2026-03-04 GFPID meeting

The March meeting of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District trustees saw some disagreements, but on the whole proceeded reasonably 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.

---

Table of Contents

Call to order, housekeeping items.

FINANCIAL REPORT

COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Finance Committee
2. Communications Committee
3. Website Committee
4. Freedom of Information Committee
5. Policy and Bylaw 97 Review Committee
6. Human Resources Committee
7. Meeting Safety
8. Performance Management Framework

REPORTS

1. Corporate Officer Report
2. Fire Chief Report
3. Training Report
4. Association Report

BUSINESS ARISING AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Privacy Management Program
2. Fire Department Establishing Bylaw 118
3. Records and Information Management
4. Election Report

NEW BUSINESS

1. Code of Conduct
2. Governance
3. First Due
4. Trustee access to information
5. Lawsuit costs
6. Amui contract
7. Purchase of camera

QUESTION PERIOD

• Union agreement
• Lawsuits
• Status of FOI requests
• Financial reporting
• Use of overhead projector
• Access to information
• In camera agendas and reporting

---

CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIR JOHNSON

Land acknowledgement.

INTRODUCTION OF LATE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA

• ADDITION 1: Long Range Planning Committee (Trustee Chorneyko)
• ADDITION 2: Trustee access to information (Trustee Mercier)
• ADDITION 3: breakdown of lawsuit costs excluding settlement (Trustee Bussler)
• ADDITION 4: clarification re HR services from Amui Inc. (Trustee Bussler)
• ADDITION 5: purchase of a camera for videotaping (Trustee Bussler)

DISCUSSION

EJ: I was talking to a lawyer today, a governance lawyer. We will have a meeting, zoom or otherwise, either tomorrow, probably Friday, and we can clear up, hopefully this will possibly clear up your question about whether or not we can share information on the lawsuit. I think that we need to do that, if you can wait that long.

OB: I'm just interested in the total costs. That's not necessarily a secret—

[multiple voices]

CO: [unclear]

EJ: What was the other one?

OB: One was that the Corporate Officer provide a breakdown of all costs associated with the settlement civil lawsuit, excluding the settlement amounts. And then my second motion was that the Corporate Officer confirm in writing that, pursuant to the board resolution of December 3, 2025, no further services are to be retained from Amui Inc, and that no further payments shall be issued. And I think you and I exchanged some emails around that, Erik, I just want to confirm that in writing.

EJ:  Yeah, my take on that is both those items would be better handled in camera.

OB: I actually disagree with that, because the motion, the December 3 motion, was made in an open agenda meeting, so I don't see why it needs to be in camera.

WM: So just for the purposes of formality, I'm going to make a motion that we add under New Business called “confirmation of Amui cancelation,” which consists of the motion proposed by trustee Bussler. [seconded]

JM: I don’t think that we should be making motions that are the same as motions we've already made.

WM: There's been some dispute in correspondence, where the board has passed a motion to cease all business relationships with Amui Incorporated, and the chair has asserted that that's not necessary, that the contract should not be canceled, and that our business relationship, in the face of that resolution, should continue. So I believe trustee Bussler’s motion, if I interpret his intention correctly, is to confirm that the decision made by the board is being carried out, and that's all.

EJ: So what we're doing is we're terminating a service that we have for our employees. But we don't really have a reason, do we?

JM: We made that motion, and it was passed. So the issue I have with this is just, it's just kind of redoing the same thing. And I understand why you're asking it, but it, you know, you could do this an infinite number of times, and I just think that's a bad idea. That's what I feel about it.

OB: Well, I wouldn't do an infinite amount of times already to confirm it if I didn't hear the opposite. I [unclear] have three emails to share with you where the chair has said “we're not doing this” despite the fact that we have a motion that we would.

JM: I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that doing it again is probably not gonna help, but…

WM: So I mean, I don't know where we are in the area of the motion, but procedurally, where does this leave us? If the board can make a motion, pass the vote and then hear from its chair that the decision of the board will not be implemented, which is the case— So, I mean, what do we do in that case? We have on the agenda for later today a Code of Conduct, we have an existing Code of Conduct, and it's been raised a number of times that the board governs collectively, that no one is to take decisions committing the board outside of the collective decision making of the board. And yet, here we are with the Chair of the Board stating explicitly that the decision made by the board, democratically, in public, will not be carried out. How do we…? Like, I don't even know who I expect to answer this question, because if there's just sheer—like, if the decision of the board is simply ignored, what purpose are we meeting here for? Why do we vote?

