence has been reported to the Board for calendar year 2025, despite the involvement of the agency in several consequential contracts and negotiations.

CHAIR: Are you saying that while you were chair, there was no correspondence?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I'm saying that during the portion of the meeting allotted for correspondence, at which the corporate officer is to relate, report on pertinent correspondence sent, no correspondence sent has been reported.

CHAIR: Okay, and this happened in the four months that you were chair.

 

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I'm saying for calendar year 2025, no sent correspondence has been reported to the Board for inclusion in the public record.

TRUSTEE MOHER: And so now you're bringing up something that happened during your tenure, instead of asking us, at that point, how do we do something like that? And so now all of a sudden, you're bringing up something that you're going, “Oh, wow, why didn't this happen?” [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The bylaw requires the Corporate Officer—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Excuse me. You're talking over me.

[Trustee Mercier stops talking and eats some chips while attentively listening to Trustee Moher.]

TRUSTEE MOHER: I'm just finding it in full— oh, thank you very much. That's so rude, and inconsiderate, to start eating while I’m speaking to you. You’re obviously not very interested in what we’re having to say to you. We're also wondering what is going on behind the request, is what I'm asking for. I'm obviously curious as to why you're— Mr. Mercier!

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Please address your comments to the Chair.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Chair.

CHAIR: Yes.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I would prefer to speak to you because you're not sitting there and eating in front of me.

CHAIR: You don’t think that’s body language, do you?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I would hate to use my degree in psychology to [unclear], but whatever. I'm tired, I'm frustrated. I have [unclear] from I don’t know what, and I'm concerned that we're wasting time on things that are not relevant at this time. And I would like to table this motion to a meeting where we can sit down and discuss what is the purpose behind the request, rather than wasting the time and wasting our Corporate Officer’s time for information and material that's accessible.

CHAIR: I couldn't agree more. Are you good with that Wayne? [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I'm not sure what you're asking me.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Can I ask exactly what you're looking for? Because I have no correspondence with SOS.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Presumably the Fire Chief does.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah, we did ask him yesterday.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I requested that staff provide the trustees with a copy of all correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We have to discuss the divide between operations and us, which is why I'm asking through the chair that we table this motion in order to make sure that we are not crossing the line between our job and operations. I’m very concerned that this is what is starting to happen, and I've seen it happen on three or four other occasions, where from the governance meeting that I attended as a, through a different board, but I know that Trustee Chorneyko was there, and they told us that we stand there with noses in and hands out, and I think we need to start being extremely careful about how we're handling our business and how we're sticking our noses into other business without proper protocols. So we need to be extremely careful how we handle all of this before it goes sideways on us in a way that we're not understanding. Because everything we've seen lately has talked about the fact that we have to be very careful to stay out of the way of operations and stop interfering and stuff. And I'm going on record right now, I'm saying this very loudly and very clearly, and we need to start looking at what we're doing and how we're handling things. Thank you.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: This is exactly what this is, noses in and hands out.

TRUSTEE MOHER: No it’s not.

 

CHAIR: What’s that again?

TRUSTEE MOHER: They’re asking for information that we may or may not be required or allowed to ask for. We need clarification on that, so my request through the chair is that we table this motion.

CHAIR: So if I have the power do that—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yes.

CHAIR: —I’ll do it.

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: What I'd like to say here is that I noticed in Wayne’s screed here that he's asking for information and correspondence from Amui. I hate to interrupt you while you're eating, but is that, is that the case?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Would you like me to reread the motion?

CHAIR: I would like you to read me what you have in terms of what you were looking for. And I think one of the names that I heard was Amui, which is the HR outfit that we have currently.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have requested correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff with Amui. I don't know if that's the correct way to pronounce it, but yes.

CHAIR: All right. Well that would be protected under law anyway, but read on, some of the other ones.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Shall I just reread the motion then?

CHAIR: Please read them to me. I have to understand what it is we're looking for before I can [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER:

THAT staff provide the trustees with a copy of all correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, or Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department, and SOS, which is Safer Ocean Systems, for the calendar year 2025;

AND

the correspondence about the Rogers contract to be similarly provided;

AND

the correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff with Amui HR Inc, be similarly provided.

AND

that correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff and other oversight regulatory bodies, including, but not limited to the Office of the Inspector of Municipalities, Ministry of Finance, BCEHS and Canada Revenue Agency, be similarly provided.

CHAIR: Well, I think at least the CRA you're not going to get, you're not going to get Amui.

AUDIENCE MEMBER PAULA MALLINSON (former Corporate Officer): [standing up] I'm leaving. This is, this is a farce. I'd like to hear a meeting one time that actually starts on time. [leaves]

CHAIR: I would too. What can I tell you, Paula? Thank you.

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear] by agenda, which is against the [unclear] as well. Not one trustee be taking over in any manner whatsoever, a meeting, and pushing through agenda items on their own and that, that calls for, again, a point of order, sir.

CHAIR: Are you making that Point of Order?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’m making that Point of Order. It’s in the Local Government Act, and it's in our, it's in our handbook.

