Skip to content

2025-12-03 GFPID meeting – Part 5

Published on

This is the fifth 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. Our transcription of the meeting itself begins in the second post of this series and continues in the third post and fourth post.

Part 5 only contains agenda item 5 under Business Arising, the Respectful Workplace Policy. The lengthy discussion demonstrated strongly held divisions with regard to the extent of the authority of the Board with regard to the Fire Department.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Respectful Workplace Policy

BUSINESS ARISING cont.

Respectful Workplace Policy

(VIDEO APPROX 3:54:15)

CHAIR: Okay, so we had communication policy, respectful workplace policy, yes?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

CHAIR: And we're moving up on the privacy breach. Is this what we're doing now?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Respectful workplace policy.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Respectful workplace policy.

CHAIR: Respectful workplace policy. Due to WorkSafe BC by December 6, 2025.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay. The recommended motion is to approve the respectful workplace policy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have amendments to suggest.

CHAIR: Yes, sir.

LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 1

TRUSTEE MERCIER: My first amendment is

THAT the words “offender” or “alleged offender” be struck from the policy and be replaced with the word “respondent”, as appears in the definition section.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: Okay.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: [to the Chair] Can we do this by general consent, or do we need to vote on these things?

CHAIR: I’m good with that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’m good, but I’m curious as to why this wasn't done when it was sent out to everybody.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes, that's easier, especially since I’m on a time limit for this.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s because the correct place to make amendments to a policy is in public debate.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Not when it was a draft, and she asked for any errors or anything corrected, so that she could get it done before she—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right, but you might not all agree with my suggestions, and so as we’ve seen, right? So we have to vote on it.

LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 2

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So if that one's good, I have another one. And the next one is

THAT the words Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department be struck from the first section under Responsibility.

If we need to second that, I have a rationale.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: Which page are you on?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Let me call it up here. Section on Responsibility is, that’s the correspondence policy— was this circulated? This isn't in the agenda package?

 CORPORATE OFFICER: No, it was circulated additionally.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, and then I need to find Respectful Workplace Policy. There it is. Opening the document…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It has GVFD in a number of places.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yeah, and that’s fine—

[multiple voices]

 CORPORATE OFFICER: It’s a joint policy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yeah. GVFD, yeah, specifically with Responsibility, that's on page three.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yeah, it’s a joint policy, [unclear] and this is going nowhere.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So that's the motion, do we need to second, shall I provide my justification? And then we can talk about it. How do we want to do this? If we second it, then I can speak to it first, that's probably the easiest but—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Or we could just tell you it's because it's a joint policy, so you're going to find both names all the way through it.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That's—right, but I'm not suggesting that we strike both names from all the way through it. It's this specific section, and there's a reason for it. So—

CHAIR: That reason is?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, we need to second this, or are we considering it, like, you're the chair—we need to know, Chair Johnson, this is your meeting.

CHAIR: Yes, it is. We need a second then. Okay, fine. I was good with this, talking it up before we get a second. Go ahead. So, any second? Seeing none...

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, so no seconder.

LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 3

(VIDEO: 3:57:00)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The next amendment that I propose is

THAT the words “Fire Chief” be struck from the section on page nine detailing how complainants should address complaints against staff, trustees, contractors and the public,

because the fire chief has no authority to deal with complaints against trustees or complaints about the public. The fire chief's authority is set out in bylaw 98 and doesn't [encompass this?].

CORPORATE OFFICER: Where are we?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Page nine.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Page nine.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: I’m on page nine. Where on page nine?

TRUSTEE MOHER: The investigation process, I’m assuming.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe so.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: [unclear] page nine.

[?]: Page nine.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Informal process.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It is from the section on… Yes, so under investigation process, the draft reads, “A complaint of workplace harassment, discrimination or violence will be assigned to a committee consisting of, for firefighter complaints, two officers.”

Oh, no, sorry. Wait. I got the page wrong, my apologies.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Page eleven?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Here we go, sorry, my apologies. Page eight, under Section staff, trustees, contractors, public. “Complaints by staff, contractors, or the public should be directed to the” whatever. I withdraw that amendment because I can't find the thing and I'm disorganized, so I withdraw that one, that can just go away. But I do have one that is identifiable, which is a suggestion that the investigation process for staff, trustees, contractors and public complaints require three trustees rather than two trustees, because it avoids a stalemate.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: [nodding] They’re not really voting on anything, [unclear] but I’ll change it to three.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yeah, so that's by general consent then, those are all the amendments that I have.

CHAIR: That's it?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That's it.

CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

DISCUSSION RE CONTENT AND NAMING OF POLICY

(VIDEO: 3:59:45)

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So, for me, so the report that we have from WorkSafe BC requires us to submit a bullying and harassment policy by December 5th, and I, but we instead created a respectful workplace policy. I'm wondering why that is.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: It’s basically the same thing.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Is it? Okay?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It isn't actually. And that was, I have a motion for that, actually. And that is: to amend the proposed Respectful Workplace Policy be renamed to the GFPID Bullying and Harassment policy.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: But it's a policy for both.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It isn't. A respectful workplace policy is very different than what we have here.  It’s a much more holistic thing. The BC provincial government models this extremely well. They start out with an oath of employment and a standard of conduct.

[Side discussion between Corporate Officer and Trustee Moher).

They set the expectation first. A respectful workplace policy should enable the behavior that we want, not just focus on the wrongdoing that will be dealt with. I fully support putting a respectful workplace policy program in place, but if we do that, we actually need to do it, not just pretend that with a title.

