2026-02 GFPID meeting

The February meeting of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District trustees saw some disagreements, but on the whole proceeded civilly and efficiently. We are summarizing matters and providing transcripts only where there are areas of contention or details that we believe are of interest.

Signal to noise ratio (good/bad/ugly) = good

Relevant content in the February 13th edition of the Sounder:

• Fire Board votes to dissolve Privacy Breach Committee
• Fire Trustees dial in on training provided to outside agencies
• Letter to the Editor from Burtt Fidler (raises the idea of providing Trustees with pay, asks those with ideas/suggestions to contact Burtt95@hotmail.com)
• Official notification (ad, p 8) that the privacy breach has been investigated, and that if any firefighters who served from 1996 to 2015 have not received a notification they should contact the GFPID Corporate Officer.

---

Table of Contents

Call to order, housekeeping items.

FINANCIAL REPORT

COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Finance Committee
2. Communications Committee
3. Hiring Committee
4. Website Committee
5. Freedom of Information Committee
6. Policy and Bylaw 97 Review Committee
7. HR Committee
8. Meeting Safety
9. Performance Management Framework
10. Privacy Breach Committee

REPORTS

• Corporate Officer Report
• Fire Chief Report
• Training Report
• Association Report

BUSINESS ARISING AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Privacy Management Program
2. Bylaw XXX: Fire Department Establishing Bylaw
3. Records and Information Management Bylaw

NEW BUSINESS

1. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
2. Election
3. Adoption of Code of Conduct
4. Governance

QUESTION PERIOD

---

CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIR JOHNSON

INTRODUCTION OF LATE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA

No late items, agenda ADOPTED

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Adoption of January 14, 2026 General Meeting Minutes - ADOPTED

CORRESPONDENCE

• P. Mallison
• N. Johnson  [Note incorrect spelling, name is Johnston]

FINANCIAL REPORT

See meeting package page 11 for Draft Income Statement for period ending November 30,2025.

Trustee Chorneyko notes that we appear to be under budget and wonders how this compares with the previous year. The Corporate Officer says that we don’t currently have all the info compiled but are very close and should know more before the Finance Committee meeting.

Trustee Bussler asks why expenses are higher than usual. The chief notes extra costs for training new members.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.  Finance Committee

(Chair Chorneyko; all trustees)

(VIDEO 4:30)

No written report. The audit is on track to be done for April 6^th.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: We have about a month contingency before the AGM. Remaining information due March 23^rd.

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the February 25^th Finance Committee meeting be in camera to discuss financial information prior to going to the auditor.

(VIDEO 5:50)

MOTION from Committee – 1

Discussion: this relates to the depreciation of capital expenses over time; the Chief notes that the threshold had not been changed in 15 or 20 years. Because of inflation relatively minor purchases now require capitalization. The Finance Committee recommends to the board

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the capital threshold be increased from $500 to $1200.

(VIDEO 7:20)

MOTION from Committee - 2

The intention of the motion is to allow the Finance Committee chair to sit down with the auditor and ask questions and get a better understanding of their report prior to the AGM. Trustee Moeller notes that in the past the whole board has received a copy of the auditor’s report before the AGM and so is able to ask questions; Trustee Chorneyko says he expects that everyone will have that opportunity. Trustee Mercier thinks that this should streamline the process so that information is better available. Trustee Moher says that the Finance Committee is a committee of the whole and thinks that any meeting should involve the whole committee, not just one person. Chair Johnson asks about the time frame; Trustee Chorneyko says it’s indeterminate at this point but he expects it to be a short window of opportunity. Trustee Mercier welcomes the formalization of this process because he has not seen any indications of such meetings in previous minutes. Trustee Chorneyko expresses his willingness to pass on questions to the auditor. It is clarified that all contacts with the auditor are through the Corporate Officer. Chair Johnson agrees that the auditor should be asked for a meeting, perhaps a month ahead of the AGM. The Finance Committee recommends to the board

MOTION CARRIED

THAT Trustee Chorneyko (in his capacity as Finance chair) and the Corporate Officer meet with the auditor after the audit is completed and before approval.

(11:30)

MOTION from Committee – 3

The intent of the motion is to provide better access to financial reports. Chair Johnson notes that this requires the use of a staff computer, so it’s important to consult re scheduling access. Trustee Chorneyko says access will be arranged in consultation with the Firesmart Coordinator. Currently they are discussing creating a separate login with limited access. The Corporate Officer says that this has not yet been set up, but if worst comes to worst access can be arranged when the Firesmart Coordinator is present. The Finance Committee recommends to the board:

MOTION CARRIED

THAT read-only access on SAGE be established on the Firesmart Coordinator’s computer in the office for Trustee use.

Next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for Feb 25/26 at 2 pm. There will be an open portion of the meeting after which they will move in camera.

(14:40)

2.  Communications Committee

(Chair Moher; Moher and Appel)

There is an extensive reports in the meeting package (page 15) that discusses the website,  and correspondence (general policy, a flow chart, and policy regarding publishing correspondence).

Trustee Moher thanks Trustee Appel for his work, notes that the next meeting will be Monday February 9^th at 2 pm.

(15:25)

3.  Hiring Committee

(Chair Johnson; Johnson, Bussler, Moeller and Moher)

The Hiring Committee recommended the hiring of Marjorie Colebrook (who had been acting in a temporary capacity) as Corporate Officer. Chair Johnson congratulates the CO on her appointment.

MOTION (tabled):

Some discussion of whether the first motion was necessary or proper, because it was already voted on by the board during an in camera meeting. It is being brought forward again so that the public is aware that the hiring is procedurally correct. Trustee Mercier moves an amendment to include language referencing Bylaw 109. The intent is to clarify that the CO fulfills the duties outlined in the Bylaw under different job titles. The amendment is carried.

To formally appoint Marjorie Colebrook as the Corporate Officer of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, with the statutory responsibilities of Administrator and Treasurer as defined in GFPID Bylaw 109. TABLED INDEFINITELY.

Trustee Bussler notes that it is unnecessary to vote again, and that doing so will make public how people voted in camera. Trustee Moeller notes that this is not appropriate. Trustee Moher moves to table.

(20:15)

MOTION (carried):

Clarifies that this is previous practice, and it allows the CO to pay occasional bills.

To authorize Marjorie Colebrook to receive a Collabria Mastercard from Coastal Community Credit Union with a limit of $5000.

MOTION (carried):

Approval of opening a bank account at Coastal Community Credit Union for Marjorie Colebrook’s Extended Health

(22:35)

 MOTION (carried):

Recommended motion: To confirm that Marjorie Colebrook and Erik Johnson (as board chair) contact a governance lawyer for guidance on legal matters that arise for the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, such as, but not limited to, the inclusion of correspondence.

Trustee Mercier asks to refine the motion to make it more clear in scope and expected results, as a lack of clarity can result in confusion and disputes.

Trustee Chorneyko asks if this consultation would include a rubric. Trustee Mercier says that he expects that to be shaped by the discussion that the CO and Chair have with the attorney. Rubric may not be the best term, but he does want to see a written opinion. AMENDMENT ACCEPTED.

Trustee Bussler asks to add a company to the list of those to be contacted, it is agreed that this should be brought up during his committee report.

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District authorize Marjorie Colebrook and Erik Johnson to solicit a written opinion from a BC attorney with a designation in governance on best practices for handling correspondence to public bodies;

AND

obtain an estimate of retainer costs for further consultation on governance best practices and report to the board at the next general meeting. MOTION CARRIED.

(27:55)

MOTION (carried):

That the Hiring Committee be dissolved.

(28:25)

4.  Website Committee

(Chair Appel; Appel and Chorneyko)

MOTION (withdrawn)

The motion was that the Board direct the Website Committee to develop a page on the Trustee section of the website entitled "Respectful Workplace Policy", noting that the page is in an early, exploratory stage and has not yet been brought to the Board for discussion, facilitation, or approval.

Discussion had been tabled at the last meeting so it is being brought up again. Trustee Mercier notes that this content would automatically be part of “Routinely Available Records” so the motion would be redundant. Trustee Appel agrees and withdraws the motion.

(VIDEO 30:35)

5.  Freedom of Information Response Committee

(Chair Johnson; Johnson, Bussler and Appel)

Chair Johnson notes that his involvement with FOI is primarily in other areas and asks one of the Trustees to report, as they have done work on it. Trustee Bussler says that no work has actually been done because they are waiting for a meeting.* The committee received an extension but that extension “terminates today” so they would need a further extension and then have a meeting. He explains that Trustee Appel has created an FOI flowchart to help clarify which items legislation requires to be made available, so that people will better understand what information actually requires an FOI request, and notes that research needs to be done on how other improvement districts handle FOI requests.

[* The chair of a committee is responsible for calling meetings of that committee.]

The Chair asks the committee members to clarify the committee mandate. It is read out:

“That the Board establish a select committee consisting of Trustees Bussler, Appel and Johnson to examine the handling of FOI requests and generate recommendations for the purpose of reducing future costs. That the committee be empowered to examine the practice of the GFPID, the policies of other improvement districts, and to seek consultation on this with subject matter experts. The committee will report to the board within 90 days.” The motion was originally struck on July 2^nd 2025.

Chair Johnson says that they will have a meeting very soon. Trustee Mercier moves

THAT the board extend the reporting deadline for the FOI response committee to the April general meeting. CARRIED

(VIDEO 33:25)

6.  Policy and Bylaw 97 Review Committee

(Chair Moher; Moher, Johnson, Bussler and Mercier)

Recommended Motion:

THAT the Board recommend that the Policy Committee review policies and bylaws for accuracy and to confirm they are up to date, and to identify which policies should be added to the website in accordance with Section 70 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (BC) and Schedule “A” (Routinely Available Records), and have those policies ready for inclusion on the website by the end of March. MOTION WITHDRAWN

Trustee Appel asks to withdraw the motion because it is outside the mandate of the committee, and says that he will instead consult with the Corporate Officer to obtain up to date bylaws and policies to put up on the website. Trustee Moher notes that a new member (Trustee Mercier) has been added to the new incarnation of the committee that was created at the last meeting after the previous committee was dissolved, and asks the Corporate Officer to send all relevant documents to all committee members to ensure that no one is missing anything. This will include the report by Kees Langereis. Committee members  are asked to send the CO some available dates for holding a meeting.

(VIDEO 35:50)

7.  HR Committee

(Chair Bussler; Bussler, Mercier, and Moeller)

Committee Chair Bussler apologizes for not getting items to the Corporate Officer for inclusion in the meeting package.

Committee met February 3^rd.

• Committee wanted to determine what HR services had been provided by the previous HR consultant;
• Committee chair will reach out to Civic Excellence https://civicexcellence.com and other HR consultancies as recommended by committee members, to determine available services.

MOTION

THAT Civic Excellence be one of the companies considered amongst the governance lawyers that Erik Johnson as board Chair and the Corporate Officer will be contacting. CARRIED.

MOTION

Recommended: THAT the HR Select Committee be permitted to schedule an in camera meeting to review the contracts of full time staff, the meeting to be held before the March open meeting.

Discussion: the intent of the motion is to get a better understanding of what HR services are actually needed by GFPID in practice; some but not all trustees have seen the existing contracts.