 

CHAIR: Can I make a suggestion here?

TRUSTEE MOHER: We table this and we move on to business at hand.

CHAIR: Okay, let’s table it, then.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s a vote.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I vote to table.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So there’s a motion to table made by trustee Moher, and I believe that you seconded that motion, the chair.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: You got that? [aside to CORPORATE OFFICER]

CHAIR: So it’s tabled.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Did we vote?

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: Can I just say something we did? This is a cornucopia of requests that you put forward, Trustee Mercier. Some of those things that we can legally do, some of the things we cannot do. And one of the major problems, from my perspective, that we have here, is some awful leaks from trustees to the public, and that's one of the major concerns that we have here, and that's one of the reasons why we can not just willy nilly pull everything out. I mean, what's the next thing? you're going to ask for the same correspondence from Move HR? Is that what we're doing here? Because that's where we're going with this.

[multiple voices]

CORPORATE OFFICER: Call for the vote. Call for the vote.

CHAIR: I just did, didn’t I?

CORPORATE OFFICER: [unclear]

CHAIR: Okay, I’m calling for a vote in the affirmative.

TRUSTEE MOHER: To table the motion.

CHAIR: To table this. Not forever.

CHAIR: So I think that [unclear].

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, can we move on?

[?]: [multiple voices] There’s a motion on the floor.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Shouldn’t we call for a vote on the original motion?

MULTIPLE VOICES: tabled.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Are we setting that aside? Is the table indefinitely or tabled to a particular time? And the time [unclear]… We didn’t call for a vote against. So…

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion is on the table, er, the motion is on the floor to table my motion. If three trustees are in favour of tabling the motion and three trustees are opposed, then the motion is not tabled because a tie defeats the motion.

CHAIR: It still fails.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion to table fails. So the motion is still—

CORPORATE OFFICER: [unclear] have to go back to the motion.

CHAIR: [unclear] we're short one trustee.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Call the vote on the main motion.

CHAIR: I’m calling the vote on the main motion.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We know it’s just going to be a tie anyway, so this is the problem with [unclear]—

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: —at the point where we know there’s not going to be—

CHAIR: In the affirmative.

TRUSTEE MOHER: —appropriately.

CHAIR: Diana?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’m sorry, I’m just really—

CHAIR: I know, but—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Trustee [unclear] I just want to make sure that you're voting—if you vote on the affirmative, you're supporting my motion.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: [to audience] You guys can complain about me all you want, ‘cause I can hear, blah blah blah. I'm tired. I'm frustrated. It's now what? Five o'clock, and we haven't made it past the adoption of the minutes or the correspondence, and we have work to do on here, and we're wasting time talking about things that are point of orders that could be taken to a further meeting and discussed appropriately with proper information in front of us, instead of making decisions on the fly at a time when we're, have other things that need to be dealt with appropriately.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Just call the motion.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Just call the motion.

CHAIR: Hm?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Just call the motion.

CHAIR: Well, I mean, if we're gonna get stalemated here on this—

[?]: just call for the motion. Just call the motion.

CHAIR: I call for the motion.

[?]: [unclear]

CHAIR: I call for a motion—what am I calling now?

CORPORATE OFFICER: All in favour.

TRUSTEE MOHER: When everybody in favour of his motion to ask for all that material that he has, without the reason.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I don't have any of that. I don't have any of them. None of us do.

TRUSTEE MOHER: so?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So it's incorrect to say that I'm asking for material that we have, when I'm asking for material we do not have.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Without providing a concrete reason for it.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe the material to be required for me to execute my fiduciary duty as a trustee. Are we done?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Can you reread the motion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion on the floor is

THAT staff provide the trustees with a copy of all correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, or Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department, and Safer Ocean Systems, for the calendar year 2025;

AND

the correspondence about the Rogers contract be similarly provided;

AND

the correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff with Amui Inc, be similarly provided.

AND

the correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff and other oversight or regulatory bodies be included, but not limited to the Office of the Inspector of Municipalities, The Ministry of Finance, BCEHS and the Canada Revenue Association, be similarly provided.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Before we vote… I’d just like to make a statement that I'm fine with all that, except for the Amui one, because that's an HR company, and I don't know what correspondence our staff has had with the HR company, I don’t think that’s—

CHAIR: That’s privileged. It’s privileged.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: [unclear] —so that's the reason I'm going to vote against them. Otherwise I’m fine with the motion, but that—

CHAIR: Well there’s a couple of other things that I [unclear].

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: [unclear] amend the motion [unclear]

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I don't spend any more time on this, but if someone wants to amend the motion, have at it.

CHAIR: We’re gonna have to spend time on it, looks like folks, that's the way it’s gonna go. It's not going away.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I'd like to amend the motion that correspondence between staff and Amui is pulled out of this, with the exception of contract neg—anything to do with contracts.

CHAIR: In terms of what the contract is between us and Amui.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah. If it's HR and personnel, that's appropriate.

CHAIR: Yeah, I'm a little funny about CRA. I mean, that's, I, that has some real problems.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: That should come to us.