TRUSTEE MOHER:  One of our recommendations of the policy committee, and we did discuss this, was that, because, what we run into trouble with, and this is what happened to us when the WorkSafe thing went in earlier, and we sent documentation to them, they—we got our hands slapped. And so, if we put something together and then think that that's going to be okay, and something happens, and then they can yell at us.

So, our recommendation was that this be, this draft be accepted and be sent to WorkSafe, and then they approve it or not, and then they can send it back to us saying we don't think this is going to work, or you need to include this. And then the language that changes is from them, not from us or other people trying to say you should do it this way, or you should do it that way. It's coming from them, and then we know it's going to stand if anything happens. So, I think the best thing to do now is to approve it with the changes that Trustee Mercier has given us, and then send it to them and say, “What do you think? Is this okay?” And then they go, “We love it, but change the title,” then we're good to go. If WorkSafe says this is great, then, then we're fine.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: We need a seconder for my motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: What is your motion?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: My motion is

THAT we amend the proposed Respectful Workplace policy and rename it to the GFPID Bullying and Harassment policy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ll second.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: And I'll speak to it again. It's like, if we're going to put in a respectful workplace policy, we should do that. This isn't that.

CHAIR: Well, can I just say this? You've got a poster that was made up, as we were asked to do this by WorkSafe BC. [holds up laminated sheet of paper] And it does say workplace bullying and harassment. I don't know that we have to hammer that, that bullying and harassment… there are, I guess there's some other issues.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It's a bullying and harassment policy. And it's, it's a stick, and like, a respectful workplace program has carrots in it, like, it's just not a club. Like this is, “You shall not do this. You shall not do that. You do this, we’re going to come after you. You do this, we’re gonna come after you.” Like it's it's a punitive thing, right? And a respectful workplace policy is a positive thing.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And furthermore—so in that, in the letter that we were sent by WorkSafe BC, they gave us, they provided us with a template for what, what they think is a workplace bullying and harassment policy statement, and it's a one pager. And it actually mirrors what the GVFD has already.

TRUSTEE MOHER: They didn’t like it when we sent it to them. That's why we came back and changed it. That's exactly what we did. And they said, no, it doesn't work. So we went back to the table and started drafting some [unclear]. Which is why, when we talked to the policy committee thing, we discussed doing something to send to them to see what they say about this. And I think we should move forward on that decision and that discussion rather than beating up the old horse where we are, we're already told by WorkSafe they didn't like it.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So what we were told by, so this letter from WorkSafe is addressed to the GFPID, and the GFPID does not have a bullying and harassment policy, full stop.

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And GVFD does have one. So what we're trying to mitigate right now is the GFPID problem, and we're doing that by combining the two policies. I don't love—but I mean that that'll be up to the consensus—but I think this, this policy, is far too fulsome for my liking. I think it can be done a lot simpler, and should be a bullying and harassment policy, not a respectful workplace, that is, yeah, that is not what they’re asking for.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So the motion that’s on the floor is to rename the policy.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And that's been moved and seconded

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So I sent this policy to them a week ago when I got it, and I have not received a response. And I also sent them the members policy, the volunteer department policy, and I also did not receive a response.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So are we required to adopt a policy and submit it to them by the deadline, or are we required to submit a policy because [gestures toward Trustee Moher] you're talking about getting feedback from them…

TRUSTEE MOHER: At least there's something on file, so we're not—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right. So what I'm asking is, are we required to adopt a policy, then submit it to them, and then amend our policy based on the feedback? Or is it, is the best thing to do, to submit something to them for their consideration and then adopt what we get back?

TRUSTEE MOHER: The hope is that they would accept that as getting something before their deadline.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I would be shocked if they offered an amendment to our policy. I’d be very surprised, but you never know.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Unless it’s really bad.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: [unclear, multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I think they’d accept this. They’d accept it if we renamed it. Because then we’d have one, and—

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: They have both, respectful workplace and bullying and harassment [unclear].

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: They’re asking for a submission, that’s right, they’re not asking for [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, we’re still considering the name.

CORPORATE OFFICER: We can just change it to bullying and harassment policy, and then if the chief wants to sign off on it, he has that ability.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, the chief would need to draw up a bullying and harassment policy for the fire department, then submit it to the board for review.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: We need a motion for this.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, so the motion on the floor, sorry for stealing your [unclear] here Chair Johnson, is to rename the policy to the GFPID Bullying and Harassment policy. That's what we've been talking about. Are we going to vote?

CHAIR: in the affirmative?

[Trustee Chorneyko, Trustee Mercier]

CHAIR: Sorry, guys. It's just semantics. You know you shouldn’t take it personal, it’s just semantics. Let’s get on with this.

DISCUSSION ON AUTHORITY TO SET POLICY

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ve got another motion. Amend the respectful workplace policy by removing all references to the GVFD and adding into the definitions, GFPID means the improvement district, and its one department, the GVFD.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Can you reread that again a little slower…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Amend the proposed respectful workplace policy by removing all references to the GVFD; and, add into the definitions, “GFPID means the Improvement District and its one department, the GVFD”.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I don’t really understand what that change means.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So I’ve moved, do we have a seconder?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ll second that.

(VIDEO: 4:08:35)

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So the idea on this is, we need—I still have an issue with the general lack of acceptance of the true organizational structure of this place. The GVFD and the GFPID are not peers.

The GVFD is the one department of the GFPID, and I think we should honour that. I go back, I think about the City of Nanaimo. The City of Nanaimo bullying and harassment policy does not say “the City of Nanaimo and the City of Nanaimo Fire Department and the City of Nanaimo garbage department and the City of Nanaimo Parks Department and the City of Nanaimo whatever department”—they don't name all of their departments in the City of Nanaimo bullying and harassment policy. The City of Nanaimo has a bullying and harassment policy, and all of their departments are subject to that. And so, I just want to respect the true structure of this organization.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So, the changes, if I understand the changes you're proposing, would make this policy applicable to the GVFD as well as the GFPID?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, so we would have, the improvement district would have a policy and it would, and the fire department would be subject to it.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I think that might be an overreach.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It's the structure of the organization, we need to honour that.