Trustee Moeller notes that contracts cannot be changed. The Chair says that they are highly confidential. Trustee Bussler says that the purpose is not renewing or revising contracts, the purpose is to understand what the contracts cover. Trustee Moher says she thinks “stuff like that should be done by a pretty much global board, because we're moving into something that has to do with an evaluation of some form,” so she probably won’t vote for it. The Chair agrees that it should be a process involving the whole board. Trustee Mercier reiterates that he has not had the opportunity to review any employee contracts, and that he would like to do so.

Trustee Bussler asks if the intent is to amend the motion to have the whole board review the contracts, and says he is fine with that. Trustee Moeller moves the amendment, which is seconded and carried.

THAT the board schedule an in camera meeting to review the contracts of full time staff, the meeting to be held before the March open meeting. CARRIED

The next meeting of the HR committee is scheduled for February 24 at 1pm.

(VIDEO 41:05)

8.  Meeting Safety

(Chair Bussler; Appel, Chorneyko, and Moeller)

CHAIR BUSSLER: The select committee on meeting safety met on January 27^th. Members discussed psychological safety-related resources. We discussed how psychological safety can best be integrated into GFPID practice. The Corporate Officer produced a draft terms of reference that could become part of the GFPID standing safety committee work, and I say “could”, because we would recommend that to the full board. And then next meeting is scheduled for February 24 at 2pm.

(VIDEO 42:05)

9.  Performance Management Framework

(Chair Bussler; Bussler, John Moeller and Johnson)

No report, meeting has not happened.

(VIDEO 44:20)

10.  Privacy Breach Committee

(Chair Johnson; Johnson, Moher, and Mercier)

CHAIR: The work is complete. Affected individuals have been contacted and offered 3 years of Canada Complete Premier through Equifax Canada. That is basically checking your, your, to see if you’ve been—

TRUSTEE MOHER: To see whether your identity has been stolen.

CHAIR. Whether your identity has been stolen to use in an inappropriate sort of way. The recommended motion here is “that the Corporate Officer be authorized to publish a notice in the Gabriola Sounder informing the public that all notifications to individuals for whom we have contract information have been sent out. If individuals who worked for the Fire Department from 2009-2015 haven’t been contacted  please contact the Corporate Officer here.” Anyway, the recommended motion here at this point is “that the Privacy Breach Committee be dissolved.” Any second on that?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Two motions.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Two motions.

CHAIR: Okay, sorry. Yeah, so are we all right with that? Putting an ad in the newspaper?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I will second that.

CHAIR: All right then. Any discussion on that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So, I support this. We did see a suggested ad, I’ve made a suggestion to amend that ad.

CHAIR: Did everybody see that? Are we all good for that?

DC: So do you see the suggested amendment? We’ll do that?

CO: Well, if you’ll just (gestures)

[multiple voices, unclear, but there seems to be general consensus to accept the amendment]

CHAIR: Do we need to vote on that? We actually do, okay. Hands in the air in the affirmative. [Unanimous vote in favour]

[NOTE: the text of the amendment was not stated in the meeting, the original motion was as follows]

MOTION

THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to publish a notice in the Gabriola Sounder informing the public that all notifications to individuals for whom we have contract information have been sent. If individuals who worked for the Fire Department from 2009-2015 haven’t been contacted to please contact the Corporate Officer.

CHAIR: Oh please let it be over. Okay, we don’t have a guest speaker—

TRUSTEE MOHER: There’s a recommended motion that we dissolve the committee.

CHAIR: Oh, right. The recommended motion is that the privacy breach committee be dissolved.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I second that.

CHAIR: All right then. Any discussion?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: This wasn't a theft, right?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Please no.

DC: I'm circling back to Nola Johnston’s letter. I—

CHAIR: We're not bringing that up.

[multiple voices]

DC: From my perspective, this was not a theft.

CHAIR: Well, you can say that if you want, I’m not going to speak to it right now.

DC: Does the board consider this a theft?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I think we're voting on a motion that's on the table that's closing out this topic, and I would like to just close out this topic.

CHAIR: (to Trustee Chorneyko) I hear you on that, but we want to put this thing to rest. I think you, [unclear], everybody else here wants that. So is that an amendment or, what are you…?

DC: I just want to make my opinion public.

CHAIR: Well, you just did.

WM: My understanding is that the board hasn't made a formal statement on the classification of anything that may have taken place, that, that we participated with the investigator, that the work is, [unclear] the major work of the committee is completed, and the board's status, if any, is [unclear].

CHAIR: Our major concern, as far as I'm concerned, is that we we handle—FOI has given us four things that we have to do, and when we  complete them basically we have a write-off on this. We can close, close FOI’s… We’re closed out with it. So that's what I'm trying to do, is move on. This was a bomb that landed on us. We need to just clean it up and make it go away.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Call for the vote.

CHAIR. Call for a vote. Hands in the air for the affirmative [unanimous]. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

MOTION:

That the Privacy Breach Committee be dissolved. CARRIED.

(VIDEO 47:20)

GUEST SPEAKERS

None

REPORTS

CORPORATE OFFICER REPORT

Included in meeting package. The CO’s work has been primarily focused on the audit, that work is now almost complete. Updates: the Generation 911 grant application has been submitted.

(VIDEO 48:15)

FIRE CHIEF REPORT

(VIDEO 49:20)

The Fire Chief’s Report is included in the meeting package. Transcript includes late updates and more details on some items:

CHIEF SPROGIS: So current hazard fire hazard rating is low. Category fires are permitted. Category One campfires, burn barrels are allowed. Category Two and Three still require a permit. Permits can be obtained at the office or info@gabriolafire.ca. Call volume for the month breaks down as follows: one burning complaint, two chimney fires, one bush fire, one miscellaneous fire, one public assist, one RCMP assist, three wires down, three MVIs, 26 medical - for a total of 39 calls for January.

Monthly operational review. So ongoing servicing and maintenance to apparatus. So we’ve got our CVIs coming up, commercial vehicle inspections happening this month. Installation of the new heat pump at hall two, that's great, it's in, it's working, we're already saving on propane down there.

BCEHS was based out of the hall on January 28 due to a planned power outage. Yeah, we even responded together with them on a medical call.

Community events and initiatives. We will be doing another debris drop off, but we're kind of changing it this time. We're going to just solely chip, and the plan will be no real dirty debris, just nice clean stuff. It will go through the chipper. There's two dates that are scheduled, and they’re two Saturdays, so Saturday April 18 and April 25.

(51:27) And we have Emergency Preparedness/Fire Smart Open House - that will be May 2, and all the same sort of activities as the past. We have all the emergency services are welcome to attend. And yeah, getting prepared for the hot, potentially the hot, dry summer ahead of us. As well, there will be different vendors and other demos, like fire extinguisher demos at the  open house, and it will be the same day as the advance voting, so there’ll be possibly, possibly voting going on that day for trustees.

And the Jay Dearman Junior firefighter fund is going to be, we're going to launch it on the website coming up here, and there's a couple of fundraisers for that. We've done a Christmas tree chipping, and there'll be an open donation on the website, as well as the Jay Dearman run, which will be June 21 Father's Day here at Albert Reed Fire Hall.

Equipment readiness. We're doing hose testing and other equipment maintenance is ongoing.

Ongoing projects. We've been chatting with Harmac Pacific, the pulp mill next to us, who has expressed some interest in using our training facility and instructors. You'll see it later on in a motion, and provided the trustees of possible contract to consider for some training that we would provide to Harmac Pacific for live fire.

The 2026 grant application that the Corporate officers submitted for NextGen 911 has been submitted.

Staffing and budget considerations. To date, the fire department has received $4,000 from BCEHS for the rental of the hall. This rental takes place when the power goes out at the ambulance station due to them not having a generator, backup generator. We've been moving them in the hall here so they're operational during those power outages. I’d like, later on in a motion, just to recognize that we have these uniform shirts (holds up work sweater/shirt for demonstration) and from the surplus funds, members have purchased these in the past. They're great for going on calls. They're great for showing team unity within the fire department. And I'd like to see a motion in the future, in the motions for the surplus fund from that extra unbudgeted money that goes to buying everyone one of these uniform shirts to better identify ourselves on medical calls and other calls. This will support morale and unit cohesion. And there's approximately 40 at $100 a shirt, so $4000.

(55:00) Report on Safer Ocean Systems. So for this year, we've done one advanced firefighting course that was held January 20^th and 22^nd. This course was made up of different marine workers from all different industries, from ferries to tugboat captains. The course revenue brought in $7,200 and then we had our two facility, we had January and February rental come in. So total gross is $11,200 and expenses was $3000 for a net revenue total of $8,020.

Thank you for your continued support in making the community safe.

(VIDEO 56:00)

MOTIONS - HARMAC PACIFIC CONTRACT/SOS CONTRACT

And then I’ve got a number of motions here under the Fire Chief’s report. So the first recommended motion is

To approve the contract with Harmac Pacific for live fire training on April 17 and 18, 2026.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Mr. Chair, could I ask a couple of clarifying questions?

CHAIR: Sure, sure.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So in the SOS report it has listed revenues and expenses from SOS training. The Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department Operational Guideline 4.08 - SOS Training, signed October 21, 2025 says that SOS training revenues are handled separately under the direction of the Fire Chief, and that SOS training sits outside normal GVFD operations and the union structure.

Can you explain in practical terms how that works, specifically, where that money is being held, who controls it and what Board approval supports that setup?

CHIEF: We needed to format an operational guideline to support that, and [unclear] formatted, but yeah format [unclear].

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I can’t hear you, can you put your voice up a bit please.

CHIEF: Yeah, we're currently just holding the revenue in Operating.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It's not clear to me what authority exists outside of the board to restrict funds or designate the use of funds or control the use of funds. These seem to me to be exclusive, exclusively board responsibilities handled through the statutory responsibilities of the Corporate Officer in her capacity as treasurer, responsible for receiving and dispersing all monies for the improvement district. So I was surprised to see this operational guideline had been signed into effect without any review on the part of the board, about the regulation, receipt, allocation and disbursement of those funds outside of the authority of the board. And I mean, I also have questions about how it is that activities can be conducted outside of normal GVFD operations and outside of the union structure, particularly with union negotiations being very incipient. I mean, I found that, I found that very surprising and curious and would appreciate some clarity on how those decisions were made and how that will be handled.

CHAIR: I guess we’ll going to get you that information. I don’t know that we’re going to do it right now, but—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I need it by the next meeting

CHAIR: Okay, how about by the next meeting then.