JM: I understand what you’re saying, and I don't have an answer to that. I just don't think that cluttering up the minutes with the same motion again is going to resolve the problem, and that you—we need to think of a different avenue for that.

DC: I'd like to see it on the agenda, because this is a thing that we need to discuss.

JM: Sure. We're discussing it… is that just talking about putting it on the agenda right now?

DC: We're discussing putting it on the agenda right now.

EJ: My take on it is, if it's settled, absolutely, I didn't think it was settled. And we leave ourselves at at some risk if we don't have suitable HR for our employees. So if we're terminating our contract with with Stephanie, what are we replacing it with?

WM: With respect to the chair, we don't have a contract with anyone. We've been operating without a contract since 2023. Further, we have no indication of what work this person has done for us. There are no emails, there are no suggestions. There's no evidence that policy has been developed based on the advice of this person. There are $17,000 that have come out, and there's no documents that the trustees have had access to. So we are terminating a business relationship that is both not productive and doesn't exist contractually. And if I recall correctly, Trustee Bussler, your motion requests that the Corporate Officer provide in writing confirmation that this has been done, which I believe would take the item off the agenda going forward, because we would then have written confirmation of the execution of the decision of the board, and that would prevent the sort of concern that trustee Moeller has.

EJ: Give me a second here. CO, where are we at with that?

CO: Since we don't have a contract, there's no contract to cancel. We'll just not use her. So you guys have left us without an HR [unclear].

EJ: So that’s not—I don't know if that's legal. It's not about— [unclear]. The person is Stephanie, and I have not used your, I'm not an employee so I haven’t used her.

[Ed. note: they are referring to Stephanie Lyster, co-founder of Amui Inc.]

WM:  You mentioned, actually, Chair Johnson on several occasions, that you had meetings set up with Ms. Lyster. When we passed this resolution in December, I made the motion that the business relationship be ended immediately, and you stated that you had a meeting the next day. And as a result, I amended my motion, and so you clearly have been in contact with this person, though the board as a whole has no indication of what purposes you've made use of that service for, what questions you've asked or what feedback you've received, which is—and that, I think, coupled with your statements that the relationship needs to continue, is why this has arisen today.

EJ: I think what happened was, it wasn't a meeting that I had with her. You're talking about between December first or third or something, when we had the meeting, and you suggested we were not going to pay these people, this person, any more for HR services, and you… I think had a motion that we would continue funding until December 31^st, I guess, based on the fact that I was thinking, thinking I was going to have a meeting with Stephanie. I don't think that I did, but I think that some of our staff might have.

CO: No, no one’s contacted her. No one has contacted her since maybe October, November.

EJ: Okay. But it was left open for that reason. What I'm trying to say is that you’ve really got to have HR. That was HR might not be everybody's choice, and I don't know why, but you have to have a replacement before you, as far as I'm concerned, before you terminate somebody like that.

DC: Can we call the question? Just—we’re not—we shouldn't be debating this at this point. [unclear]

EJ: It’s discussion. You got a motion? You got a second?

DC: The motion is to put it on the agenda.

OB: Yeah, the motion is simply that it’s on the agenda under New Business.

EJ: Hands in the air for the affirmative. Carried.

The agenda is then adopted as amended.

ADOPT MINUTES

[video 13:10]

It is noted that Trustee Bussler has provided the CO with a few editorial corrections that don’t affect the content, and the minutes are adopted.

CORRESPONDENCE

[video 14:10]

• Fidler (Trustee Compensation)
• Amuir (Communication)
• Appel (Resignation)

Trustee Chorneyko thanks Trustee Appel for his service. He says that he appreciates the argument for compensation from Fidler. He asks if the offer of support from Louise Amuir will be followed up on.

DC: I'd like to thank Ray for your service. I’ve appreciated working with you, so thank you. I’d like to thank, I see Burtt Fidler in the audience there. I'd like to thank you for that letter. It's a big job we do here. We put a lot of time in. So thanks for that. I appreciate that. And the letter from Louise Amuir, is that something that we're going to consider?