CHAIR: I can’t understand why.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ve got a seconder for my amendment.

CHAIR: You’ve got a seconder for your amendment.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Currently amend your amendment to have the first amendment be to insert the words “about contracts” in the section about committees, so it reads “THAT correspondence about contracts between the Fire Protection District or its staff with Amui”…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I like that. [unclear]

TRUSTEE MOHER: And just to clarify, Robert's Rules says a tie fails not passes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: A tie defeats the vote, that’s correct.

TRUSTEE MOHER: That’s right. So if it's a tie, the motion is defeated.

[side discussions]

CHAIR: Can I also say that we do not have a contract with Rogers, we do not have a contract. I'll say it loud, we don't have a contract with Rogers. We have interest from them. I don't think we've heard from them in what, a year?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: This motion is designed to let us know whether or not we heard from them, or not. So there's a motion, there's motion to amend on the floor.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: And seconded.

[further discussion between trustees, unclear]

CHAIR: Okay, so it’s an up or down vote.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah, let’s vote. Let’s vote. Vote on the motion.

CHAIR: We'll vote on the motion.

[multiple voices, some confusion]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: May I speak, chair?

CHAIR: In the affirmative?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: We’re voting in favour of the amendment?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: [unclear] Now you’ve got to call for a vote on the amended motion.

CHAIR: I'll call for a vote on the amended motion. In the affirmative? And you can record at least me in opposition.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So the motion was carried, is that correct?

CHAIR: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Thank you.

CHAIR: All right, moving on.

(MOTION reproduced again in case readers forgot what it was)

THAT staff provide the trustees with a copy of all correspondence between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, or Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department, and SOS, for the calendar year 2025;

AND

the correspondence about the Rogers contract to be similarly provided;

AND

the correspondence about contracts between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District or its staff with Amui HR Inc, be similarly provided.

FINANCIAL REPORT

September 2025 Financial Statement

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I can speak to that.

CHAIR: Absolutely.

DISCUSSION RE REPORTING FINANCIAL DETAILS RELATED TO LAWSUIT

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So it's on page eight of the agenda package. I'd like to point out the legal costs number. I was previously under the impression that a bunch of these costs would be covered by insurance. And so now I've learned that we're on the hook for them all, so—

CHAIR: So is this something, I mean, is this something you want to discuss at a public meeting?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes, yeah. At one point we said that there was insurance covering some of these. And I've learned that—

CHAIR: Can I just say something? I'm going to cut you short here. We have entered a new agreement with the parties involved in what you're going to talk about, costs and everything else, okay? Now it's not for public discussion. You may think it is. I can't stop you from doing this, but I'm going to tell everybody that this is not for public discussion.

CHAIR: [to audience] I think a lot of you folks have never been in a court of law, never settled anything [unclear]. I can understand that. Okay, you don't know what we're talking about, but let me just tell you, when a settlement is made, everybody is enjoined from discussing it. Do you understand what I'm saying? Does that make sense to you? You watching American type TV to understand that? And so I think that should be an in camera issue. I do.

AUDIENCE MEMBER JAMES ARENDS: May I make a point from the floor, please.

CHAIR: No.

ARENDS: What you're saying is—

CHAIR: No. Sit down.

ARENDS: Well, I noticed that you allowed other comments from the floor. What you're saying is not correct, because what—

CHAIR: [presumably to a response to someone noting that Mr. Arends is a lawyer] I don’t care, he’s not my lawyer.

ARENDS: —what Mr. Chorneyko is saying is correct, because what he's talking about is ACCOUNTING costs. What you're talking about is SETTLEMENT costs, which are not the same thing. What parties arrange between themselves, and documents they sign, has nothing to do with the accounting expense. He's talking about expenses that were paid to our lawyers. They are not the same.

CHAIR: I understand COMPLETELY what he’s talking about.

ARENDS: Well, apparently you don’t.

CHAIR: Counselor—I would ask you to treat us like you would a court of law, okay?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So can I ask the corporate officer to prepare a report for the costs that were associated with the lawsuit.

CORPORATE OFFICER: That was already in the August meeting.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So there's also, I'm wondering about Fire Chief hours, and I'm also wondering about any Amui costs, or any other fractional HR costs, and so I don't, I just don't know. And maybe those costs are done, and I'm fine with that, but I would like to know—just the entire cost to the public for that lawsuit.

 CHAIR: Which lawsuit?

[CORPORATE OFFICER speaks quietly to the Chair, unclear, some murmuring from the audience]

CHAIR: No, we’ve had three.

[Overlapping murmuring and some board members speaking at the same time, unclear]

TRUSTEE MOHER: So are we going to just speak to the one, or are we going to actually add to it all the other ones that that we've been paying out for? Because I think we have to keep in mind that there's been other issues that we have to pay out to all those companies that you've been talking to about. So are we going to pull out those things—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

TRUSTEE MOHER: —that we've cost? So [unclear], and …

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: No.