CHAIR: Can I just say something please? [pointing to TRUSTEE MERCIER]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I think Diana is next.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: Diana had her hand up first.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Me. Short person. So, the difference between how you perceive things and how I perceive things is again, getting into what we had talked about earlier. But also, some things get delineated in here as to what's done in operations and what's done with the trustees. And I do agree, I do know that in the school district, there's certain delineations that's made with respect to schools, with bullying and harassment are separated out. There’s also staff at the main office areas, and then there's other, there's maintenance areas and stuff like that. So, they do have separate, because things are done differently in different places and the hierarchies are different, so we have to be really careful to just do a blanket, whatever. And I also think it's more respectful to put them in, in the way that we have done it, and it's looking at the needs of us, and we're looking at the needs of them, so when we're talking about a respectful workplace. I think we’ve done a good job.

TRUSTEE MERCIER:  So I believe Trustee Chorneyko is correct, because the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department exists by the authority of the improvement district, and operates under the authority of the improvement district. This is reflected in the Brownlee report, where section 3.1 identified the improvement district as the Authority Having Jurisdiction under the Fire Services Act, the Local Government Act, and the improvement district authorities generally. [It] states further within this model, the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District

“is specifically governed by the Letters Patent issued by the Government of BC, and specifically a single primary Object outlining the provision of fire protection for the island and all manner, and ‘matters incidental thereto’.” From this authority stem the various bylaws which govern the improvement district.

“It should also be noted that as the Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District is considered to be the Employer for purposes of authority under aspects of the BC Human Rights Code, the BC Labor Code, the Employment Standards Act in BC, and the Workers Compensation Act as they relate to provisions for workers (employees) in the workplace. Accordingly, it is important that the Gabriola, the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District Board members, fully understand their fiduciary duties and obligations as local government.”

[NOTE: There are a few incidental words changed in the text that Trustee Mercier read from the Brownlee report, but these do not change the meaning, so we have represented the above material as a full quotation.]

It is our duty to set out the policy by which our subsidiary organizations, of which there is one, operate. All of the policies and procedures of the fire department must conform with the policies and procedures set by this body. This is the authoritative body.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So I agree with you. I just, I also think that there needs to be, they need to have the right to make their own policies—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Mmhm.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: —because we don't want to start dictating all their policies to them. What would be maybe okay is that we dictate to them that they need to adopt a policy that is in line with this one, but saying that they have to take this—but we, saying that we pass a policy that automatically is binding on them too? I think you're creating a special case where it’s like, this one policy is now binding, but you guys get to make your own here. I think you’re better off to say, “You have to create a policy that follows this one [unclear].”

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Respectfully, it is not dictatorial for an elected board to impose requirements on the, in this case, fire department that exists because of the elected board. The taxpayers elect us to spend their money to make a fire department. It is up to us to make sure that that Fire Department operates in accordance with the principles of our fiduciary responsibility, and our responsibility to the voting public, who have elected us to oversee and govern the fire department and the disposition of the tax [unclear]. It's not an overreach, it's not disrespectful, it's not dictatorial for us to issue instructions to an organization that exists because we tax people and cause it to exist. We are the governing authority.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Well, they have their own policies.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Which we should… no one has seen them.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: They are their own organization, and—

TRUSTEE MERCIER:  They are not their own organization.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Hold on here. I let you talk. I speak for five seconds, [unclear]. I get my time, too. I let you talk. That's not how this works. I didn’t interrupt you. So what I'm saying: they do have their own policies. What you're talking about is bringing a special case where just this one policy, we created it and it applies to them too. That's a mistake. What you should do is you either take over all of their policies, or you don't take over any of them. You shouldn't just have a single policy that we now say, belongs to you too. You can say “You have to have a policy that's like this one.” You should not make special cases.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: All their policies are our policies. There can be no fire department policy or decision that is, that takes place outside the authority of this public body. This public body is the organization that makes the fire department exist, and the public, who gives us the taxes and gives us the power, is the ones that cause that to be the case. I’m done for now.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know it's incredibly strange to speak from the floor during this, but I would just like to state that I ran into this exact issue, where there was—for one I identified over a year ago, that there was no harassment policy with the GFPID, and when utilizing the GVFD policy, I was advised by a former chair that “we don't have to follow those policies.” So what you find, unless you have your board approving or at least having input and ensuring that whatever policies that the fire department has are actually both mirroring what the GFPID policies are and approved by them, then you're going to run into a situation that most of you are quite well aware of that occurred, where you had a policy that you didn't follow, and then the policy the fire department had, I was personally told, “we don't listen to the fire department.” That's all I'm saying. I'm not speaking here. This isn’t a conversation, I'm just giving my two cents.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: Can I respond to John?

CHAIR: Ok. Would you like to respond? [to the Corporate Officer]

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes. Will [Will Sprogis, Fire Chief] and I did this in tandem, and I specifically asked him if this was okay. And he said, yes. So he wanted to—the policy is, everyone who sets foot on this property follows the same policy.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But respectfully, it’s not up to the fire chief whether or not this is okay. The fire chief is not the decider here. This body is the decider here.

CHAIR: We're deciding on this on his behalf. I mean, we can't have that argument. The conversation that I had—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Did we not resolve before “that the employees are employees of the board, and accountable to the board”? Because I can call that up being resolved.