EJ: Well, I don’t know, [unclear] discuss that.

DM: So once again, this will all go to the communication committee, and from there it’ll go to committees that [intermittently unclear because Chair begins to speak at the same time]. So this probably will be followed up by [unclear] the communication committee, or they will be sent [unclear].

[video 15:55]

WM: I have a motion related to correspondence. I move

THAT all correspondence, including scope of work or contracts documents between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District trustees or staff and the law firm Stikeman Elliot, or any of its representatives during calendar year 2026 be distributed to all trustees without delay.

EJ: We’ll leave it up to them, Stikeman Elliot, you know what I’m saying? We can't force that.

WM: My motion is “that all correspondence, including scope of work or contracts documents, between the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District trustees or staff and the law firm Stikeman Elliot or any of its representatives during calendar year 2026 be distributed to all trustees without delay.”

DC: Calendar year 2026?

WM: That's, yeah. We have no court business going on in this calendar year, so there shouldn't be any concerns about that. We've know that we’ve retained them, in, I mean, there's been discussion of that in among the board, and we don't have—like, not all the trustees have access to whatever scope of work we've engaged with them, whatever advice they've given, like, and that should be known to all trustees [unclear].

[Motion is seconded, voted on, and carried; Trustees Moeller and Moher register that they are voting against. Trustee Moeller’s comments are unclear.]

DM: Negative. No reason given. I’m loathe to give a blanket…

WM:  The reason for the motion is—and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it after it's passed—the reason for the motion is that the law firm would work for the improvement district, which is owned by the taxpayers, represented by the trustees, and so to directly carry out their duty representing the people who pay for the whole show, the trustees need to have access to direction, information, and contracts with important things like our legal representatives.

CO: As Corporate Officer. I do not have all the correspondence from the lawyer, so that would be amongst the trustees to sort out.

EJ: Can I just say this, since we’re doing this, you got to speak to the lawyers through one person, that's probably going to be whoever's chair. Okay, the reason I'm saying that is, every time you call the lawyer or ask them to write a letter, individually, it's costing us money.

WM: That's why I made this motion. So thank you for bringing that up.

EJ: But it has to be through—you know.

DC: There has been correspondence between the improvement district and the lawyer this year?

CO: Yes.

JM: Yes, I’ve had some.

CO: And Trustee Bussler’s had some.

EJ: It’s not secret.

WM: But—I mean, apparently it is.

[multiple voices]

CO: I was going to say, I know, because I've got the bill.

WM: So I would like to—that motion has been carried, I would like to make a following motion is THAT, as a matter of routine, all correspondence between legal counsel and any trustee is shared with all trustees. [seconded]

JM: There are instances where that is against what we've already [unclear]. So in the lawsuit that just passed, it was agreed that the correspondence would be filed with the Corporate Officer and stored for review at the trustees will, but it'd be stored in confidence at the hall.

WM: And that's fine, but we can't access material stored in confidence at the hall if we don’t know it exists, for instance. So “shared with all trustees” could mean that trustees are notified that correspondence exists and given an opportunity to review it. But if we don't know that it exists, then it's hidden. What you describe is being hidden.

JM: Well, we can all agree that that's what the process would be, so it’s not really hidden. But you know, I can send out an email for every single email I get, to tell you there’s another document, if that’s—

WM: My aim is simply clarity. We agreed that that would be the case with correspondence relating to the legal matter, the [unclear].

JM: Some of that extended into 2026.

WM: I didn't know that. So that's the kind of information that this motion is designed to elicit. But we haven't agreed that all correspondence with lawyers will be treated in that way. Much of the correspondence with our legal counsel, for instance, as relates to, I don’t know, bargaining or real estate, needs to be known to all trustees. So I'll slightly amend the motion that I've proposed that to add the words, “except as previously agreed in the Dow matter.”

So the motion I'm proposing is

MOTION

THAT, as a matter of routine, all correspondence between legal counsel and any trustee be distributed to all trustees, except as agreed otherwise, as relates to the Dow matter. [CARRIED]

DM: I’d like a friendly amendment to that, that we add something in there that unless there is a [unclear] or a natural conflict of interest with regards to the information coming in.