TRUSTEE MOHER: —and all of the other Privacy Works because of all the other issues that, so everybody can know how much money it's been cost us to fix problems that have been created within the structure? And that we had to then go on and deal with that too? So while we're picking and choosing what we're going to pull out, and what money we're going to throw around, and show what happened and what we did. We're going to come really clean and go, “This is what we paid to deal with this because we did this, and this is what we are paying here because we did this, and this is what we paid here because this happened because of certain things that have gone on.” So I just want to make it really clear that if we're going to start going down a road, we're not just going to pick and choose tiny little things here and there that we're going to take a peek at.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I—

TRUSTEE MOHER: We're going to take a peek at everything.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: No, I—

TRUSTEE MOHER: We're going to air all the dirty laundry.

TRUSTEE MOHER: If you want, but—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Oh NO, [unclear, obscured by audience laughter] —I want [unclear] what they all want to know. What we're spending money on. [unclear] And from somebody who wanted to keep the budget under 10%.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: What I want to know is the one issue, because there is public interest on the cost to the taxpayer for that lawsuit. And so I'm wanting to know, just specifically for the one lawsuit, the costs associated with that, and like I say, I'd like to know fire chief hours in it. I have no idea, I have no idea—it could be zero [unclear]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Why would you need their—what would that have to do with it?

CHAIR: I'm sorry, the fire chief’s hours involved in the lawsuit, are you saying?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

TRUSTEE MOHER: But we didn’t go to court, so why would that be [unclear]?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: There was this, I don't know. There was a there was a number of work, a bunch of work done in defending, like coming up with the defence. I don't know. There’s a huge—

TRUSTEE MOHER: And the same thing with us, there was, you could say there was a lot of work coming up in the defence for the trustees.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, but you guys don't get paid. So that's fine.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Ohh, ohhh.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’m talking about money. Just simply about money.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Right. Mm hm… So again, we're not taking into context, the fact that we have a legal obligation towards our staff. Instead, you're going digging to find money issues, that they have cost us money, when we're, what we're supposed to be doing is looking out after our staff, but you're pulling up something. I don't want it broken down like that. If we're breaking down money, and we're looking at a piece of money directed at one person, we're not doing that here. We're not pointing fingers at anybody.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’m not.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yes, you are. You right away said, “I want information about this person.” That is going to stop, because we have been told by WorkSafe to smarten up, and we need to smarten up.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So—

TRUSTEE MOHER: And I'm going to say this right now, and I'm going to say it loud, because we have an obligation under WorkSafe to provide a safe, healthy workplace for our employees, the three of those ones that are sitting in this room [ED: Chief, Deputy Chief, and Corporate Officer], and quite frankly, I think you're doing a shitty job of that, because we constantly pick off one item and one thing, and we point it at one person or another person, over and over and over again. And I'm sorry, but it needs to stop.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So I hear your opinion. Do we need a motion—

TRUSTEE MOHER: I don't know that you do.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Do we need a motion—

CHAIR: I’m going to step in here for a second and say something.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’m going to step out for a second. [Trustee Moher stands and moves toward the door]

CHAIR: Okay. [unclear] but I will say this.

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear] tired of this.

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MOHER: [to audience member Arends] I’m sorry, excuse me?

CHAIR: I—

ARENDS: Do you have something to say?

TRUSTEE MOHER: You said, you muttered at me.

CHAIR: Order in the court.

[Trustee Moher leaves the room]

CHAIR: Listen, it was, it has been my hope, honestly, that we would have peace in the valley, kumbaya, whatever. And I'm not actually seeing a problem from the audience, forgive me if I think that I did, but I don't.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Chair Johnson—

CHAIR: Can I say this to David? I didn’t want to bring this up because I don't want to embarrass people, but this is just ridiculous, David. I mean, we're going to have to go through the Move HR thing. Okay, let's just be clear about that. You want information on this, this and this, but you don't want to cough up your involvement with the Move HR and the costs associated with that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Trustee Johnson?

CHAIR: You seem to think that that's, that's a that's— [multiple voices, confusion] Excuse me?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If I may, I have motion to put forward that might address some of these concerns.

CHAIR: Please do.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I move

THAT the corporate officer prepare a report breaking down all professional expense, by consultant, to be presented in camera to the board.

CHAIR: I don't have a—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We have this listed on the report, professional fees. There's a number there, if the board can be provided with a breakdown of which consultants were paid which amounts adding up to that number, I think that might address some of Trustee Chorneyko’s concerns, and also some of Trustee Moher’s concerns, and yours with keeping certain matters related to lawyers fees and settlement things in camera.

CHAIR: But it won't be a cherry-pick, okay? It'll be all or nothing.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s what I—

CHAIR: We’re getting all—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: All consultants paid under the category “professional fees”.

CHAIR: Right. Minus, I believe, HR, because that is—

[multiple voices, mostly unclear]

CORPORATE OFFICER: You can have the total fee.

CHAIR: yeah, total fees.

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s my motion. That’s what I propose.

CHAIR: Wayne, once again, we agree.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It’s astounding that things can happen when cooperation takes place.

CHAIR: I know the magic word for you was kumbaya, wasn't it?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m not a very kumbaya kind of guy.