[multiple voices, unclear]

(VIDEO 59:15)

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I do have a motion following on that, which is

THAT the board directs the Corporate Officer to provide the auditor with a copy of GVFD Operational Guideline 4.08 SOS Training signed October 21st 2025 as part of the materials available to the auditor.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ll second that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I spoke with my rationale for that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I think that we need to take a look at what our governance regulations allow us to do and what our governance regulations allow us to provide outside sources. I think that quite frequently, which is one of the reasons why the concept showed up on the agenda of looking at a governance lawyer, of us overstepping, and the concept of being stated. I don't understand your obsession with the invisible line between the trustees and the operational side of the fire department. It has come up in that a few times that, I think we need to get some direction on whether or not we can demand things. Some of the governance information that I’ve read specifically says from says from a governance specialist that we do not receive, discuss report programs and services. We do not approve all management decisions. We do not develop operational policies. So I'm really concerned that we're walking into something that we actually do not have the right to do. And I would suggest that if we're making a motion, that we start making motions that find out what we actually have the rights to do and the rights not to do. And if you're going to ask for information from somebody before people start making decisions on what should be done and what should not be done, then I believe what should be done is ask for a timely report back as to where the decision was coming from and why the decision was made, rather than throwing it at somebody and then attempting to make a resolution based on an instant decision. That never bodes well. Thank you.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  So it sounds like we're dealing with a decision that was made back in October.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The policy was signed on October 21^st.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So I don't see why we would withhold that from the from the auditor. I feel like withholding information from the auditor is probably not a great approach. And maybe—[interrupted]

CORPORATE OFFICER: But—no, but, I would like to say—First, I want to give the auditor everything that the auditor wants, and asks for. And then I will say, “we also would like you to have this information,” but they're very specific in what they ask for. They just, they're not asking for everything. Their scope is fairly narrow and if you keep expanding the scope and looking into all these things, that will raise the cost, and if that’s what the trustees want to do, that’s fine.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay. I believe the matter to be of substantial importance, because it takes a stream of revenue, moves it outside of board oversight, moves it outside of board tracking, and moves a whole sphere of operations of the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department outside of normal GVFD operations and union structure. And I know that none of us is a governance expert here, and the expertise seems to me to rest with the auditor. And if there's no problem, then the auditor will tell us that, and if there is a difficulty, I mean, that's what we're paying them to tell us. So for my part, I mean, I made the motion. I intend to vote in favor of it.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, I think the auditor is a good place to get advice for something like this from. So I'm going to support this.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Did you submit this to us in advance? I haven’t seen it.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m not sure what [multiple voices, unclear]. Well, on Monday, the new, the updated operational guidelines were distributed to the board by the Corporate Officer. In those operational guidelines is Operational Guideline 4.08 - SOS training, which states here, policy number one, “all SOS work is outside of regular GVFD operations and is therefore not included in the scope of unionized work.” And says down here that “SOS revenues shall be shown as restricted funds in the financial statements, but are not required to be held in a separate bank account.” It says that “planned use of these funds will be presented by the fire chief as part of the annual budget for approval by the Board of Trustees”, which of course, didn't happen in this budgeting cycle, and that “expenses incurred within the approved budget will be approved by the fire chief” rather than being approved by the board through the Corporate Officer, and “if there are expenses beyond the approved budget, Board of Trustee approval is required”. So it takes a whole stream of revenue and a whole stream of activity and explicitly moves it beyond GVFD operations. And all of this activity uses GVFD personnel and resources and facilities, so I don't have a clear understanding of how those facilities and equipment and so forth that are owned by the taxpayers, can be used outside of the scope of regular GVFD operations. And would like to begin my understanding of that, and our understanding of that, by understanding the funding and the appropriate oversight and management of the funds, which my understanding is, are correctly handled by the Corporate Officer under the instruction of the board by statute.

CHAIR: Anybody else?

I think this is something that we, we obviously have to hire a lawyer on the governance, and that's what we've talked about here today. [unclear] I just think that maybe what we need to do is get a lawyer's opinion, our lawyer's opinion on that, before we go much farther down the road.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I agree that the opinion of an attorney would be timely. I would think that the time for consulting that attorney would be before an operational guideline was signed into effect, but as it has been signed into effect, and since it was signed into effect before the end of the calendar year, which we’re being audited, I don't think it's appropriate to withhold it from the audit.

CHAIR: May I speak to that? I agree with you on that, it should not be withheld from the auditor. But I think as far as the other issues involved here, I’d like to have a lawyer's opinion on the, you, you know that the fact that SOS is beyond our control as as as a board.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I—how would that be?

CHAIR: They’re a private company.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: With whom we have a contract.

CHAIR: Yes, we have a contract, but they're still private. I just think, you know, I'm not that lawyer, but I think it requires that we have a lawyer on that, and I don't think there's that much of a squeeze. We're gonna get a lawyer over the next month, I would say, and right after that, maybe at the same time we’re getting opinion from Doane Thornton [Ed: the auditor]. And then we’ve put this whole thing, this whole thing, to rest.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But there’s a motion on the floor, so we’ve got to vote.

CHAIR: And what is the motion on the floor?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion on the floor is [reads motion again]

CHAIR: Go ahead. Okay, end of the discussion? You look like you’re still thinking. Nope? All right, hands in the hair of the affirmative. Carried.

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the board direct the Corporate Officer to provide the auditor with a copy of GVFD Operational Guideline 4.08 SOS Training signed October 21^st, 2025 as part of the materials available to the auditor.

Can I just say that I don't oppose it. That's not what I'm saying here. I think we need you to be clear around a few things around here, and that requires a governance lawyer or something, and we are moving towards that, obviously. Thank you.

(VIDEO 1:08:43)

TRUSTEE MOHER: Motions have been waiting.

CHAIR: Okay, so separate, separate level here. Motions— [unclear discussion between Chair and Trustee Moher of motions waiting to be read by chief]

CHIEF: So the recommended motion was to approve the contract with Harmac Pacific for live fire training on April 17^th ad 18^th, 2026.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’ll make that motion

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’ll second it.

CHAIR: Discussion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I have, I guess, a couple of clarifying questions having to do with that operational guideline, because the contract that's been presented to us is a little confusing to me in that it states that the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department will provide rental SCBA gear from Safer Ocean Systems as part of the course fee. So because we're using some of our equipment, some equipment belonging to Safer Ocean Systems, and Harmac will be turning out their own equipment… Is it intended that this agreement fall under that SOS operational guideline and…?

CHIEF: No, it’s outside the guideline because it doesn't really involve, it just borrows some equipment from Safer Ocean Systems.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay? Thank you.

CHIEF: And the SCBA is a self-contained breathing apparatus.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes, if it was underwater, it would be easier to pronounce. So the agreement involves fire fighters delivering paid training, and the SOS guideline, which I understand that you sort of answered this, states that that work is outside of union unionized operations. So is this training that we're offering also considered to be outside of regular GVFD operations and union structure? or…

CHIEF: This is kind of a one deal contract to see if it’s worthwhile. So it's just those two days. Apparently, there, there’s no contract in place.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: In that case, my only remaining concern, and I will propose this as an amendment to the contract training agreement. Contract currently reads that it's between the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department and Harmac Pacific, and has as the signing authority the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department. I'm going to move that those be amended to the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District, and that the signing authority comes from the improvement district. I move that we amend the contracts to replace GVFD in those two instances with GFPID.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’ll second it.

CHAIR: Any further discussion?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Chief Sprogis, will you be gaining financial compensation from this contract?

CHIEF: I'll be assisting with training.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So you get paid? [no response] My issue with this is this puts this organization in a difficult governance position. You know, the difficult governance position is that the organization cannot easily demonstrate that senior management advice and decision making are fully independent of personal financial outcomes, and that weakens oversight, complicates accountability, and exposes the organization to perception risks. Senior executives are expected to provide impartial advice, or advice on whether contracts should exist, and how they should be structured. So having—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Through the chair—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: —financial gain—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: —it really complicates—

TRUSTEE MOHER: I believe we’re talking about some staff matters and issues that perhaps not is appropriate for discussing in open meetings.

CHAIR: I do agree with you on that. Can we talk about that in camera? Please?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ve said my piece.

TRUSTEE MOHER: It should not have been said in public. Thank you.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  Further discussion, so I struggled a little bit with this agreement in that— I went back to our—

CORPORATE OFFICER: We’re voting on the amendment.

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: hands in the air for the affirmative, for the amendment.

MOTION CARRIED

THAT we amend the contracts to replace GVFD in two instances with GFPID.

(VIDEO 1:13:50)

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So I struggled a little bit with the alignment. And so the purpose of the GVFD/GFPID is to provide fire protection for Gabriola residents and taxpayers on Gabriola. I struggled a little bit with how this aligns with that. It becomes, we're starting to use taxpayer equipment and trained staff to provide a service and that, I mean, we've already crossed that line with SOS, and that's really not my biggest thing with this, but my biggest thing is really around the liability that exists. So I look at the SOS contract, I think we specifically say that they have to have $5 million of liability insurance. It gets into that side of things. Here, we have a very brief, two-page agreement that seems, from a legal perspective, a little light.

I'd like to have a bit more certainty around the type of liability that we would be exposing ourselves to if one of these Harmac people was injured, for example. I’d like to have a better understanding if we do more of these agreements, I don't know what the benefit, the financial benefit is to the GFPID. I see here, $7,200 we're going to charge them, but I don't know how much that's going to incur for costs for trainers, wear and tear on our equipment. I imagine that we using one of our engines for this purpose for that. And then I'm concerned as well about the time spent. It says here that you're going to develop detailed lesson plans, and I don’t know how much time that's going to take up of the Chief’s time to do that work.  So those are—

CHIEF: Do you want me to address those?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Sure.

CHIEF: So yeah, we've got a number of new Fire Service instructors, so it's a perfect chance for them to practice their skills as fire service instructors teaching. And teaching different students outside of the fire department is very, I think it's great work. They're going to learn also from Harmac, about industrial firefighting, and some of the techniques that they use. We are using one of our old engines. It's now classified as a tender, so the wear and tear is minimal. It's just flowing a little bit of water. And, yeah, some evolutions. The detailed lesson plan would just be taken from something I've already developed for live fire training. So that document already exists. It's just changed the titles and times of it. Not a new lesson plan.

Any other things you were concerned about… how it aligns, so, how it aligns with the fire department? Well, that training piece is huge. Any time our members get the chance, any time our members get the chance to train members, they're building their own skills. As you would know, we don't see a lot of live fire on the island, so that's, the next best thing is training to it. So getting our members involved, and they’re suiting up and helping with the training, but also helping in the evolutions. And it's bringing in much needed revenue that we've seen buying stuff like auto-ex equipment that got updated just recently. So I mean, I’d be proposing to buy new equipment that we need, that's in our capital fund, and that’s, that’s really how it aligns, getting the taxpayers better equipment and updated equipment, it’s worth it to the community.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So I think that's the part that I like to understand better, Will, is like, what is, what are we benefiting from this?

CHIEF: How much revenue?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  Not even revenue, but so like, like net income, right?

CHIEF: So it is probably around four grand.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And what do you base that on?

CHIEF:  Well, it’s based on those two days, two days minus the instructors and fuel, and yeah, just some little fees. There's mostly 20 bucks in fuel, a few little expenses, nothing major. Yeah, around $4000 in that revenue.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  So what I think, to me, so when I think – so you’ve convinced me, I’ll vote for this, but I think going forward, I would like to see more of an understanding of what it brings to the department, right, so in terms of the benefit, it’s financial, it's training, it’s probably— I see three instructors here, [unclear] it’s not training a ton of people here.

CHIEF:  You've also got the operational guideline now that you can look at. It shows what the cost is for a Fire Service Instructor in the SOS courses. You can base it back off there.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  I think it would be helpful—

CHIEF:  Yeah, but just for your future reference, [unclear]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And just and then finally, can we bump up the piece on insurance. I mean, this is draft, right? So yeah, can we take some of that language that we have in the other agreement.