[Trustee Moher gets up, reviews documents with Corporate Officer]

CHAIR: Can I speak? Let me speak. Give me one second here. Okay, I may even agree with you, Wayne. I can see a situation where, where we are covered by the same rules, corner to corner, and every contractor who comes on this, on this property and everything that we own—the law says, and WorkSafe BC, overriding policy—not policy, it's law. It's unassailable law, not just policy on their part. Has to be followed. It has to be followed. So, I would like, it would be nice if we put a line down the middle of this and say, oh, that's the GFPID and this is the Gabriola Fire Department over here, but we're coexisting in the same place.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Everybody works for the board.

CHAIR: It has to be the same policy, is what I'm saying Wayne, it has to be the same policy. Do we give, do we give the fire department a little bit of autonomy, in that they’re saying that they're, they have a separate policy, but it's not a separate policy. It's exactly the same as what we have—

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I am trying to respect the order of communication here but anyways… So my point is, the GVFD has their own policies, they have policies about like, how to roll up the fire hoses and all that, I don't know. They're not applicable to us. We were talking about a policy earlier today about accepting communication from the public, that's not applicable to them. But we're saying that this one policy is now applicable to them, and so we're making a special case, and that's a mistake. You can agree with it or not, or agree with it, if you don't want to, but I'm saying you can direct them to create their own policy that mirrors this one, and then you're not overlapping. You're not creating a special case.

CHAIR: Can we do it tomorrow so we get this done?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Just, this comes down to understanding the proper structure of this organization, and that is just not being honoured, and it's been a problem ever since—I've been involved with this fire department for 10 years now, and there's this distinction that there's two separate entities here, and there is not. There’s, the Improvement District is the entity, and it has one department, and that's the fire department. And I think about the City of Nanaimo, or the City of Kimberly or the City of Cranbrook, they have the city which is the legal entity, and they have all these departments. And when you have that structure, the city, the legal entity, has policies like this. And so this shouldn't just be a one-off thing. It's a one-off thing now, because we haven't been honoring the appropriate structure of this organization forever. Like, this is, this is where we start to diverge and start creating policy at the, at the legal entity place, and then the department becomes subject to it. And that's the way it's supposed to work. That's the way this organization is structured.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So are you going to tell them which of our policies is something they have to follow, which ones they don't? And which one they're allowed to make their own on?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Respectfully, they should follow all our policies, and any policies that they develop, for instance, about how to roll up fire hose, how to fight a fire and keep safe, should be submitted to us for approval, because we're the ones responsible for making sure that those policies—

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa…

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yeah, we’re the deciders.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Please, read the Brownlee report.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It’s right here.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We have no business mixing ourselves into stuff that we do not understand.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: No, but—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Please, please, please, please—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It’s right here.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I am not going to say it again.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Please read the recommendations.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It’s right here. I will quote from this. You're just wrong, Diana.

[Trustees Moher and Mercier continue to speak over each other loudly]

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear] tell me that [unclear] and you are always right and [unclear]

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hey, hey, come on!

CHAIR: [strikes table] That’s the—

TRUSTEE MOHER: I am sick of this.

CHAIR: [strikes table] That’s the hammer.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I am not always wrong, and you are not always right.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There’s actually—

CHAIR: I would like for you to both speak when the other one isn't speaking, okay, and it's getting, the volume’s getting too high in here. Could you please modify your tone and your charter as it were? Okay? Go ahead.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So in every way and in every respect, the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department and all its employees and all its activities are subject to the authority of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District.

CHAIR: I believe that to be true.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We don't disagree with that. We disagree with where operations start and our job stops, and that is something that, I've already agreed—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And part of our job—

CHAIR: Last time, she's speaking. Go ahead.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I have already spoken to the fact that we actually need to have some education on this. And it was something that was drummed into us numerous times. And it was drummed into us during the Brownlee report, when he was here and he spoke to us. It was talked about at the governance meeting that we went to, and that person said, I know you don't believe it, but he said to us, and this was my favorite thing, he said that the basically, in regards to us, the chief and the AOCO, manage the “amateurs with power.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER CHARLEEN WELLS [former trustee]: Can I just say something.

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

WELLS: In the handbook, the government started this whole thing. In the handbook, they say the fire chief is responsible for the operations of the department.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Exactly.

CHAIR: That’s correct.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is where it muddies the waters. You are right that they are an employee, and that is there in that, but it gets muddy. Who does what?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There is no muddiness. All of the authority of the fire chief is set up by Bylaw 98 I believe, which is the bylaw that establishes the fire department. The fire department does not exist without an act of this board.

WELLS: I understand that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The fire department has no money without an act of this board. Someone is responsible for making sure the fire department is doing a good job. We are that someone. So, it's up to us to make sure that the policies of the fire department are good policies. It's up to us to make sure that the operational guidelines of the fire department meet the standards set by other pieces of legislation, like the Human Rights Code.

WELLS: I am not arguing against that. I'm saying, you just want to explain why it gets so muddy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But there's no muddiness. Operations is entirely laid out in Bylaw 98. Everything about what is operations is contained in the bylaw that establishes the fire department. The authority of the fire chief is bounded entirely by that bylaw. If we want as A body to give the fire chief a bunch of powers that he doesn't currently have, we can do that. We have not done so. If we want to informally delegate various authorities and decision-making capacities to the fire chief or the corporate officer or anybody else, then we are making —we're acting in error. Our delegations must be formal.

CHAIR: Can I say something?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I suppose.

CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you so much. What I'd like to… We need to fix… We got problems we gotta fix. We can argue this until you’re blue in the face. What I'm going to suggest, and I don't know whose hurt feelings this is going to hurt, is that we throw our policy on the desk of the fire chief, who has already signed off on it anyway, and that's how we go. So that the fire department, who I'm sure does not think that these trustees here know anything about putting out fires, except for maybe you [points to Trustee Chorneyko]. And we're not in their business, okay? And this is the problem. They don't want us up in their business. So at least you know, it's like there’s two cells here. There’s a membrane in between them. Can we do that?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Can I call for a vote on the motion? Let's just call for a vote on the motion.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I'll re-read the motion.

To amend the proposed respectful workplace policy by removing all references to the GVFD; and, add into the definitions, “GFPID means the Improvement District and its one department, the GVFD”.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Are you gonna call for a vote?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Call for a vote, just call for a vote.

CHAIR: Ok, I’ll call for a vote. In the affirmative, raise your hand up.

[Trustees Chorneyko and Mercier vote in the affirmative]

CHAIR: [unclear], sorry about that.

ED. NOTE

The above argument about exactly where the line between policy and operational matters falls is one of the core issues on which board opinion divides strongly. That disagreement makes it very hard for the board to function effectively. We think that this webpage outlines a useful approach for thinking about these issues, by clarifying the definitions of policy, procedures, and guidelines.

Under this framework the Board would set general policy applying to both GFPID and GVFD (such as bullying and harassment policy), and both the GFPID and GVFD would define procedures specific to their particular operations.

Because it is the body with legal responsibility for the improvement district and its operations, GFPID must still exercise oversight over GVFD operational procedures, but that oversight would primarily be directed toward ensuring that procedures meet legal and regulatory requirements and are in compliance with general policy. GFPID would normally not be involved with the development of GVFD internal procedures or their day to day application.

LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 4

(VIDEO: 4:26:15)

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Okay, I got another motion.

CHAIR: Oh Jesus Christ.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: This one's easy. Amend the respectful workplace policy by removing all references to the assistant and the assistant chief.

CHAIR: Why would we do that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Because we don't have an assistant or an assistant chief.

CHAIR: But we may.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But we don't.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: But we don’t.

CHAIR: But we don’t. You’re right.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Do I have a seconder?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ll second it.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So basically, we haven't hired these people and I don't know if we will, and maybe we do, maybe we don’t.

CORPORATE OFFICER: It just says the assistant, because I'd rather not rewrite this policy [unclear]. There was an issue where—

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: If it doesn’t exist it shouldn’t be there.

CORPORATE OFFICER: No—but the thing was, for our extended health care policy, you guys hired a person, and you said he could get extended health, and your policy did not cover him.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right, but we should amend the policy in relation to changes that are happening.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: It took you 18 months.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But we shouldn't build a policy that makes reference to positions that don't exist. I mean, like we could, we could add into the policy the words Easter Bunny, but that doesn't mean that the Easter Bunny is bound by the policy, because the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Sorry for anyone who’s dreams I’ve crushed.

CHAIR: I am devastated. Really, I am. So…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Call the vote.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: To the assistants?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Removing the assistants. References to the assistant and assistants.

CHAIR: I don't think we need to put in there that at the point which we decide whether or not we're hiring an assistant chief, that we can’t change that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: No, we can always change it.

CHAIR: We can always change it. Okay.

WELLS: Who did you mean by that? Did you mean the deputy chief, or did you mean an assistant?

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: The assistant which we haven’t hired yet. That's the third full time. Call for a vote? All in favor? [Trustees Johnson, Bussler, Chorneyko, Mercier, and Moeller raise hands]

Carried.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO. I just got one more.

CHAIR: Yeah? Oh, Jesus.

LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 5

(VIDEO: 4:28:25)

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So amend the respectful, amend the proposed Respectful Workplace Policy by changing “false, frivolous and malicious” in the bad faith complaint section to “false, frivolous, vexatious or malicious”.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Can you read that back slowly? Because I think it could be shorter.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Could be. Amend the proposed work, respectful workplace policy by changing, basically by adding the word vexatious. It’s in the bad faith complaint section, after the word frivolous.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Vexatious, and after the word frivolous…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: In the which section?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: In the bad faith complaint section.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Are you talking about the first “false frivolous”—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes, there's two instances of this. Do we have a seconder?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ll second it.

CHAIR: Well, I was going to second.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So I have concerns that we may be opening, or may be open to having this policy used as a weapon. So I would like vexatious complaints added to the prohibited use of the bullying and harassment complaint process. Vexatious complaints are a separate class of complaints. They're often made to cause annoyance or embarrassment but may not always have a malicious intent. They are often made with without sufficient grounds. Basically, it's using a bullying and harassment complaint policy as bullying and harassment, and with complete immunity and no reprisals. I would like to specifically prohibit this.

CHAIR: By adding vexatious?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: By adding the word vexatious. It's, vexatious, if you look in the BC government's bullying harassment policy, they use the words vexatious and vindictive. So, it's not an unusual thing.

CHAIR: A lot of things that are vexatious.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So, the motion on the floor is to amend the proposed respectful workplace policy by adding the word “vexatious” after both the instances of the word frivolous in the bad faith complaints section.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Correct.

CHAIR: And it's been seconded.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It has.

CHAIR: Any more discussion? Call for a vote. Hands in the air if you’re for the affirmative. [Unanimous] Carried.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: That’s it for me.

RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE POLICY cont.