CHAIR: I wish it were.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Seconded?

CHAIR: We are missing a trustee.

[?]: Oliver seconded.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Okay.

[The conversations between Trustee Mercier and the Chair, and the CORPORATE OFFICER and others, overlap.]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We still have a quorum.

CHAIR: Okay…

CORPORATE OFFICER: Vote. Vote on Wayne’s motion.

CHAIR: Well, I'd like, shall we wait, I mean, we're gonna get there.

[?]: We have a quorum.

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: Okay, I'll make the motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion has been made and seconded.

CHAIR: Who made the motion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I made the motion.

CHAIR: [unclear] seconded. Any more discussion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And if I may reread it to the board—

CHAIR: [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Give me just one second so that I can… So the motion is

THAT the corporate officer prepare a breakdown by vendor of all costs included under the professional fees line item to be presented to the Board in camera.

CHAIR: Any more discussion? All in favour. Hands up. Passed.

CORPORATE OFFICER: And I would like the public to note that the first half of the year is in the minutes from August. It says what we paid each of consultants is already there, the only one that's, and what it was for.

MOTION RE HR CONSULTING CONTRACT

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And I do have a further motion arising from the financial statements in general.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Sure.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: My motion is

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District cease all business relations with Amui HR consultancy, effective immediately.

CHAIR: I would like to hold off until we have returned our valued and respected trustee, if you don't mind.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I second the motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe that recess is a matter of [unclear].

CHAIR: Well, then I'm going to call recess [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Or you can ask for a vote to recess.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Here she is. [Trustee Moher returns to the table.]

CHAIR: Okay, I’m going to ask for a vote to recess. Oh! She comes back. How do you like that. … At least you didn't scream and yell on your way out.

[unclear, multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If I may speak to the motion I just made… and if you like I can repeat it for Trustee Moher.

CHAIR: Please do.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So the motion that's been made and seconded is

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District district cease all business relations with Amui HR consultancy, effective immediately.

The Amui contract was signed in 2023 without correct authorization. It has continued on an ad hoc basis since then, at a cost of just over $12,000 in 2025, without any review or specific reporting. Further, in the 2026 budgeting process, the board decided not to engage with an HR consultant for fractional services, and therefore the continuation of this relationship goes against a decision by the board.

[The motion is seconded and trustees Chorneyko and Moher indicate that they would like to speak to the motion.]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: My understanding that we spent around $25 grand with Amui this year. And my understanding is Amui, is that fractional HR, Chief Sprogis?

CHIEF: [unclear] a number of HR services.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Basically it's fractional HR.

CHIEF: Not basically, there's a number of services provided.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So what are those?

CHIEF: Reviewing agreements, typing cheques, [unclear]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Which is kind of like fractional HR. And then, you know, it's something I support. I strongly support fractional HR. I think that we need that for staff, and yeah.

CHAIR: So fractional HR is not the name of the company. It was on the letterhead from Move HR with the—what did I call it before? I think I called it a slush fund—for $50,000.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Fractional HR is a type of HR. It's not a full time HR.

CHAIR: It's not full time HR. It doesn't involve actually anybody showing up here to do HR either. I see. Okay, so—go ahead.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I was just gonna point out that the previous chair has been, was using, but, [unclear] sorry, the previous board was using Amui to liaise with the lawyers in relation to the lawsuit.

CHAIR: And that's where some of the cost comes from.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: That’s where the majority of that cost comes from. I don't know if this thing is beyond that. But as soon as, as soon as I took over handing the lawsuit, I quit that process. [unclear]

CHAIR: To my to my absolute knowledge, you know, Stephanie Lyster, Amui HR, was instrumental in the lawsuit, and she was asked to basically do the work, at, I don’t know what her what her rate was, $100 an hour, can’t remember. As opposed to $800 an hour having Stikeman do it, and that's why, that’s how that got to be [unclear]. [ED: the Stikeman reference is to Stikeman Elliott LLP, the law firm handling the Matt Dow lawsuit for the GFPID. ]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The fact remains that the contract was signed without the correct authorization and expired in 2023, so we've been operating, even without that incorrectly-entered-into contract for some time, and the services in that contract, which has been well superseded, don't have anything to do with liaising with lawyers or developing a legal strategy or anything like that.

CHAIR: So say you.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I'm reading it from the contract, which is on my screen.

CHAIR: You have the contract in front of you.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: How’d you get that?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It was distributed to all trustees by the Corporate Officer.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: [unclear]

CHAIR: Anybody?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I believe that the original $50,000 was targeted for Move HR, which I think is part of the problem and the issue—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It was clearly fractional HR.