CHIEF: Sure.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I just had a question about how the instructors will be paid, because the operational guideline referred specifically to SOS instructors and so instructors for this will be paid at the same rate for a basic or an advanced course?

CHIEF: The same rate applies for both basic and advanced.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah, the difference in pay is the instructor’s level. We have instructor level one and instructor level two. Currently, the only level two’s are the deputy and the chief, and everyone else we’re training is level one instructor. So that’s the difference in the pay structure, it’s not the course they’re offering, it’s their level of training.

[unclear]

CHIEF: And that's the reason that I've ended up having to instruct [unclear] the Deputy is not available. The Deputy is working that day.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I just want to thank the Chief for taking the initiative on this, and I just want everyone to recognize this is actually outside of the Chief’s normal duty, and it actually adds work to his plate, and that he could just dismiss all of these and it wouldn't really be a negative to him.

In general, I think the board needs to decide whether or not taking these paid things to bring revenue into the department, is a good or a bad thing, because I've been in a number of these discussions, and it seems like there's never really a consensus on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. We do the deployment, we have the SOS, now there's this, there's also the cell phone tower. You know, I personally think this is a good thing and it offsets taxes. But outside of this discussion, I just wanted to bring that point up, that I think the board does need to have that conversation at some point. And that's pretty much my point on that.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Brief comment on that. I agree with you, John, and I think it needs to be part of the bigger strategy where we demonstrate what the benefit is to taxpayers. Because fundamentally, it shouldn't just be this, because I imagine if this goes well, there'd more of this work. There’s probably other outfits that would approach us. So this needs a strategy, I agree.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Totally.

(1:21:40)

AUDIENCE MEMBER (Captain Geoff Goodall): Chair. As a captain of the fire department, I get great benefit out of instructing other people. It's very helpful. So, it enhances what I've learned in practice and in school. You get to train other people, you learn what their experiences are. So it's very beneficial that I can then bring that back to our department and train our up-and-coming firefighters. And the same thing with going on deployment. What we learn from other fire departments, we're able to bring that back and assimilate into our practice here. So all these extra activities take extra effort on our behalf, of course, but we get a great benefit from it. So when you're considering this, Oliver, I appreciate you bringing that up, and John, if, when you're discussing amongst yourselves, consider that we do get a great benefit, and we return that to the fire department.

CHAIR: I think that anything that provides benefit to the firefighters is a benefit to the community. And I mean, it's nice that you guys are bringing money into the department. I think we have to be clear about that. You're bringing money into the department, and I think that's a wonderful thing, but I think the major thing is the training that you're getting in these situations. It all helps us build a better fire department and connections with other fire departments too. Anyway, where are at with this? Can we just to formalize this?

[multiple voices, unclear]

CORPORATE OFFICER: Can we formalize this and make a motion to increase the insurance?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, so I'll move [motion details]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ll second that.

CHAIR: Okay, any further discussion, hands in the air in the affirmative please? Carried.

MOTION CARRIED

THAT we mirror the insurance provisions that we have to the SOS agreement.

(VIDEO 1:24:00)

[unclear discussion between Chair, Corporate Officer, Trustee Moeller re previous motion to amend signing authority]

Everybody. My Okay, we'll vote on the motion now. All in favour. Carried.

[NOTE: the motion below was not restated before the vote, but we assume that this is what it would be after the amendments.]

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the board approve the contract with Harmac Pacific for live fire training on April 17 and 18, 2026

AND

THAT the contract be amended to replace GVFD in two instances with GFPID.

AND

THAT the contract mirror the insurance provisions that we have to the SOS agreement.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Can we just get in the habit of calling for votes for or against, even it’s carried? I think just a procedural thing, if we call for votes for and then even if it's carried, we also ask for votes against.

CHAIR: Okay.

MOTION: CECA TENANCY

(VIDEO 1:25:05)

CHIEF:  I have another motion to be made. Recommended motion, Community Association of the CECA of Gabriola, we’d like to form a MOU or agreement with them supporting the help that CECA has provided by providing a location to provide the great service they do.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’ll move that.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Seconded.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I just have a couple of clarifying questions. During what hours does CECA have access to the hall?

CHIEF: They have access to the downstairs.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Like just the downstairs?

CHIEF: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And how many personnel have access? Is it like, key access?

CHIEF: It’s just one… there’s a couple of keys? [looks to Trustee Moher]

TRUSTEE MOHER: Best person to ask is the President, he’s sitting right there.

AUDIENCE MEMBER (Rich Williams, President CECA): We've had one key downstairs, and we have three people with keys to downstairs. The one key downstairs opens the one door up here. And the only reason we need access there is because we keep equipment, computers and radios within the number 12, and once every week, we maintain that equipment to make sure it is functional and ready whenever we’re called.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  So, from my point of view, we're talking about a bunch of things here. So we haven't, we have, again, it's a very brief agreement. From my perspective, it's a memorandum of understanding in fact. When it’s really a lease, right. So we are leasing property to CECA at no cost. So it’s—do we, in terms of insurance… So again, liability insurance. With any of that equipment, and I hope it doesn’t [unclear] catch fire for example, is there insurance that, if this fire hall burns down, that we can—that it’s insured, like is there tenants insurance, for example, lease insurance. I am pretty sure Gertie has insurance for the building next door, so does the SOS—is there, can that... Do you have insurance?

WILLIAMS: We have insurance for all of our equipment and all of our personnel, for public liability for anything that we do. We do not carry insurance on the building as part of our policy.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Is that part of our policy?

CORPORATE OFFICER: No, they have, like a separate rider that does their stuff, does their equipment, like tenant insurance.

WILLIAMS: We have our own equipment, it’s not fire hall equipment.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  Yeah, I understand that.

WILLIAMS: We maintain insurance on our equipment.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  No, I understand that that part. But if your self-maintained equipment was to catch fire, in this fire hall, is there insurance?

TRUSTEE MOHER: That's what he said. They have, basically tenant insurance, So their stuff is all covered.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I think, if I can make sure that I understand the question, does... I think Trustee Bussler is wondering if our insurance that we have on the fire hall covers damage by third parties like tenants. Is the firehall covered for us as landlord, because if I was to rent out an apartment in my home, that would change the insurance that I have in my home, because I would then have a tenant.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’m assuming the insurance company knows that there’s people downstairs.

CORPORATE OFFICER: But I'll just double check.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And why don't we call this a lease agreement? Again, if I can get back to Safer Ocean Systems’ lease agreement, I'm pretty GERTIE has a lease agreement. I think we should be clear in terms of what this is, we’re leasing space. Is there a reason why we’re not using that—

CHIEF:  Because they’re providing us [unclear]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah.

CHIEF: I mean they’re supporting us on emergency, like any communications outage, again they’ve been a great mutual aid partner.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And so does GERTIE, right? We have an agreement with GERTIE as well, that they provide us with, I think, busses in the case of emergency. Do they not?

CHIEF:  Yeah.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  So we have a lease agreement, and then we have that secondary agreement. They’re kind of two pieces. So just for my peace of mind, I think this should be a lease agreement. There’s no rush on this. That’s just my opinion.

TRUSTEE MOELLER [?]: I agree.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I'm going to make a motion that we table both this motion and, actually, the next one about the RDN, until the next meeting, when we can get feedback from our insurer about whether we're covered. Marjorie has just said that she could look into that. If we take this up the next meeting, that would give time for that to happen, and then that question could be answered and we could move through the process. So I'm going to move that we table both these matters until next meeting.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER:  Second

CHAIR: Any more discussion? Hands in the air in the affirmative. Carried.

MOTION TABLED

To approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Coastal Emergency Communication Association (CECA) and the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Another motion arising out of this, that that be turned into a lease agreement rather than an MOU.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Call it a lease agreement rather than an MOU.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Yeah.

[Seconded by Trustee Bussler; after some confusion and discussion the motion is called. The motion was not read so what is below approximates the intent and should be confirmed in the minutes of the meeting.]

MOTION CARRIED

THAT “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)” be replaced with “lease agreement.”

SOS CONTRACT REVIEW

(VIDEO 1:32:04)

CHIEF:  All right, then and then one more motion. We were provided the SOS contract at the last meeting, and it was agreed that we could move forward with the course that we taught in February, and that we would review the contract, because we felt it was a little quick, presented a little quickly, and then we'd come back to the February meeting to discuss the contract with SOS.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Since there’s nothing on the floor, this isn’t a move to table, but given the fact that just on Monday, the board was informed of a full operational guideline within the fire department governing SOS contracts and placing that work outside of GVFD operations and the union structure, I will not be supporting any formalization of the contract with SOS while there's this ambiguity around how that money is handled, how that authority is managed, and I think it would be premature for us to formalize a contract with this, with this big ambiguity about the correct authority of the fire department in sequestering those funds and placing those funds out of the oversight of the board. I have serious concerns about the wisdom of doing that.

CHAIR: What's your time frame on this?

CHIEF:  We have a course in March.

CHAIR: I wonder if we can table that and discuss it with more information.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I would be more happy discussing it with more information.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: The contract is separate from the operational guidelines. If we change the operational guidelines after the contract is…

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If we sign a contract and have a guideline that says that the administration of the contract and funds received from the contract are outside of union structures and GVFD regular operations, and then negotiations happen with the union, and we have a signed contract doing work that's outside of the union structure… That seems that it would really complicate things, since, I mean, how would we regulate our staff working outside of the union structure?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Well, I don't think Safer Ocean Systems really cares whether or not that person doing it is unionized or not, you know, like, whether they’re compensated more or less is not really—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But they’re our, these would be our employees. Even when they're instructing for SOS, they remain employees of the improvement district. So if we have unionized employees of the improvement district doing non-union work for the improvement district, that, that’s—

TRUSTEE MOELLER:  Well, my point is that Safer Ocean Systems doesn’t specify whether or not these people are unionized, that’s in the operational guidelines. So you can change the operational guidelines and still continue with this contract.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, with any money that we receive—right now, with that operational guideline, any money we receive is received outside of the oversight of the Board.

TRUSTEE MOELLER:  Again, that’s an internal thing, it’s not [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If we formalize a contract with Safer Ocean Systems without understanding how we structure on our end, I think we call that whole contract into into serious question. So I mean, I, as I said, I won't be supporting it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me, Chair.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Chair, point of order. We, our rules don’t permit questions from the floor on matters outside of the town hall.

CHAIR: I’m gonna buy you a beer for that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I would like to speak for the record, especially for Mr. Kilbourn in the back, that the chair has promised to buy me a beer!

[jovial banter]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: For discussion purposes, I'm good with tabling it and revisiting in March, and last time, it did not prevent you from training that course that we just taught. So why not get this in order before we before we finalize the agreement?

CHAIR: So that's, so we’ll table that. Are we good with that? Hands in the air for tabling until March. Thank you.

MOTION TABLED

[NOTE: text of motion was not provided in the public meeting agenda]

UNIFORM SHIRTS

(VIDEO 1:37:30)

CHIEF: All right, one more. So the uniform shirts that I talked about earlier, $4,000 of money that was allocated from the rental of the hall for BC Ambulance. These shirts here, Captain Goodall’s wearing one in the back. The main thing it shows your name, and it’s $4,000 of unbudgeted money, and it would go a long way in supporting the team and promoting team cohesion.

CHAIR: Anybody want to make a motion?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’ll make that motion.