WM: Under the rules we currently operate in, a conflict of interest is limited to a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. So I don't, in principle, disagree with that, but my concern is that people advance different opinions about what constitutes conflict of interest, and then use that dispute to delay or conceal material. We know that there are many close personal relationships between trustees and staff, between trustees and other trustees, and those, and there are allegations of relationships between people outside of fire hall, and those things have been used previously to burden the disclosure of information. So I'm not going to accept that as a friendly amendment, though, if you want to go through the process of amending the motion, that's certainly your right.

DM: I just want it out there that we need to keep in mind that that does come up, and it can happen, and I would want that there for myself to be aware of as well. So you can take it or not. Thank you.

EJ: I hope that we're going to have a governance lawyer fairly soon to instruct us, to guide us about these issues, particularly about things that we can all share, that are not necessarily for the general public. I think we can agree on that, right?

WM: Yeah, the [unclear] is great. Did that motion get a second?

[Seconded. Vote is called; all vote in favour except Trustee Moher.]

---

FINANCIAL REPORT

[video 24:50]

The January Income Statement is expected to be available at next month’s meeting, before the audit. Some adjustments to it may still be necessary before it is final.

---

COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Finance Committee

(Trustee Chorneyko, committee chair)

[video 25:40]

The audit is on track; they are preparing to meet the auditor before the AGM; the board met in camera to discuss financials prior to sending them to the auditor. At the same meeting there was discussion of internal controls, including a credit card policy. People felt that a procurement policy should be developed first.

MOTION:

THAT the Policy Select Committee be empowered to develop a GFPID procurement policy, to be brought to the board by the April meeting. [CARRIED]

Next Finance Committee meeting is Wednesday, March 18, at 2 pm.

MOTION:

THAT the Finance Committee go in camera on March 18 to further discuss the unaudited financials.

CO: They will be gone by then.

DC: Yeah, I still have more questions.

CO: They will be gone this week.

WM: So my understanding is that before they go to the auditor, the financials need to be approved by the board, and I'm not aware that the board has voted to approve the financials. So the Local Government Act requires that the Board approve the financial statements, and I know from the audit last year that one of the things that the auditor needed was evidence that financial statements that he had reviewed had been approved by the board. But I don't have any recollection of the board approving the financial statements; we we just had, as Trustee Chorneyko reported, the one meeting. And so how can they go to the auditor if they haven't been approved by the board?

DC: Marjorie was about to say something.

CO: You can do whatever you want. The auditor is looking for them now, if you don't give them now, they won’t be ready by the April 2nd deadline. And I don't know when he'll schedule us again, because we had to be scheduled in November to get this time slot. So it’s up to you guys if you want to approve now. A

DC: Are we prepared to approve them?

EJ: I don't think today we are. You want to set up a meeting for next Wednesday? Are we good with that? Will that be too late?

CO: Well, she asked me to start sending stuff already, [unclear].

EJ: Okay… and we have the to look at right now. Do we?

CO: [unclear]

DC: I’ll put a motion forward right now that we approve the presented unaudited financial statements from the previous finance meeting, that we approve those. [seconded]

DC: I'll speak to it. I have no issues with anything that I've seen. They look good to me, but I still have questions—I have questions, but no concerns.

OB: I thought there were a couple of outstanding items that we were going to speak to the auditor, just to get feedback on, without getting into details, but there were a couple of items that we had not made a complete decision on, [unclear] and—

CO: I think ideally we want the auditor to do a clean audit. We give them all the information and then get an audit back. And then I know we have questions about a variety of things, and then once that is done, go back to her and say, “Can you answer these specific questions?”

WM: There's at least one item, which I believe trustee Bussler is referring to, which we'll call “the item regarding an insurance deductible,” which I believe may affect the status of the audit. So I know that there were certain concerns about that item raised by the FireSmart officer at the Finance Committee meeting, and the board has not made any decision on how to deal with those concerns, and so I worry about how that would be reflected in the audit if we don't take steps to address the inconsistency around that. And I also have, I would like to see that adequate material about the Mallett Creek dam and the status of the tangible capital assets be included in the records that we disclose.