(VIDEO 4:31:25)

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Just a couple of comments, because I think we're back to the original motion to approve this now, right?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There is no motion that has actually been made.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: [unclear] So, I kind of agree with John on some of this stuff. I struggle a little bit too with the division, and I mentioned this in our policy meeting. I really like the GVFD policy on bullying and harassment. It has, it mirrors what we are provided as a template from work, WorkSafe, and it has a very clear process on what, what to do if a person encounters bullying and harassment. There is, there is a piece in there that speaks, that kind of crosses over, because it says complaints against the fire chief can be reported directly to the Chair of the Board of Trustees. So that's that's a bit of the rub where the two GFPID and GVFD entities meet, but I wonder if we can't fix that. So I find that we've thrown too much into this, into this respectful workplace policy that's now become the bullying and harassment policy. I will not be supporting this policy. I would like something tighter and cleaner and and that follows more closely to what WorkSafe BC has advised us. So that’s just a bit of a statement.

CHAIR: So you think it's just too much verbiage?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, and getting into like, things that that are, you know, probably very important, but like, you know, prohibited conduct, discrimination—I feel they're all very important issues—violence, psychological harassment, like, I think you can capture a lot of that in a more, like, a more broad policy. I think.

CHAIR:  Okay, so you would say that you'd rather go with the less verbiage version that the fire department's currently using, rather than the one that we put forward with our group.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And we had that conversation in the policy discussion in our policy group.

CHAIR: What say you? [addressed to Trustee Moher]

TRUSTEE MOHER: I just know that they did, that WorkSafe did not care for what we had sent them, and so I'm still standing by the work that we've done to put this together, and I think that they will be happier with this because we have covered all their expectations on our job of providing an environment that we need to as an employer.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, you know, when I first looked at that, I thought, this isn't too bad. It's very complete and that. But then I contrasted it to the BC provincials bullying harassment policy, and, man, this thing reads really heavy handed. It's it's not, it doesn't look good compared to other ones. Basically, I don't like the tone of it. I think the tone is very, very heavy handed. Anyways, that’s…

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So, I mean, to satisfy our December 5 requirement. We could easily give them this and then commit to working on a more fulsome policy, if we wanted to, but this is the template that they gave us when they issued us with their letters.

CHAIR: I mean, it's a bare minimum. I know that's a bare minimum, and whether we just go with a bare minimum or we dress it up, I don't know. I mean, there is clear policy from from WorkSafe BC, no matter what we do. I mean, a lack of policy does not mean that you can just do whatever you want, anywhere at any time. In any place in British Columbia, there is overriding policy. Not just policy, but law.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I really like the one that was on, that the BC provincial government has, it seems fairly balanced. This thing was like a club.

CHAIR: But it worked—because we're in a time crunch here, okay.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Just my opinion. I mean, we've had a lot of problems with bullying and harassment in the last few years, and I like the conciseness of this one. It is very clear on what happens and when. It's not, it's not just saying, don't do this, don't do that. It's very, very clear on what happens when you get a complaint, and so on, what constitutes a complaint. It's a little bit broader and maybe a little more heavy handed, but I personally feel it's kind of necessary at this point to have something a little bit more.

CHAIR: The long version you’re talking about.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: The long version at this point, hopefully it ends up not getting needed, but…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: See, and my take on it is the opposite. Like to me, it doubles down on a culture of both, with everything being framed as bullying and harassment. Like I think that this organization needs to move away from that, and frame conduct in the workplace in the framework of a respectful workplace, like the province of BC uses. It's a lot more positive. This seems like a club. Do this, or do that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: So—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I think I’m up.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Chair, he’s making comments again.

CHAIR: He got there first, sorry. [addressed to Trustee Moher]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So, I just want to confirm with you, Trustee Moeller, that WorkSafe wants a submission, not an accepted policy. They want us to submit what we've got.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I mean, we already submitted what we've got, and they said it wasn't really sufficient, and then they asked for us to create a new one.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, so that being the case, I'm going to bring forward a motion

THAT the board submit the respectful workplace policy, as amended, to WorkSafe BC for feedback and reconsider the policy based on that feedback.

That allows us to meet the deadline, it allows us to conclude this conversation, allows everybody to go away and think about it and come back having had more time to review the policy and some new information to consider. That's the motion I'm making.

CHAIR: I’ll second it.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So, if there's no feedback, then it just gets adopted though.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: No, if there's no feedback, then we reconsider the policy based on the lack of feedback.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So, there would still be a reconsideration process.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes. So, the motion is that the board submit the, based on their feedback…

TRUSTEE MOHER: We can specifically ask them for feedback.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: They probably won't give us any.

CHAIR: Not before, the holidays are over.

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So, the motion that I bring forward is

THAT the board submit the respectful workplace policy as amended, to WorkSafe BC for feedback, and reconsider the policy based on that feedback, if any.

But either way, we reconsider it, because, I mean, we'll get some kind of feedback that this is acceptable, this is not, at least. And if it's acceptable, then we have a conversation about what needs to be changed in light of its acceptability. And if it's not acceptable, then we’ve got some stuff to talk about. But that’s [unclear].

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Why would we deviate if it's acceptable, right? Again, I think we're stuck.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, the reconsideration at that point can just be a vote to accept, but I don't think we should adopt it before we know if it's acceptable to them.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: The only problem I have with that is that I’d be sending it to him asking if it’s acceptable. And it comes back and says, yes. And then the next meeting it changes, then adopt the changed one. He might see that as a…

CHAIR: I think it’s a negotiation. I mean, they're pretty good about that kind of thing. They really are. I don't, don't care for WorkSafe BC so much, but they're good at that. They're really good at that.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I'd like to adopt the one from the BC province, from the province of BC. I’m confident that WorkSafe BC will approve that one.

CHAIR: Pretty confident that they’ll approve this one too. But I, I just put it out there, if we send it in tomorrow—

TRUSTEE MOHER: So we have a motion on the floor. There’s a motion on the floor.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Has it been seconded?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’ll second it.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay, so there's motion on floor then, it’s been seconded. And just because [unclear] The motion is

THAT the board submit the respectful workplace policy as amended to WorkSafeBC for feedback and reconsider the policy based on that feedback.