[Seconded by Trustee Moeller]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So this motion is a little curious to me, because I'm not sure what the rules are about what things come to the board for approval and what things don't. So in December, there was a $40,000 capital purchase of bunker gear, and that was made without it coming before the board. So it's hard for me to understand why the person's T-shirts, or sweaters, I guess, requires board authorization. And I also think that given the enormous hole in our budget as a result of costs incurred for professional fees, we should be very wary of calling anything a surplus. So while I concede that Mr. Goodall looks great in his sweater, and the team cohesion is important, I will not support this motion.

 TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Just a comment as well. I have one of those shirts as well, as you know as well, as you know, they're very comfortable and they look really good, but I can't justify $4000 [unclear].

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: This one’s a bit long winded. To understand the financial context this is being done in, the cost of this organization is doubling within the years 25, 26 and 27. It's 100% increase in three years, and we can’t find money for new additions like this. It's not on any of our plans. But the real issue I have with this is that this organization does not have a handle on its balance sheet. Eight months from now, we're going to have to make a decision on how big of an advance we're going to have to make on our 2027 levy in order to stay solvent in Q2 of that year. I can tell you that that number is going to be $410,000 minus whatever we are under budget in 2025.

Organizationally, we have not been able to calculate that number. We have made, we made that decision four months ago for this year, and it was literally a guess. I ask people to revisit the video of the October 1 general meeting, starting at minute 49 and if you watch the preceding September 23 meeting, it starts with minute 8. Organizationally, we are we are still there. Somehow, we need to get people to understand that decisions like this, spending unallocated money, affects how much money we need to annually advance on the levy. If we leave this $4,000 unspent, we will need to advance $4,000 less on an annual basis. This is how it works. And it's a cumulative thing. So even though this is only $4,000 it adds up. In January, we moved $4,000 from the operations account to the capital account for the Jaws sale. Last November, we moved $19,000 from the operation account to the capital account, from the insurance payout, from writing off number 9. Last October, we spent $55,000 from our operational account to advance the capital Jaws project. We have pulled about $80,000 off of our operational account in the last six months in decisions such as this.

So yeah, it's only $4,000 but decisions like this add up. If one watches the October 1 general meeting starting at minute 49, the big question then was, how do we stop having these shortfalls in June of every year? And the answer to this is, we learn how to calculate liquidity in June well ahead of time, and then manage towards specific targets. The way we manage towards those targets when we're perpetually broke in June, is to say no to requests such as this. We quit spending unallocated revenue and quit moving money from operations to capital until the balance sheet is appropriately funded. Our job as trustees is to understand this and ensure this organization is fiscally prudent.

Right now, we're flying blind with our hands off the controls. I'm just saying we need to be conscious of where we're going. We need to put our hands on the controls, and we need a destination. Right now we have to none of that. So I'm asking the Trustees to join me in saying no until such time as we have a balance sheet consciously managed.

CHAIR: May I say something.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO:  Sure.

CHAIR: I don't think you're taking into account that we saved $6,000 that you approved for a search of that computer. We saved that money. We were good to spend that money.

CORPORATE OFFICER: I’d like to say at this time, I don't think we're touching the $100,000 we got ahead of time.

TRUSTEE MOHER: As somebody who works in human resource business in the School District where we dealt with people, to me, there's no price that you can put on the people that work for you. People that work for you mean more than anything, and the goodwill that we show to them is beyond priceless. The $4,000 that came in was unexpected. We weren't budgeting for it. We weren't going to have it if things did not happen the way it happened, and therefore using it for something that goes towards goodwill, towards the people that put themselves on the line for us, day in and day out, and night after night, and day after day, can only come back to us tenfold in other ways and other manners that we cannot put on the spreadsheet, and we cannot put a cost on, and so I would, forever, vote towards money that goes to the fire hall people. And whatever needs to be done for our firefighters. Thank you.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I was going to say something similar to Diana that, I think that's, it's really good for morale to have uniforms, especially when they all match. And I think it's good for the community to see that too. And the money is, as Diana pointed out, unexpected and not budgeted. So we do have it, was my point.

CHAIR: So where are we at with that?

TRUSTEE MOHER: We have a motion from the chief. I’ll made that motion that we put the $4000 that we received from the ambulance due to the rental of our building towards job shirts for the 40-some members of our fire department, to show our solidarity and appreciation.

CHAIR: Any other discussion? Hands in the air for the affirmative.

TRUSTEE APPEL: I’m having a debate with myself, I might recuse myself from this vote.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The only way to recuse yourself from the vote is if you have a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it's a vote in favour. Just, that’s the rule.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So, Ray’s spouse is a firefighter that will receive one of the shirts.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Ah. So in that case…

TRUSTEE APPEL: That’s why I’m going to recuse myself.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That makes sense to me. Very conscientious.

TRUSTEE APPEL: Thank you.

CHAIR: Does that fail?

[The motion fails because the vote was 3 for, 3 against.]

TRUSTEE MOHER: [to chief] I’m sorry. I’m very sorry. That’s very disappointing to me.

MOTION DEFEATED

THAT we put the $4000 that we received from the ambulance due to the rental of our building towards job shirts for the 40-some members of our fire department, to show our solidarity and appreciation.

TRAINING REPORT

(VIDEO 1:47:00)

[Provided by the Chief in the Deputy Chief’s absence.]

The full report is in the meeting package. The Chief noted that every firefighter attending the radio course got an S-212 lifetime certificate.

ASSOCIATION REPORT

No report.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

(VIDEO 1:49:25)

1.  Privacy Management Program

MOTION (tabled from Jan meeting)

That the corporate Officer provide the trustees with a work plan and timeline for bringing the GFPID into compliance with 36.2 of FOIPPA, which is implemented in privacy management program and have this due at the March General Meeting. CARRIED

(VIDEO 1:51:25)

2.  Bylaw XXX: Fire Department Establishing Bylaw

Chair Johnson indicated confusion about the purpose of this item, and the Corporate Officer explained that it was a placeholder.

[Ed. note re item background: in the Sept 2025 meeting package there was a draft bylaw (109), "Fire Department Establishment and Operations Bylaw", and it appears that this is what is being referenced. This has appeared in every agenda since then as a standing item. The draft bylaw highlights a few lines of text, presumably indicating changes or additions. The first highlight is: "The Trustees of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District ENACT AS FOLLOWS: A bylaw to provide for the establishment and operation of the Gabriola Fire & Rescue Department, previously known as Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department."]

(VIDEO 1:51:35)

3.  Records and Information Management Bylaw

Trustee Chorneyko explains that the Corporate Officer has created a draft bylaw and sent it to him; he has worked on it and will get the revised version back to the CO this week.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a motion to propose addressing reporting on resolutions. Over the course of the past number of months, there have been resolutions made by the board on which we haven't received reports or status updates. And I circulated in advance of this meeting, a list of resolutions with their status. So I'm going to make the motion “that the board affirm that it wishes to receive regular reporting on the status of board resolutions after they are adopted.”

[seconded]

TRUSTEE MOHER: It’s not on the agenda, [unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It arises directly from old business and business arising from commitments.

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear, Chair speaks over her]

CHAIR: Keep your voice down, please.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I do know the Corporate Officer has been working on an outline to deal with outstanding motions, and motions in particular, and tying them to the minutes that they were passed in, so that everybody would understand where the minutes and motions are tied together, so that it isn’t just that a motion was done here and a motion was done there. So I think we are doubling up on the work, so perhaps what we could do is table your motions until she can put together the thing that she's already been working on?

CHAIR: [unclear] about two weeks hence, no?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion that I propose—and I don’t know if it’s got a second—is simply—I’m not at this point promoting any actions. The motion is, “that the board affirm that it wishes to receive regular reporting on the status of board resolutions after they are adopted.”

[The motion is seconded.]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I think we’re talking about the same thing. It's already in the works. [to CO] I suspect you're not quite to this format, right? So it's—

TRUSTEE MOHER: It’s something that was already started by the Corporate Officer, and then people can be receiving that as part of the Corporate Officers report.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, she's already doing it anyway, and [unclear]

TRUSTEE MOHER: It’s adding another layer to—

CHAIR: If I can just say this, if we go back and forth about that, there are some committees that have not made reports to the board. There's a number of them, and I would ask people who are chairs on those committees to get their committees together and finish their business. I'm not, we have to actually look at that, I think there are some that were chaired by people who are no longer here, and have people on their their committee that are no longer here. So we’ll check that out. But it needs to get done. I’m not gonna, this isn’t current stuff, this is what he’s bringing up from, some of it’s years and years old. But anyway, I'm just saying that we need to do that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: And I'll give Marjorie a copy of the thing that she was never copied on it so she had no idea what was coming. So I’ll just make sure she has that. Though I think that could end up becoming part of her Corporate Officer’s [Report], if I may so humbly request that it come [unclear].

CHAIR: Yeah, we realize that everyone isn’t up to speed on this.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I have just one more thing on that. So nothing—the first thing on this list dates back to July 2025, so it's not really that old, and for me, it does serve a good purpose, even just for my own benefit: “Hey, I better get moving on this.” We just recently identified that we hadn’t met as the safety committee, for example. So those are, it does serve that purpose.

CHAIR: No, I totally agree. So we have a motion on the floor—

TRUSTEE MOHER: [unclear]

CHAIR: —it has been seconded. Any further discussion? Hands in the air for the affirmative?

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the board affirm that it wishes to receive regular reporting on the status of board resolutions after they are adopted.

MOTION ARISING

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Mr. Chair, I have a following motion, which is “that the Corporate Officer be directed to report on the status of board resolutions with reasons for any unfulfilled resolutions at each General Meeting.”

[motion seconded]

TRUSTEE MOHER: That’s the point of her report, [unclear].

CHAIR (to CO): So basically, you're going to [unclear] for committees that have not done their reporting, is that what you’re saying? Just so we’re clear.

CORPORATE OFFICER: [unclear]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: This isn't necessarily committees. This is motions that we have made, and the work may or may not be done, or in the works.

CHAIR: All right, okay, same thing though. The Corporate Officer will make your excuses for you. And I'm blaming myself, probably, I should include myself.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I think it's good idea to have a list and a status. I don't think the reason is something that Corporate Officer is necessarily going to have clarity on. And so that might be a challenge.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: For instance, one of the unfulfilled resolutions that has been adopted by the Board was that correspondence of various kinds with third party contractors be provided and distributed to the board. That correspondence hasn't been distributed to the board, and it would be, I think, useful for me, and I suspect others, to understand why that is, for instance. So those are the kinds of things where we pass resolutions directing that certain actions be undertaken. I understand that sometimes those actions take time, but it would be good to have regular status updates, which is the purpose of this motion. It sounds like there are plans in the works to do just that, but customarily, up to this point, the Corporate Officer report hasn't included updates on board resolutions, and so this motion just formalizes the request from the board that that take place.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I agree. I think we should have those in a list. And the motion that you're, the resolution that you're referring to, is one that the Corporate Officer would be fulfilling. So that would be easy for her to come up with a reason for. But there's other ones, like resolutions for various committees and so on and so forth, that she is not [unclear] of and therefore she's not going to have the reason.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, the status report in that case could be, for instance, “The matter remains with the whatever committee”—that would be, and then we could turn to the committee for answers, but we would know—

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, if the rationale is not known, then that can go on—I'm just going to excuse myself. My apologies. [responds to turn off phone/alarm]

CHAIR: I like the idea that we are taking our responsibility for what we haven't done rather than laying it on the Corporate Officer. That's all I'm saying. All right, is that a motion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s a motion on the floor.