DM: I have a question. I liked what we did in that meeting, when we went through everything, I thought Carol and Marjorie were very fulsome in their answers and the material they brought to us. When it goes to the auditor, do they use the last audit as a reference as well? Like, do they take a copy of last year's audit? Or do they prefer to have absolutely…

CO: I think they have last year's audit.

[video 32:40]

DM: Okay, so they have last year's audit and anything, and some of the queries from that, and then they have a tendency to take stuff and then ask us for more information as they go forward. So it's up to them to ask us, and then we provide. And then we come back, like you said, with questions that we have, which strikes me as a very clean way of them working with us. So I like what you said, David, that we get it off to them, get permission for them to get started, and then as we go forward, we'll have more questions.

DC: So with that first item you brought up, trustee Mercier, I'm still okay approving the financials and sending it to the auditor with outstanding items, as long as it's flagged as an outstanding item. And it's one of those things that—we carry on with the process, and then we fix those issues in the process.

OB: Can we do the same thing with the second item? Because based on the correspondence that trustee Mercier shared, it looks like we had been provided with some guidance by the Ministry around how to treat the Mallett Creek, Mallett dam creek issue, and it was kind of a “go one way or the other.” So if we could share that correspondence with the auditor as well, so that it's another one of these flagged items.

WM: Yeah. So I would like to amend and expand the motion prose, and what I've got here. The motion you propose is “to approve the unaudited financials as reviewed at last Finance Committee meeting,” and then I'm proposing to add “and that material related to the status of the Mallett Creek Dam as circulated by trustee Mercier, be disclosed to the auditor, and that material related to insurance deductibles be flagged for the auditor.”

DC: Sure.

WM: If you accept that then I will second that.

DC: I accept that. That's the motion I'm making.

EJ: I have an issue around Mallett Creek dam, this has been going for a while. I would like some clarity on what we're talking about here. Are we talking about the use of it as a write off? Is it basically, is that what we're talking about?

WM: Right now, Mallett is listed on our balance sheet as a tangible capital asset, but what we in fact own is water rights, which, according to my understanding of Public Sector Accounting Standards, are an intangible capital asset. Intangible capital assets need to be independently valued. We've had no valuation of what we actually own, because what we actually own is a length of pipe and a fire hydrant, and part of a [unclear] So for that item to be listed on our balance sheet as a tangible capital asset, it needs to meet certain criteria. I would like the auditor to determine if it meets those criteria. We've also received guidance from the Office of the Inspector of Municipalities that, because we don't have a bylaw relating to the statutory right of way or joint works agreement attached to that dam, we need to either pass a bylaw or write down the item as not being a tangible capital asset and assess its value. So part of the advice that I would expect from the auditor on consideration of that material would be which is the which is the best way to handle it for our finances, because that's the auditor’s area of expertise.

EJ: I just looked that up again, because we went through this two years ago. I was in contact with KMA [ed: former accountant]. I can't remember the lady's name that led me through the intangible, tangible asset issue around water rights, in that, at the dam, and also we have the CPA, or CPA stands up and explain it. I don't know that it's all that difficult to figure out, but if we need a bylaw, that we should have a bylaw, because… What frightens me here is that, I mean, I just looked at that, that hydrant since at least 1993, it's been there. It's been there like forever. I don't know, it was there when I moved to this island in 1991 I do believe, and it was a primary source of water for the fire department, very, very important. And the screw up began, really, is when the property changed from from Mr. Peacock's hands to Mr. Rooks's hands, and the government stepped in and said, certain things have to be done to that dam or it had to go away, and that's what we're dealing with. That's what we're dealing with. So we have water rights, thank God. Ten percent, or something. [interjection of agreement re “ten percent”] And we need it, you know, it's close to my house. If I don't have it, then that's, that's where, if we either, they need to pick up water and put a fire out at my place, then that's where they would go. So I'm personally just fine with, we just put this to bed. We can just say we're writing a bylaw on this. But what I will oppose as a as a landowner and a taxpayer, is anything that, where that water right goes away. It's historically there. I mean, I don't know how long these guys had that spigot there.

WM: I'm simply requesting that the auditor review its status as a tangible capital asset and its correct valuation.