TRUSTEE MOHER: It was directed towards a particular person. We had already been working with a new lead, which came across as, they were recommended to us and they were very, exceptionally good at their job. They were very good at interacting with the lawyers at a very low price compared to what we have to pay, at $700 an hour mark, when we're talking to the lawyers. I also believe that they are quite a bit less expensive than Move HR was, in their fact that trying to go to them, they went from a $5,000 to a $9,000 charge within what, hours of us hiring them. So I believe that this is the kind of conversation that needs to be done fully, at a finance committee meeting, not at a board meeting, where we're forced to try to make a decision without looking at all the parameters that come with having a exceptionally talented person [unclear]. Not at our beck and call, but somebody that we can use for assistance when we need it, and has proven themselves to be very capable.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I'm the one who actually asked for this contract recently, and when I saw the contract, I was surprised that we're still paying invoices to companies [unclear] contract, very recent invoices. I don't have them in front of me right now, but that has expired. I have not personally been aware of the fact that we have HR resources available to us. We had a very, very strong debate when trustee Chorneyko brought up getting HR services into our budget for next year, which I backed. I think, I think we do, we would benefit from an HR service. But I, like I said, we're paying bills here, and I have no idea where what services they're providing. They certainly have not been providing services to the trustees, and perhaps for the lawsuit, I don't know.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: No, as soon as we, um, the open lawsuit, I stopped using Amui for that completely. But I will point out that we do have a budget for professional fees, in the budget. And the reason I was opposed to the $50,000 for HR is because if you put in the budget, you're going to spend it. I think $50,000 every single year for HR is is excessive. So, I mean, there is a professional fee budget. And I think normally this would stay fairly low, this HR cost. It's like it would, it was, she helps with things like the temporary corporate officer contract, you know, like you’ve got to be careful when you're hiring someone on a temporary basis, that kind of thing. That's the sort of thing that they would normally help with, but yeah, I agree. It needs to be an appropriate contract, I didn’t realize it was expired. So, anyway.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I want to be clear that we are actively having employment contracts developed by a consultancy firm with which we have no contractual obligation or understanding. That's, that's the case.

CHAIR: It's kind of a verbal thing. Yeah, but yeah, I get your point. Can I just say something about—

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’m not sure what you mean by having a contract in place. It's typically billed by the hour.

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There’s a contract here, that's from 2023 so we don't have any... I mean, the board hasn't considered this person's qualifications in drawing up employment contracts. The board hasn't established, so far as I can tell, any kind of agreement, evaluation, reporting, like, we have, the trustees have no reporting at all about what we have spent this $25,000 on this year. Certainly we've spent, like, I think—

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I thought it was all [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: [unclear] was $12,000 but I, uh, Trustee Chorneyko—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: July 25th we paid them $8925 and September 25th we paid them $1575.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So these are thousands of dollars going out the door that the board has not contracted for, has no oversight of, or reporting on.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Okay, I see your point, that’s definitely not correct.

CHAIR: Can I say something here? You know, before we get into apples and oranges, first of all, I didn't hire this Stephanie Lyster, she came with the package when I came on board. I haven't had a lot to do with her. I think she's excellent at her job. I think she's cheap, I think in terms of, certainly in comparison to Move HR and a lot of other firms, and she's gone to the boards for us and with us a number of times. And I think that HR is not for us. It's not for the trustees. We don't have HR. It's for, for, as a service that we provide, and most places do, for their, their employees. We can't afford a full time HR person, so we got somebody by the hour. So I know there's been a lot of negativity with some people about about Stephanie Lyster, and that's just, I don’t know what you want to call that. It's just a fight. It has no basis in the real world, if somebody doesn't like somebody else. And I know for a fact that she did, was instrumental in keeping us from spending a great deal more money on the lawsuit, because she she worked cheaper, basically as adjunct to to to the big firm.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I would like to ask that this be tabled so that we can get together in the finance committee and take a good look at what's going on, and why it's being used, and how you're using it. This is a conversation that could go on and on, again, which, again is just going in circles, and it should be something that's discussed at an appropriate time.

CHAIR: We’ll take a vote on tabling it. All in favour?

[multiple voices, somewhat unclear; referencing the need to get a second and procedurally doing so]

CHAIR: Discussion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We have a strong habit of referring things to committee, dragging them out. Things circle around for a long time. This is a situation that has been ongoing for a number of years now, and we are literally, we just started shipping up thousands of dollars for a service that we have no contract for and no review of. So I think it would be a disservice to landowners to avoid making a decision on this situation, which to me, seems obviously otherwise.

CHAIR: Can I speak to this now? If you basically fire this—

TRUSTEE MOHER: How can we fire somebody if we don’t have a contract?

CHAIR: Well, if, I’m—

TRUSTEE MOHER: We’re not firing anyone.

CHAIR: If we, if we tell them to go away, which is obviously what you want, and several other people—

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: We don't have a contact with anybody, so we're not telling them to go away. This is something that, there's probably more information that the three new trustees need, to possibly be, to sit down with more information in order to make an appropriate decision, rather than something that is being brought quickly to our attention right now, and I hear people out there going, and sighing, and I'm sorry, it's frustrating. There's an awful lot of work on the table, and I don't like making decisions that are thrown up at a moment's notice without us being able to discuss fully, at a committee meeting, where the attention is being put on the matter at hand, as opposed to the items that were already discussed and were being brought to a meeting for us to bring before the people on the floor. Thank you.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Is this just as simple as us agreeing with this motion and then requiring staff to create a contract?