CHAIR: Do you have a seconder?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yep.

CHAIR: Run it past me.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion is “that the Corporate Officer be directed to report on the status of board resolutions with reasons for any unfulfilled resolutions at each general meeting.”

TRUSTEE MOHER: As part of their report?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Sure, and that, I'm happy to amend that as, like, accept that as a friendly amendment, “at each general meeting as part of the Corporate Officer’s report.”

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Do you want to put a start date on it?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So… March?

[general assent]

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’d just like to make an amendment that we remove the requirement for her to supply a reason for that.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I like the idea of comments.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Could we change “reason” to “explanation”?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Well, I mean, without contacting every committee and such, how’s she going to [unclear]. You know, if a committee hasn't met, [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Then the reason or explanation will be “the committee hasn't met”.

CHAIR: Or, “committee has not even contacted me.”

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Sure. But I mean, most of these, most of the things that we haven't received reports on, are not, are not committee matters.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: But this is all resolutions, though.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: These are all resolutions, many resolutions of many kinds.

??: Mostly outside of committees.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Mostly outside of committees.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So resolutions we've passed today, for example.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: She’d have to go to every person enquiring why it didn’t happen.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, I mean, for instance, the document that I distributed has reasons for many things. In August, we passed a resolution about the establishment of a privacy management program—that's not been fulfilled. The reason is because work is ongoing. We have a resolution that, um, some things are just resolutions that money be spent or money be transferred, or disbursements be made, and we just don't know if it's been done. It's really easy to lose track of.

CHAIR. Can we have the vote?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Can I just ask the Corporate Officer to comment on that, what do you think about that?

CORPORATE OFFICER: [unclear]

TRUSTEE MOHER: This is the first time she’s seen this.

CORPORATE OFFICER: This is the first time I’ve seen this, so [unclear]. The Corporate Officer’s report on the minutes on Correspondence, that’s in the minutes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Which page is that?

CORPORATE OFFICER: The second last one. Like, that’s exactly what’s written in the minutes, so…

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Outside of the actual thing that Wayne has sent to us, what do you think about having something like that, that gives a status update, and the reason part, the rationale for why it’s not complete portion. That's what I'm asking. Like, what’s your—is that going to add a tremendous amount of work to chase down—

CORPORATE OFFICER: If I have to chase down people, that’s—

[multiple voices, unclear]

JM: That's why I'm concerned that it's significant—

CORPORATE OFFICER: Or you guys could just accept the board, the committee [unclear interjection]—or that, yes, that the committee chair has not gotten back to me.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Does that mean that, ultimately, we present this item and just raise the question during the meeting, right? And so then everybody's here, and [unclear] so I say why, right?

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: …nothing to report from the committee, or something to report. But maybe when we have the list and people explain, that are committee chairs, where they're at, with no shame.

TRUSTEE MOHER: My suggestion was, because we kind of talked about this too, is that anything that was time sensitive would be flagged, in a way that when it’s attached you would know that there’s some time sensitive motions that needed to be dealt with, and that those are the ones that we would then focus on from your report.

DC: Would it be possible just to leave the completed ones on there too? So basically, all motions right out of the minutes, right?

CORPORATE OFFICER: That would be a very long [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, I think we're required to maintain a register of resolutions, as a matter of course.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So this would just be essentially that register of resolutions with complete, incomplete, and if incomplete, why.

CORPORATE OFFICER: But not all resolutions [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, procedural resolutions don't need to be recorded. But if the board directs that action be taken, then, I mean, either that action has been taken, or it hasn't been taken, or it's some kind of ongoing thing.

CORPORATE OFFICER: What I’m saying is, I’m not going to—I have all the motions recorded since 1993. I’m not going to do them every time, they have to fall off my report at some point.

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right. So, I mean, my thinking is that if the report on [unclear] is complete, then it could fall off, [multiple voices, unclear] but there would still have to be a register.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: My issue with that is, what if it's not completed, in my opinion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, then you could bring up the matter as a motion before the board to revisit some matter. [multiple voices] So if the motion is that the board build a snowman, and you're like, well, that snowman has no head, and you say it's complete, then you could bring up a motion that the board commit to adding a head to the snowman as a way of following on, and making it complete to your standard. But you have to convince us that your standard was…

CHAIR: You good with that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah.

JM: So my only concern—I like the idea, I think it’s a really good idea—my only concern is that, like, we're gonna have a list, an ongoing list, every month. And the Corporate Officer, before the agenda goes out, can look at the list, go down to go, that one’s complete, that one’s complete, that one’s complete, and then mark them as such, and these ones are outstanding, and it's just a routine thing. If she has to get a rationale for why the incomplete ones are not complete, it turns a routine thing into something that she has to contact every single one of us on all these issues and get an answer. It takes a routine couple of hour job and turns it into potentially multiple days, quite complicated, that's why I’m concerned with asking for the rationale.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Could we get around that by [removing?] anything committee related? We obviously have committee reports, so just remove that and “committee to report soon”. Cause I agree with you, John. You shouldn't have to call everybody, because you're not going to get responses, and I don't think that's productive. That's all the reason we need all together as one body. So, so anything that pertains to a committee, just “committee report”.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: What about a trailing 12 month thing of motions, like, and putting the complete ones on there, and then, after 12 months, that month drops away. That’s assuming we’re going to get things done in a year.

CHAIR: What is the oldest resolution that you…?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I only went back to July when I started my journal.

CORPORATE OFFICER: It’s already 7 pages long for probably six months.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes. But it  would shrink, if we were getting reports—

CORPORATE OFFICER: But that’s not what he’s saying. [referring to Trustee Chorneyko] That’s not what he’s asking. He wants all 12 months.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Well, and I’d like to see it digitally. Like, I’m not into the paper stuff.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I can for— I just went through the minutes and, like, made a list. So it's, I mean, it's easy to do yourself. I'm going to be doing it informally on my own and I can share my list with you [unclear], but…

CHAIR: I'm with you on this, okay, but the caveat for me is that it's our responsibility as trustees and not the Corporate Officer. The Corporate Officer shouldn't be having to chase us around, okay? That's what I'm saying. It’s each of us’s responsibility, you know, rather than something to lay on an employee.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So, I mean, you know, we have motions here, you know, to, I mean, almost all of these motions are motions where we direct staff to do a thing or two, or where we establish a policy, like there's—I don't understand who would have to be chased down and why and what for.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: How about we put a column on about who's responsible for it, and Marjorie only deals with it if Marjorie is responsible for it. So if John Moeller's responsible for it, she doesn't have to worry about that. Or if Wayne's responsible for it, she doesn't have to worry about that. But Marjorie, and I think the fire chief, like staff [unclear].

CORPORATE OFFICER: I would suggest that we start just with completed and incomplete, and then, if you want additional information, generally we can have those on a monthly basis, based on how long and how long things are [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I guess my my concern with that is if we have some something like—so we have, from December, this motion that correspondence, ah, third party regulatory bodies be provided, if that's noted as incomplete, then at the meeting, I mean, I'll certainly ask why. And it seems like it would save time if there was an explanation included in the report, you know, why that is. Or if the decision made is the piece of information be distributed, and it's just noted as incomplete, then the question naturally arises, why?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Call for the vote.

CHAIR: Call for the vote now? Hands in the air in the affirmative.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Can we hear the motion?

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the Corporate Officer be directed to report on the status of board resolutions, with reasons for any unfulfilled resolution, at each general meeting, as part of the Corporate Officers report.

CHAIR: All right, hands in the air in the affirmative. [motion carried]

(VIDEO 2:11:20)

NEW BUSINESS

.  Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I would like to disclose a conflict of interest that I find myself in. In the December general meeting, I put forward a motion that people who are affected by the privacy breach should get an appropriate identity protection package from the district. At the time, with what we knew, it appeared unlikely that I was part of that privacy breach. Today, I now know that my social insurance number was part of that privacy breach, and I have received an identity protection package from the district, from the motion that I put forward. So that's a conflict of interest. The incremental cost to the district of the direct benefit that I received, cost $22. So I have $22.

[Trustee Chorneyko pays $22 in cash to the Corporate Officer.]

I still maintain that the best and most appropriate way that the GFPID take responsibility for that mishap is to provide an identity protection package to the affected individuals, such as we have. So I still stand by the motion, and I have no direct benefit from it.

[Some discussion as to how to categorize the repayment follows, and whether it would be classified as a donation.]

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the Board accept Trustee Chorneyko’s repayment of his benefit.

(VIDEO 2:14:50)

2.  Election

Recommended Motion – Advanced Ballot Safekeeping (MOTION WITHDRAWN)

THAT the Board of Trustees establish a committee to determine and recommend a secure process for the custody, storage, and control of advance voting ballots cast on May 2, 2026, to ensure their integrity and security until the general voting day on May 6, 2026.

AND THAT the committee be composed of three trustees (Trustee Mercier, Trustee Bussler and Trustee Chorneyko).

AND THAT the committee report back initially to the Returning Officer, and then to the Board with written recommendations for advance ballot safekeeping no later than February 18, 2026, to allow sufficient time for Board review and implementation prior to advance voting.

Trustee Appel speaks to the motion and explains that they must find a way to secure the advance poll ballots between May 2^nd and May 6^th. Although he thought some trustees could work on planning that, it was pointed out that this is actually part of the work of the Returning Officer and Corporate Officer.

Trustee Mercier says that because the improvement district hasn’t done this before, on his own initiative he contacted every other improvement district and asked if and how they handle advanced polling. Three districts responded, and he can share the information with the Returning Officer and Corporate Officer; the process is that used by Elections BC, “in which advanced votes are taken from the ballot box, placed into a transfer box, which is typically a cardboard box which is then sealed with tamper proof tape, which is initialed by the governance officials, the elections officials responsible and any scrutineers, and then it's left in the custody of the returning officer until election day.”

Some discussion follows, clarifying how this relates to GFPID’s election practices policies.

CHAIR: I think it would be in our best interest that we buy a safe, a metal safe, and screw it to the wall underneath the cabinets where the Corporate Officer works, so that we can, you know—I understand that in a lot of places, exactly that, the cardboard box and all it is, but I think to satisfy some of the people on this island, we're going to need better security than that. And I don't want to get into an argument with people, whether that cardboard box is open, closed, or whatever. I think we should step a little farther into it and that way we can hold the ballots for seven days if we have to, in a place that is more secure. I'm not worried about the security. I'm worried about the perception from some people about security.

OB: I don't know why we would deviate from what other improvement districts are doing if they already have it figured out, but the Returning Officer is here, so…? [gestures]

RETURNING OFFICER: From my perspective, as the Returning Officer, I will not see the ballots removed from this building. I agree that a safe should be purchased, and I've directed Marjorie [the Corporate Officer] to look into the cost of the safe, which can come out of our budget for the election. And I'm hoping you'll agree with that, because if you don't, I won't be your returning officer. It is a safety issue, and they should be remain. I agree with Wayne about the seals, and I've already had that discussion with Marjorie about purchasing seals and how that has to proceed for the advanced vote. But I feel in your best interests, a safe needs to be purchased, and it needs to be screwed to the wall or the floor, either under Marjorie's desk, or if we were looking at a bigger option, in the other room. And then it's, it's not leaving the building, and nothing can be nattered about.