That’s on the floor.

CHAIR: All right, in the affirmative, put your hand in the air. Yes.

[Trustees Moher, Johnson, Mercier and Moeller raise hands]

[mixed conversations]

CHAIR: [to Trustee Chorneyko] you didn’t vote, [to Trustee Bussler] and you didn’t vote.

 TRUSTEE MOHER: No, he already said he wasn’t going to vote.

FOLLOW-UP MOTION – HANDLING PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS

(VIDEO 4:40:08)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I have a follow up motion on that, which is

THAT Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District directs staff to develop a policy to set out how we will fulfill the requirements that “performance problems are identified and addressed in a constructive, objective way that does not humiliate or intimidate”.

Is there a second on that?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: [raises hand]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That was seconded so I'm going to speak to it, to say that the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District has no policy or procedure in place for assessing or correcting performance or carrying out discipline. And so if we're going to require ourselves, by this Respectful Workplace Policy to handle performance problems, and identify performance problems, and address performance problems, in a constructive, objective way that does not humiliate or intimidate, we need a policy setting out how we're going to do that.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: A policy that does what exactly?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The policy, a policy to set out, so that if we have—right now if we have a performance issue or a performance problem or whatever we have, we have no, there's no way to deal with that [unclear]. Like, if we have a complaint, we have a complaints policy that says, here's how we follow complaints. But if there is a performance policy or performance problem, we don't have, like, I don't know—

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Is this something that trustees would use, or something that—

[side conversation]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, right now we don’t have, this would be something that the trustees use, because the employees work for the trustees. And so and the trustees work for the public. So this would be a policy that's that says—like right now, it's not clear to me how I would bring forward concerns about the performance of staff, or how I would identify the issues that I have with the performance of staff, how we would go about addressing those issues, because we don't have a policy. That's why I'm putting it forward. Was there a second? [Trustee Bussler nods] again a second on that? I see Trustee Moher has her hand up.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I just want to clarify that when we're talking about staff, we're talking about our three employees. I want to remind everybody that we're going into union stuff, and a lot of things get dealt with in the union that we can't do, because then that changes everything in the way stuff is handled and the way things are dealt with, in the way things might or might not be brought to us. So, I think we have to be really, really careful in our definitions of who we're talking about, and not, again, putting it into the bigger framework.

CHAIR: Membership.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yeah, the membership is totally outside our purview [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I agree, and I think that the union contract, my experience with unions tells me that the union contract will contain—

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: —policy for how performance problems about, like, employees that report to someone else [unclear], but we do, as you pointed out, have three employees that report directly to the board, and the board has no policy for—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yeah, so as long as we're attaching it directly to them. And then I think we also need to have one with respect to ourselves and how we treat ourselves and our staff. So it has to reflect both ways,

CHAIR: Just so we're clear that's an in camera.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The policy for how we handle them would presumably include something like, that “performance problems are identified and addressed in camera.” That makes—

CHAIR: That what I'm saying.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So—

CHAIR: The wording of it has to be in camera.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, the motion, the motion that I'm presenting, doesn't address the content of the policy I'm proposing, it just says the improvement district directs its staff, because that’s their job, to develop a policy to set out how we will fulfill the requirement that we're making, that performance problems are identified and addressed in a constructive, objective way that does not humiliate or intimidate. Part of that, as you point out, would be handling those issues in camera. Yes.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Is there a way to—so I've been thinking about this as well, like performance management, and so we have, we're about to hire a full-time employee—

[extensive side conversation]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: —they're going to be subject to a probationary period. So how do we, we don't have a tool right now to assess their performance during [and?] at the end of that probationary period. And I also know that there's wage escalators in some full-time contracts, some full-time staff contracts, that are a function of performance as well. So those are all, you know, potentially positive performance, right? So I wouldn't want to just focus on the negative, like, more general performance management, like to say, “This is, you're doing well,” but also—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I agree with you, the language that I used is lifted from the Respectful Workplace Policy, which specifically requires that “performance problems are identified and addressed in a constructive, objective way that does not humiliate or intimidate.” Like, that's a requirement that the previous policy puts on us. So if we're going to commit to doing that, we should have, like, a guideline for how we go about doing it. In the same way as, if we have a requirement that fire hoses be rolled up, we issue a guideline for how the hoses are rolled. We have a requirement that we address performance problems, should any occur, we should have something that says how we're going to do that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: And I think, as I said, if you're writing it up now, it needs to include us as well as the employees, it must include us.

TRUSTEE MERCIER:  Well again, I'm lifting the language from the Respectful Workplace Policy.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I want it in there and I think that if we’re working on this policy that we will be including our treatment of our employees as well. It's not just them.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I hear what you're saying, but like, the trustees are responsible for dealing with the performance of the employees—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Mmhm.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: —so I'm not sure what you're, I guess I'm trying to understand what your concern is.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I think we need to be careful in public, when we're doing stuff in public, that we refrain from making certain comments and statements that can be taken in a certain manner. So I want to know how we're going to address that. If we're making policy around how we're going to assess somebody, if comments are made about the department, and comments are consistently being made about it's a dog's place, or its this or its this, which I find offensive. So I think we need to think about how we frame stuff [unclear].

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I think we have a Code of Conduct that deals with the trustees as well, right, which I think—

TRUSTEE MOHER: And we need to start calling people on that code of conduct, because it's not been happening, and it's becoming, I believe, an issue—

[side conversation]

TRUSTEE MOHER: —and it's going to lead more and more towards us using the employee bullying and harassing policy, okay?