TRUSTEE MOHER: No, he's saying he doesn't want us to use them anymore.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: No, I'm saying that we cease business relationships with them effectively immediately. If we wish then to engage in a contract with them, then certainly that's something that can be brought forward. And I would expect that we would go through a procurement process before hiring a consultant. But as we don't have a procurement process, that's a problem. But yes, I am suggesting that we cease business relationships with the person. I'm suggesting that we stop giving money to the person that we have no contract with, for reasons that no one has been able to articulate.

CHAIR: Can I just say this, we don't have a contract with stale dating, that's it. So we're not getting rid of that person—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But we keep paying them. We, I'm saying that we should stop.

CHAIR: Ohhhhkay…

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Instead of just continuing to pay them.

CHAIR: Well, I’ve got a meeting with her tomorrow, so that’s going to be an issue. I was supposed to have it today, but we had to have the meeting, so I don’t know what we're gonna do about that. I'm in favor of [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, the motion on the floor now is to table—

CHAIR: Now what I'd like to do is for us just to renew her contract and make it nice and legal. I think she's good, and I don't really see any problems with her. I have not, I have to admit there have been situations where I've not been totally in agreement with her, but that's why you hire HR. They don't have to agree with me all the time.

CORPORATE OFFICER: There’s a motion to table.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So are you using that HR source right now? Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure… Are you, are you using the service right now? Is that what I’m hearing? Are we still—?

CHAIR: Well, I haven't yet, but I was going to.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Okay, [unclear]

CHAIR: I was under the impression that she was still on an hourly basis with us. So, yeah, I think, I think for the benefit of everybody, that—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: How do you have access to HR?

CHAIR: How do I have access to HR? I've had access to HR for a year and a half now.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I had no access to HR when I was chair.

CHAIR: Didn’t you?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: No, I knew nothing about this contract, and lack of contract, the services being provided.

TRUSTEE MOHER: They didn’t want to use it, because they didn’t [unclear]

CHAIR: I'm so sorry about that. But yeah, I got her phone number and everything. I've got her email address. You do too, you know—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: What I’m saying is that there’s [unclear] motion on the floor to table my motion.

[?] Call the question.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: [unclear] I don’t want to call the question, ‘cause then we vote on voting. I'm just wondering, are we going to vote on the trustee Moher’s motion to table?

CHAIR: Do you want—

CORPORATE OFFICER: [unclear]

CHAIR: In the affirmative?

[multiple voices and confusion]

CHAIR: In the affirmative is to table, right?

[unclear but it seems that the motion to table was defeated]

CHAIR: Okay, you want to hash it out now?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Now we're back to the original motion? The original motion was to cease spending money on Amui, and I mean in general, I think every expense needs to be budgeted. And I had no idea the bills were getting that high, I’d like to see what they were for. And—

CORPORATE OFFICER: She bills in quarters.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Yeah, so, I mean, that's more than a couple of hundred dollars, like [unclear], and that's gonna make the, that's gonna move the needle of the budget. So I mean, if we're talking eight or $9,000 a quarter—

CORPORATE OFFICER: No, it’s like a thousand dollars a quarter.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: $1575 for this quarter, and $8925 previous quarter.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes. But that was [unclear]

TRUSTEE MOELLER: That is significant.

CORPORATE OFFICER: That was the lawsuit.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So a bunch of this [unclear] lawsuit.

CORPORATE OFFICER: When you said earlier that they were using her as cheap labour [unclear]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: well, the cheap labor and lawsuit should be the $13,275 in the first half, I would think.

CHAIR: In comparison, what were the costs of Move HR on that single issue?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I don’t know.

CHAIR: You don't know? You don't know what it costs.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: In any case, we shouldn't be spending money that isn’t in the budget. No matter what. [multiple voices, unclear] And you know, like, if it's couple of hundred dollars to get a contract, that's one thing. But like, if it's that kind of money, we need to discuss and vote on that kind of thing. So I'd like to stop paying them too, just until we get more clarity on what the billing is for. And maybe it's from the lawsuit. And you know, that's something that was decided by a previous board. It's over. But like, if that's still continuing, I would be concerned about it, at that level of billing, [unclear] the budget.

CHAIR: Where are we at?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Voting on the motion.

CHAIR: And the motion is…

TRUSTEE MERCIER:

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District district cease all business relations with Amui HR consultancy, effective immediately.

CHAIR: That sounds a little harsh, doesn’t it.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Especially when you have a meeting with her tomorrow.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I am willing to make a friendly amendment to my motion so that it reads, “that The Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District cease all business relationships with Amui HR Consultancy, effective on December 31, 2025.”

CHAIR: Oookay…

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Which would make time for your—

CHAIR: Yeah, it would, yeah. I don’t know for sure that I’m going to have the meeting.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Like… unless there’s an objection, I’m fine with continuing till the end of the month, but I think it needs to end.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Or until we devise a contract that is workable.

CHAIR: And so can we do that? [multiple voices, unclear] until we find [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I would like to see us got through a procurement process to consider a number of consultancies before we commit to [unclear].