Discussion about cost of safe; the election budget allocated $1000 but they are available for around $500. Question about security seals.

RETURNING OFFICER: Yes, what you normally get when you do an advanced vote is Elections BC provides you with seals about “yay by yay”, you seal the slot, your Returning Officer and your scrutineers all initial it, and from there, it goes into a safety...

TRUSTEE CHRONEYKO: […] So would these security seals have like, a serial number on so that, like, somebody couldn't rip it off and put a different one on? I'm guessing they're good…

RETURNING OFFICER: The ones that I’ve worked with in the past don't have a security number on them.

WM: Tamper proof tape is widely available and often used so the box can be put together with with the tamper proof tape, so none of the flaps can be moved any, and then that tape itself can be initialed, so that you can't just use—because it all looks [unclear]. Tamper proof seals are widely available commercially, and…

[More discussion; it is noted that the motion has been withdrawn. Reaffirmed that the Returning Officer should be allowed to do their job. Chair Johnson volunteers to screw the safe to the wall or floor.]

OB: Just for clarification, and we’ll be amending our election policy to incorporate these procedures, is that the plan then?

RETURNING OFFICER: I think so, yes, we'll do a do an amendment to the policy or our training pages that we've coming up with. We can add that.

OB: It would be nice to see exactly what we’ve done, that it is consistent with what other [unclear].

DC: Would you do that amendment prior, like, in the next week or two, and then bring it to the board for approval?

RETURNING OFFICER: If that's what you wish, Marjorie and I'll work on that.

DC: I think that would be the best.

RETURNING OFFICER: You were going to get a report anyhow. So we'll include that. Marjorie didn't know that she was doing a report, but yeah, that’s my plan.

DC: I don’t think it’s a big deal. I think it's a one pager.

RETURNING OFFICER: It'll be very short. It'll be just cut and dry. Any other questions?

DC: The only other question I have is, so we're required to maintain the ballots for a certain period after the election?

RETURNING OFFICER: Yeah, for 15 days, I believe.

DC: What are we doing for that now?

RETURNING OFFICER: They are locked in the box, and I have the key.

[Discussion on the motion that was withdrawn is concluded. Trustee Mercier introduces a new motion arising.]

(VIDEO 2:25:25)

WM: As published, the April 14 date reads as a mandatory two hour, in person, signing requirement with the Returning Officer. Whether that was the intent or not, it functions as a barrier. It limits availability, creates uncertainty about what is required, and risks discouraging otherwise eligible candidates or scrutineers. The election policy does not require a single fixed signing session, and in several places, allows either the Corporate Officer or the Returning Officer to witness and sign forms. This motion doesn't change the nomination deadline, the election dates, or the rules. It simply clarifies that April 14 is an optional signing session and confirms that candidates can complete required paperwork by appointment. That improves access, reduces ambiguity and protects the integrity of the election. I know that last year, when the two hour window was in place, it created difficulties for me, because one of my scrutineers has a day job and was not able to turn up on a Tuesday late morning to fill out forms, and that caused some difficulty with sorting it out. And since the policy does allow the flexibility for either the Corporate Officer or Returning Officer to witness forms, and doesn't specifically require a fixed window for registration, that fixed window seems to me as a barrier to people wishing to participate as candidates or scrutineers. And that's the purpose of the motion.

RETURNING OFFICER: Wayne, if you would have read the information that we sent out prior to setting the dates up and contacted us, we would have made further options available to you. And I did make further options for your scrutineer to come in and sign, and I let her do that the day of the election. So we are considerate of people's schedules, but we need to know.

WM: But I mean, this is why I'm saying, “whether intended or not”. The information on the website right now says that candidates and scrutineers must attend on April 14, between 10am and 12pm, and not every candidate or scrutineer is going to be able to make that window, and the information on the website does not make it clear that they have the opportunity to, like, make an appointment, ask for concessions and ask for flexibility. All this motion does is confirm that that signing and witnessing must be by appointment, and makes the times and dates when that takes place flexible, and does explicitly state that that it must be reasonable. So someone can't call up and be like, “the only time I have available Is three o'clock on Monday morning”, because that's not reasonable.

CHAIR: Would you be satisfied with a four hour window? Say from 10 to two?

OB: It sounds like there's more flexibility—like, it sounds like the flexibility already exists, but I didn’t realize it. When I do read this, it looks like there is no flexibility, but there is flexibility, so it's just—

CHAIR: So we’re good.

CO: Everyone has to make an appointment, then. I can’t just have—

WM: This motion says: “Candidates may complete required signing and witnessing by appointment with the Corporate Officer and or returning officer at reasonable times”. So it just makes that explicit.

CHAIR: When you say reasonable time, are you talking about a particular day?

WM: No, I’m saying that—

CHAIR: [unclear]

WM: My spouse was my scrutineer last year, and she works from 9am till 6pm every day of the week, five days a week. She's off island two or three days of the week. Her schedule is flexible enough that she can make an appointment, but she can't necessarily say that, “Well, this two hours”, she's definitely going to be available. So I understand that it's important to be respectful of staff time and require that people make appointments at reasonable times, but there should be, I think, as much flexibility in that as we can manage to encourage people to be able to participate.

CHAIR: Can I just say that it still falls off on staff, you know, the main—I would like to see at least one day. I don't know, if you're serious about running for office, change your schedule slightly so that you can, within one particular day, you can do it. I mean, everybody's got schedules, I got schedules. But anyway, are we voting? I'm going to call for the vote then. Hands in the air in the affirmative.

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the board confirm that April 14, 2026, 10am to 12pm is an optional signing session for candidates to complete required election paperwork,

AND

that candidates may complete required signing and witnessing by appointment with the Corporate Officer and/or Returning Officer at other reasonable times,

AND

that the Corporate Officer update the published important dates to state clearly what documents must be completed, who may witness them, and the final deadline for completion.

(VIDEO 2:32:30)

3.  Adoption of Code of Conduct

[The Code of Conduct under discussion is included in the meeting package, p22.]

WM: I guess I'm curious, as like, this hasn't come up as something that we're considering. We have a policy committee. I don't know that there's been any discussion about lapses or gaps or inadequacies in our existing code of conduct, which, to my knowledge, has never been published to the public. So I'm curious where this came from, how and where and by what action of the Board staff was directed to do this. How this happened?

CO: The policy review committee found out it's not signed, so therefore it's not valid. So you guys do not currently have a code of conduct.

WM: It was adopted at a public meeting by vote of the board.

CO: Was it?

WM: Yes.

CO: Okay, but that's not—it's not signed or anything. And so I was trying to fix that. I think at a meeting last week we said we're going to do this. I was going to put out the original one, and some of the trustees said that they really, really liked the RDN one. So I did this one. And the point is just to [unclear] you guys along. I would like a committee or the policy committee, to do it and look at it, and by the next meeting, have a more official one.

WM: I’m totally in favour of referring—

[multiple voices, unclear]

CO: [unclear] “this is excellent”, then you can adopt it, but if you’re like, “oh no, we wanted the other one,” that is fine, too.

WM: Our existing code of conduct was adopted on October 6, 2021, on the same date as Bylaw 98 was passed. And that should be reflected in the minutes, ‘cause these are notes from those meetings.

OB: Marjorie, for your benefit, I liked what you did with this, I like the RDN, there’s some subtle [unclear], I notice that there’s some words that were changed a little bit, minor. The only confidentiality conflict of interest is where my comments were coming from.

CO: But if we have a committee you’re going to discuss it amongst yourselves.

OB: Exactly.

WM: I would like, I guess I'll move to refer the code of conduct to the policy committee for review as part of their work.

DM: Does it fall into our mandate to review a brand new policy when we review this policy?

WM: Didn't you, I believe, said this while ago, that the code of conduct was found to be in the policy committee’s court—

DM: I haven’t seen that sheet of paper [unclear].

WM: I would think that since the policy committee's mandate is to work on uniformity of presentation of policies, that at very least we need to look at code of conduct to make sure it fits the—

DM: And we can make a recommendation at that point if you change, under the mandate of the policy—

WM: Yeah. Because, I mean, part of policy committee's work is to look at consistency across policy and stuff, and so it seems appropriate to me to—

DM: —we overlap in something else, so we would be able to pull up the respectful behavior policy and then overlap, look at—

WM: Yeah. I mean, we just adopted a respectful workplace policy, it seems like there's overlap there. Let's see —you and I rarely work together. I'm going to move that we refer the draft code of conduct policy to the policy review committee. [Trustee Moher seconds]

[multiple voices]

OB: The mandate of that committee isn’t exactly that, it talks about unifying the presentation and composition of each policy to ensure consistent numbering, formatting, and eliminate contradictions, eliminating contradictions is what you're talking about. But why not later on, just to note, we're due a report in March, so [unclear].

DM: Can I make a motion for permission from the board to add to the job of the policy review committee, special dispensation to refine the improvement district code of conduct policy.

[multiple voices]

WM:  Yes, can we work—if we can put that as an amendment to motion, then we have, then we have a single motion to refer the draft,

MOTION CARRIED

THAT the draft Code of Conduct be referred to the policy committee and that the mandate of the policy committee be extended to include consideration of the Code of Conduct

[accepted as friendly amendment, clarification of some points, vote called]

DC: I just want to say, Marjorie, thanks for doing this, like I really appreciate what you did here. It's it's looking good. I'd like to ask Trustee Moher that, I did have a couple of comments on it, and can I refer those to you?

DM: yes, and if you want to send them directly to me, that's fine. And if not—

DC: They're not big.

DM: And then I'll just make sure the whole committee gets them.

DC: Perfect. Thank you.

[Trustee Moher asks anyone who has comments to provide them.]

(VIDEO 2:38:45)

4.  Governance

Trustee Moher asks to table the discussion to the March meeting because there will be upcoming conversations with a lawyer with a Governance designation. Trustee Chorneyko asks her to speak to this.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I want to have us look at governance from the point of view of the fact that we need clarity around what our specific roles really are. I’ve made note of a number of occasions where we’ve stepped over the line in certain areas, or don't quite understand the roles of the trustees within a government setting. And I think sometimes we think, well, we've asked somebody this, or we’ve asked somebody that, and depending on the question you ask, you get the answer that comes to the question. I know that you went to that governance training session that I went to, I went as somebody on another board, which I found fascinating, took very many notes from that. And one of the things it did talk about is being very, very careful of not stepping into areas that you shouldn't be. And I think we need to have people pulling us in and saying “yes” and “no”, and be extremely and exceedingly clear about that. The governance lawyer might be able to do that without having to bring somebody else in. But if we need somebody to do an actual training thing, and then looking at whether we can buy the video like we got sent, I think, the video from that thing, so we can find out that, whether we can buy something like that for the trustees, so that when you're onloading trustees every year that becomes part of their training session.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Okay, thanks, perfect. Yeah, excellent.

[Trustee Mercier suggests that they enter Question period as there is a question from the floor. Audience member Sibyl Frei notes that she will be attending the upcoming psychological safety committee meeting and asks for a copy of the Code of Conduct. Trustee Bussler says that the policy under discussion is that of the RDN, which is available on their website.]