CHAIR: Okay, so. [pointed at Trustee Mercier]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So the motion on the floor, which was, [looking at Trustee Bussler] did you second that?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yes I did.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: OK, thank you, so the motion on the floor is THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District directs staff to develop a policy to set up how we will fulfill the requirements that perform (and I’m quoting here) “performance problems are identified and addressed in a constructive, objective way that does not humiliate or intimidate”.

[side conversation]

CHAIR: Who does it?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Who does which?

CHAIR: Draft policy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Like, who who would develop the policy?

CHAIR: Right.

TRUSTEE MOHER: He said staff.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Staff, which, which would fall, I mean, primarily on the corporate officer. But we have this situation where the corporate officer is also under the authority of the fire chief, and so this policy would have to also bind the fire chief and his supervisory work of supervising the corporate officer. I'm not familiar with the extent to which the fire chief has supervisory authority with the deputy chief. But it would also, like, have to address that—anyone in the organization who's addressing “performance problems”, again, I'm quoting, would be bound. It’s the activity of addressing performance problems that would be necessary. And you know, in the same way, it would also apply to, I think, necessarily, the Fire Chief’s supervision of the firefighters, the Deputy Chief’s supervision of the firefighters, because my understanding is that the performance of the firefighters is under the authority of the chief. And so this policy would also set out how the Chief would address performance problems among the firefighters by identifying and addressing them in a constructive or objective way that does not humiliate or intimidate.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Sure. Let’s vote on it.

CHAIR: Hands in the air for the affirmative. [unanimous] Motion passed.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Is it necessary for a motion? Can that, can we get, like, an approximate date by which—

CHAIR: [unclear] we can’t do the next time, we’re way past, we've been here for....

 CORPORATE OFFICER: I don’t know. It depends on how onerous the audit is.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Fair. Is it, can I ask a question about the audit, or are we beyond that? The chair disclosed to me that a great deal of your time was being taken up by record search requests for the auditor and that those requests were so onerous that you were limited in your ability to respond to requests for information.

CORPORATE OFFICER: You guys hired an auditor who wants everything electronically, so I have to scan all our documents. So that’s [inaudible]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Because to keep clear records, we write, like, lots of notes on each of our invoices.

MOTION TO RESCIND COMPLAINTS POLICY

(VIDEO 4:50:30)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right. I have another follow up motion, which is

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District rescind the handling of complaints policy

because the Respectful Workplace Policy does the same thing, doesn't it?

[Trustee Moher and Corporate Officer consult]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yes.

 CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I don’t know that it does. So, if you have, like, more general complaints, right? Like somebody, you know, you saw somebody stealing like a fire truck, is that, you know, is that—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Don’t do that! [looking at recording camera]

TRUSTEE CHERNYKO: Let’s park this because we haven't approved that other policy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s fair. I will withdraw this motion. Thank you for that conversation.

DISCUSSION RE ENDING MEETING

(VIDEO: 4:51:19)

CHAIR: Can we move on to the next thing?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes, privacy breach update.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: [unclear]

CHAIR: What do you say over there?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I gotta go. Unless you keep this real brief. I gotta get out of here.

CHAIR: [inaudible] I dunno, I understand that there’s maybe—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: We gotta deal with the privacy breach.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We still have quorum if trustee Moeller has to leave [unclear].

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: We are running much later than I figured. Okay, we had previously, we talked about two hours in a public meeting. We're running, oh God. I do my math here, I think it's coming up on five hours, and I think everybody's kind of tired, and I think that there are people that really want to address, cause the next thing is the data breach, and that's not going to go ten minutes. It’s gonna go hours maybe.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Let’s get at ‘er. We need a path forward on that.

CHAIR: Ok. I’m good.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: A path forward on the data breach thing.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We don’t need a [unclear].

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Hm?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Nothing.

CHAIR: Well before we do that, can we take five minutes?

TRUSTEE MOHER: No.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I move to recess five minutes. I gotta pee.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. We’re at four hours and fifty-two minutes.

CHAIR: But Wayne, there’s only one bathroom, so—

[Trustee Mercier leaves room]

TRUSTEE MOHER: We’re at five hours. We started at four.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, you’re correct, sorry.

TRUSTEE MOHER: It’s nine hours. I’m sorry. We need to keep going. We need to finish, this is ridiculous. We had how many people sitting here who have now left?

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’m willing to forego my new business.

CHAIR: Are you? Okay. I’m going to take you at your word.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: We’ll put it on the next months’ agenda.

CHAIR: Well yeah, and Bylaw 97, which I think we’ve been over twelve times.

[multiple voices]

[Trustee Mercier returns]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Bylaw 97 needs to be worked on, as something we already talked about. [unclear]

[Trustee Mercier returns]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Bylaw 97 needs we’ve already talked about. [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a motion relating to Bylaw 97.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Then it can be waited[?] until we come back to it and work on it. It’s nine o’clock at night.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m sorry that you are so inadequate to the task of deliberation.

TRUSTEE MOHER: No, I am [unclear]

[multiple raised voices]

CHAIR: Hey, hey, hey.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Is there a motion on the floor?

[multiple voices]

CHAIR: Hey hey, none of that, okay. We’re not doing that. Okay. One minute we’re talking about talking about respectful workplace—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And then next we’re moaning about how long democracy takes. Do you want to adjourn? [addressing Trustee MOHER] Or do you just want to—

TRUSTEE MOHER: I want to get to the breach stuff—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Let’s go.

TRUSTEE MOHER: —and you want to bring another motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have several motions related to the business. Yes. That’s what we do here. We make motions and—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Then it should have been presented to, or—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Let’s get to the privacy breach stuff.

[multiple voices]

(Note from transcription team: we have begun work on the next post in this series. Can you volunteer to help us transcribe?)