TRUSTEE MOHER: We’re not gonna [unclear]

CHAIR: We good?

CORPORATE OFFICER:  Vote on the motion.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Is the amendment, to December 31^st—

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: —accepted?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, so then we can vote on [unclear]. So, the motion now is

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District cease all business relations with Amui HR consultancy, effective December 31, 2025.

CHAIR: All right, I'll second that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It's been seconded. That’s part of [unclear]. So we just need to vote.

CHAIR: In the affirmative?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Um. I’m not saying … um, I’d like to make a motion that we ask the Policy Committee to develop a policy around using HR services.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Such a motion would be inappropriate, because the Policy Committee is a select committee with a limited mandate that expires automatically [after] delivering its report today.  Striking a standing committee to handle all classes of business requires a two thirds vote of the board.

CHAIR: It is an open Committee, though.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It is not.

CHAIR: It is …  historically [multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The Policy Review Select Committee was commissioned— I mean, this is skipping ahead, but I mean, I had—it was commissioned at the September general meeting to address if good policy, if improvement district policy was correctly adopted; improvement district policies requiring revision; improvement district policies which should be done away with, or resolved entirely, and policy gaps. It had a specific mandate. That mandate was, the time for that mandate was extended, and I have a point of order regarding this, once we get to the Policy Review Select Committee, and should it be suggested that work be assigned to that committee, ah, I would raise a point of order at this point in the meeting.

[Unclear, multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Okay, well, in that case, I guess we will have to strike another committee. I will make the motion that we strike another committee. We need a policy about this. If we're going to spend money on HR services like this, we need to have a policy.

CHAIR: You wanna call it the HR services policy, uh, committee?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: You know what? I'll rescind the motion, and I'll just draft a policy and submit it myself. I'll rescind my motion.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Do you want to do me a favour and call it “fractional HR”?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I'm not sure what that means exactly, so… I don’t want to make a budget item for that specifically.

CHAIR: But you’re presenting it.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Yeah.

CHAIR: All right then. Then I'll make that motion, that we strike up an HR committee.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I'm just going to make a policy and circulate it so we can vote on it the next meeting. And if you guys have comments, then—

CHAIR: then, good luck with that here right now. But go ahead, go ahead.

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: You're going to do that later?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Well yeah, before the next meeting.

CHAIR: Before the next meeting.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Yep.

CHAIR: All right.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: It just speeds it up.

CHAIR: Can we do it within a structured HR committee? That could be struck right now?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Sure.

CHAIR: We good with that? I'm gonna make that motion. Anybody want to second it?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: What's the motion?

CHAIR: The motion that we strike an HR committee.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: For the purpose of?

CHAIR: For the purpose of going over HR contractual agreements.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Is this a standing committee or select committee?

CHAIR: Excuse me?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Is this a standing committee or a select committee?

CHAIR: Let’s make it… what do you think?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Select committee.

CHAIR: Select committee? Let’s go with select committee.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Consisting of?

CHAIR: Consisting of?

CORPORATE OFFICER: What trustees do you want to be on it?

CHAIR: This person, this person. [unclear who he was indicating, or speaking to in the following discussions] Anybody else want to be a part of that?

[unclear]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: [unclear]

CHAIR: You too?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m not on any committees, so I’m [unclear]

CHAIR: Yep, it's fun, you’ll like, you’ll enjoy it. I'll be on it too.

CORPORATE OFFICER: You're on it automatically. [ED: the chair is an ex officio member of all committees]

CHAIR: I guess I am, aren’t I.

TRUSTEE MOHER: You are.

[multiple voices and paper shuffling, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So that's trustees Bussler, Moher, er, Moeller, Mercier. Did I miss anybody?

CHAIR: Well, me but …

TRUSTEE MERCIER: You’re [unclear]

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: I don’t want to go where I’m not welcome, though.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: —to report on…

CHAIR: HR contractual agreements.

TRUSTEE MERCIER:  And we should establish a reporting date for the committee, ‘cause that’s what a select committee does.

CORPORATE OFFICER: How about March?

[unclear discussions involving the CORPORATE OFFICER]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So then you’re making this motion, Chair Johnson?

CHAIR?: Yes, I am. We decided on crew before we decided on a seconder. Anybody seconding this? [seconded]

CHAIR: Okay.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So if I may repeat the motion, so that I make sure I have it correct: The motion made by Chair Johnson is

(MOTION)

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District strike a select committee, consisting of trustees Bussler, Moeller and Mercier, to report on HR contractual agreements and to report to the board at the March general meeting.

CHAIR: Any more discussion?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Should we do this in February? If we have it in March, the next meeting after that is the election.

CHAIR: Yeah, well…

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Some of us are [unclear]

CHAIR: We’ll get into that, I think somewhere around May 15, so we're going to discuss that.

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: Up or down? In the affirmative, hands up. Carried.

CHAIR: Alright then, can we move on here? Looking at the audience, like they know, maybe they do. I'd like to apologize for this, we don't usually go this deep into the weeds, but that's what we're doing, apparently.

---

Please continue to part three of this series.