---

QUESTION PERIOD

(VIDEO 2:41:40)

QUESTION 1

NOLA JOHNSTON: I'm just looking for a point of clarification on financial reporting. I'm not someone who is expert with reading financial statements, but I got confused, so I'd like some clarification. The Chief’s report has the breakdown of the Safer Ocean Systems, SOS, income and expenses, which is great, and I really appreciate it. But what I noticed was the financial statement makes a reference to SOS instructor wages. And instructor wages aren't included in the breakdown. Are they part of the general expenses category? I see Marjorie nodding.

CORPORATE OFFICER: The only expenses that SOS adds are the instructor expenses, I think when we added it up, it's like, maybe $50 a course, for a little bit of propane and other stuff. But the majority of what are expenses for SOS are just the instructors.

JOHNSTON: Okay, then my request would simply to be to use the same language in both places, because it's really confusing when I see something listed in one place but not another. Thank you.

---

QUESTION 2

(VIDEO 2:43:00)

BURTT FIDLER: May I ask the question of the fire chief?

CHAIR: It depends what it is. [general laughter] I'm serious.

FIDLER: Fair enough

CHAIR: I’m serious about that.  I’m deadly serious about that.

FIDLER: No, no, let me just give you my motivation for asking a question. It's for informational purposes only, and it's born out of the concern about the safety of firefighters in the event of a propane explosion at the Co-op.  And where I'm coming from on this is, is I learned about the proposed amendments or changes that they're planning to do there, through the fact that I'm on the Islands Trust Advisory Committee, and they referred that to us.  And we had a meeting, I think it was in November, where we looked at the documents that they presented to the Trust in their effort to get the zoning change so they can do their expansion. In that committee, what was forwarded to us was the emergency, I forget exactly what its title is, it's an emergency plan, which I believe the fire chief has seen and has said, yeah, looks okay to me. And I just have some questions about that, if that's acceptable?  And it's not to embarrass anybody. I'm just asking, because I'm curious about it. And as a person who knows nothing about fire fighting, I have these questions. In that report, it—well, first of all, did you have any, were you invited to have any input in that, that safety plan that they developed, or is that just a boiler plate?

CHIEF SPROGIS: That’s a boiler plate.

FIDLER: That’s what I thought.  In that report, or in that proposal of a plan for how to deal with any emergencies, they mentioned training for various people involved, and they mentioned responders, which, I assume, would be you people. So the concern that the committee that—I'm not speaking for the committee, I'm a member of it, but I'm not authorized to speak to them—what my perception of what happened in that committee was a couple of the people in that committee were former firefighters. I don't know whether they were on this department or somewhere else. And they had some real concerns about the—and I share this concern—about the extreme, the, you know, as you may remember, they had some diagrams and the most—and this is a really unlikely, this is the worst case scenario—which had a drawing around most of the village core, if there was an extreme propane spill and an explosion resulting from that. And that scared the heck out of us, because it covers Folklife Village, it covers basically everything down to the post office and everything back up to basically the parking lot of the school yard and that whole neighborhood behind, where people live. And I know they're going to have a public meeting on this later this month. I think it's on the 19th at the community hall.  But, I'm, you know, what we were worried about is, okay, we're going to be sending our first responders into a situation like that. I don't know what you feel about that, or what the—I have no way of knowing whether that's a bad situation or not. So I'd be curious to know your response to that.

CHIEF: So I made some recommendations that their staff be trained in safe shut down of the system, early detection to avoid that, those were the things I brought forward. Our members are trained in Hazmat Operations level, which is a defensive course that we go through, teach us defenseful acting. But, yeah, it is a concern. There is propane there already.

FIDLER: Yes. So the risk already exists. It will probably be greater, as I understand it, they are expanding.

CHIEF: Yeah.

FIDLER: And the alternative would be we didn't have that come onto the island, which would even be worse, because then people would be coming on the ferry with their own.

CHIEF: And more vehicles traveling with it. So to put it in one location, we already recognize all that hazard that is on that property, in the neighborhood there.

FIDLER: It's just not a great location.

CHIEF: Ah…

BURTT FIDLER: That's not for us to comment on.

CHIEF: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We appreciate your circumspection.

FIDLER: Well, it just strikes me anyway that that is potentially, in the worst case scenario, a rather frightening situation. I'm sure that this will come up at the public meeting. Are you planning on being at that public meeting? Because I'm just wondering if other people have similar questions to mine.

CHIEF: Yeah, I was going to make myself available.

FIDLER: I think that might be helpful.

---

QUESTION 3

(VIDEO 2:48:30)

FRANK MOHER: Thank you. I'm afraid I'm going to quickly ask a question about the data breach. Were you able to determine whether, between the time the computer was removed from the building and the time it was returned to trustee Mercier, whether it was turned on and data accessed?

CORPORATE OFFICER: We're not experts in this, but we did not see any evidence of, like, files changing or any file modification for the time period in between.

F MOHER: Okay, there has not been an effort made to take it to a third party to determine that.

CORPORATE OFFICER: No.

F MOHER: Well, I would have thought it might be of some limited comfort to people whose data was on it, if you were able to tell them it had not been turned on during that time, or files accessed during that time. But I guess you're not going to know?

CHAIR:  We have an anonymous, how do I put this? An anonymous declaration through trustee Chorneyko to that effect.

F MOHER: That it was not turned on?

CHAIR: That it was not turned on… [to Trustee Chorneyko] Do you want to speak to that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I think that the identity monitoring or identity protection is sufficient.

F MOHER: That's not my question.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO:  I know, but that’s my answer to your question.

F MOHER: So you don't want to address it. That’s fine.

CHAIR: We don't have, because everybody's anonymous so far with this whole thing, we don't have assurances or declarations from people who will sign a name to an affidavit.

F MOHER: Well, I would have liked to have seen it taken to a third party.

CHAIR: Well, yeah, and we haven't. Just so you know, we went through the process, and it was determined by FOIPPA that they considered this to be very low level risk. So we were, we’re on track to wrap this thing up. We've done what we had to do.

F MOHER: I understand. I think it would be of comfort, possibly, that the people whose data was on there, if they could know that it was not in fact started, or the, or data accessed between the time that left the building and it was returned to Trustee Mercier.

CHAIR: The reason that I tapped my knuckles looking for wood before, is because I want this all to be done. Okay? I want it all go away. And that's what—the four part things that we have to do for FOIPPA, I think we've, we've completed, and in the next couple days we will have, I’m hoping they're going to sign us off on this. But, what we would have to spend, $16,000, at the very minimum on somebody searching that computer that is allowed to do that, that has, has the training for that. And I think this is, I think to search it was at this point, was, is, unnecessary.

F MOHER: Okay, that's fine, Thank you.

CHAIR: You know, and you know, but that may change. So we have the computer here. But…

F MOHER: Thank you for your answer.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I will say that I've signed up for the identity monitoring package from Equifax that I was provided, and I’ve had no data for no identity breaches, personally.

F MOHER: Okay, again, that's not the question, but I do have a question.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I think it does assure people that it hasn't been an issue.

F MOHER: Well, that program would be unnecessary if the computer was never turned on or data accessed.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: The thing is that the cost of the of the identity protection packages is way less than doing that investigation.

F MOHER: I have another question for you, Trustee Chorneyko, regarding your objection to the $4,000 for shirts, and accompanying explanation. At a September 10 2025 Finance Committee meeting, you made, quote, “a pitch for $50,000 for HR services”.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

F MOHER: That was later removed from the budget at the vote of the general meeting.  But were you unconcerned with the tax levy, at that time?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I was concerned with the tax levy, but I still support that expenditure on HR, because I believe this organization needs that. And we're going to get into, like, hiring a governance lawyer, like we're kind of doing the work that that H—that fractional HR was going to do anyway. So, yeah, I'm concerned about the cost to this organization, but we also need to sort out the governance and the HR aspects also, at the same time.

F MOHER: 50,000 bucks.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, we're going to spend that. Probably, I think I was lowballing it, to tell you the truth. Once we get into a governance lawyer and stuff like that, we're going to spend that on an annual basis for a number of years.

F MOHER: Well, I'm glad that $50,000 was taken out of the budget.  Thank you.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Just, if I can make a comment as well. So part of that, Frank, part of the work that this HR committee that I'm chairing is looking at, is looking at consultants to see what services they can provide. We haven't been given any costs, but I do know that it came up in the meeting last week that we did end up spending $17,000 with the other consultant, the HR consultant, and we're not exactly sure what services received, but I don't know that that was even budgeted. So I think, I don't want to, I don't want to create the expectation that we're not going to spend money on HR consultants, because I think it's inevitable. I don't know what that number is going to be.

F MOHER: It just seemed a bit extravagant at the time and was so recognized by the general meeting. Thank you.

---

QUESTION 4

(VIDEO 2:55:05)

SEAN LEWIS: I have a number of questions, first the quick thing, am I correct in saying that you had a whole motion to expand the committee from five to a committee of the whole earlier in the meeting?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So I think that's speaking to so the issue that came up was, with respect to looking at staff contracts.

LEWIS: I understand that you did expand it. There was no need for that, because in ‘22 the board passed a resolution that any committee exceeding four members would automatically be a committee of the whole.

Secondly, when you're voting, you're calling for hands in the affirmative, but an abstention is an affirmative. There were several votes where there were votes in favour and it passed correctly, but there were also hands not raised, and they're technically votes in the  affirmative as abstentions.

Anyway, regarding the chief and the burn building. And you may recall I gave you some design suggestions years ago. Strong supporter of live fire. I like that. But I want to know, has the burn building been approved by Transport Canada?

CHIEF: Yes.

LEWIS: Okay. And are the instructors? Are the SOS instructors, or GVFD, or…?

CHIEF:  The SOS are Transport Canada reviewed.

LEWIS: I know, but are the system instructors, the GVFD members?

CHIEF: We instruct under the direction of SOS.

LEWIS: I know. They should still technically be Transport Canada, but—so you're familiar with the TP document?

CHIEF: This is all, SOS material, yeah.

LEWIS: Right, okay, I understand better.

CHIEF: SOS is giving the accreditation, not GVFD.

LEWIS: Yeah, I know it's, it's a federal certificate, and—the point is that the facility is liable to inspection by Transport Canada. But I wouldn't hold my breath. They're not likely to be here anytime soon.

CHIEF: Transport Canada was here in September.

LEWIS: Okay, thank you for that. Okay.

OLIVER BUSSLER: Does this create an issue with Harmac? So, if we’re—

CHIEF: No, it’s because these are marine courses, they need to be Transport Canada approved.

CHAIR: We all in? Well thank you folks, thank you for showing up! Long meeting, and I appreciate that, that you spent that much time here.  We are going to adjourn this, and we are going to move to an in camera session.

---

ADJOURNMENT

THAT the meeting be moved to an in-camera session to consider confidential (legal/personnel) matters, per Bylaw 97 s.9, if necessary.

Next Meetings:

• Communication Committee:  February 9, 2026, at 2:00 pm
• Meeting Safety Committee: February 24, 2026, at 2:00 pm
• Finance Committee: February 25, 2026, at 2:00 pm
• Next General (Open) Meeting: March 4, 2026, at 4:00 pm