EJ: I personally have no problem with that, because what I was quoted from KMA was straight out of their book. I mean, they all read off the same book as far as tangible assets are concerned. And you know, this exists in so many small towns where the water rights are being shared here, there and everywhere. So if you want to do a motion, let's do that.

WM: The Motion's been made and seconded. So the motion is,

MOTION:

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District approves the unaudited financials as reviewed at the last financial meeting,

and THAT material related to the status of the Mallett Creek Dam as circulated by trustee Mercier in advance of the meeting be disclosed to the auditor,

and THAT material related to insurance deductibles (which is what we're calling it, for the sake of convenience) be disclosed to the auditor.

JM: Can I ask that you make this two motions, because I didn't go to the Finance Committee meeting. I haven't seen any financials, and I can't vote in favor of them, but I would vote in favour of the other two motions. But if they're all joined together, I cannot do it.

EJ: Do you have a copy of it here?

[multiple voices, unclear]

DM: I was going to ask the same thing, that we move the motion to approve the financials, and get that out of the way, and then you move his motions to have material sent, because that can be a totally different kettle of fish. And then we approve those. To me, they're two separate things, so I would like to…

OB: One's contingent on the other.

DM: So you don't want to approve the financials if you don't send the other stuff? Is that what you're saying? So you don't want to approve the financial work that we did if we don't send other things that they may not want. Is that what you’re saying?

OB: What I'm saying is that—because we're not signing off on them completely, we're signing off on them with a caveat, in that we want to be able to share this information along with the financials—

DM: They shouldn’t go at the same time necessarily. The Corporate Officer has just indicated before that they want stuff not to be complicating information while they get the first block of all the information that's sent to them. I'm not opposed to this information going to them. I just think information has to go in an appropriate manner, and I think that your motion should reflect that.

[video approx 42:00]

WM: In my view, the status of the Mallett Creek dam is listing as a tangible capital asset, we are claiming to the auditor that that's the correct classification of that dam. And the auditor is judging whether or not that classification is correct. So I believe that the financial status of a major capital asset is a component of the financials, and likewise, the issue of the insurance deductibles is a component of the financials. If we approve the financials, we are, in that process, approving the status of the Mallett Creek Dam. We're stating that it's the map the job of management—that's us—to provide complete and accurate records to the auditor. So if we withhold or conceal or don't draw appropriate attention to those matters, then we're not following through on that obligation that we have. So as trustee Bussler has noted, one is contingent on the other. If we—the dam stuff and the deductible stuff are components of the finances.

DC: Basically, these are known deficiencies. And trustees Mercier and Bussler want to attach the known deficiencies to the financials.

DM: Carol needs to speak. Carol?

CAROL WALDO: I just wanted to say the auditor will want every bit of information you've got, and they will, whether you ask it or not, they'll be looking at Mallett Creek and making their own assessment. So you can trust that's going to happen. And so, yes, everything you send is a good thing.

DM: So it doesn't matter—

WALDO: It doesn't matter. There's no point in disputing it. They want it all.

JM: I’d like to move that the motion that Mercier has made be divided into two motions, with the caveat that the information going to the auditor be handled first, and then they can decide whether they want to vote on the second one.

WM: So I want to respond a little bit to what Ms. Waldo has stated. Part of my concern about this information about Mallett Creek dam that I circulated in advance is that I don't believe the board to be in possession of much of it, because components of it were released to me by through a Freedom of Information Act request, and I haven't seen that those same records are accessible to the board. I have requested access to them in various ways, and that access has not been provided. So I don't actually—I will be providing the information that I have, that's been disclosed to me, that is a public document. I mean, I'm not really asking for permission to provide that to the auditor. I consider that my duty as a taxpayer to provide that to the auditor, but I would like is for the Board to take responsibility for its own records and fulfill that responsibility to, as Ms. Waldo has indicated, would be prudent to disclose all the information that we have to to the auditor.

EJ: Can I ask you something? When did you, when—

DM: Point of order.

CO: Our bylaw says, “When the questions contains distinct propositions, upon request of any trustee, a vote upon each proposition can be taken separately.” So that puts it immediately upon one trustee.

WM: I think we vote on the request of the trustee, but—

CO: It does not say—it says, “upon request of any trustee.”

EJ: I wish we could just split this and get it over with.

CO: It says we can.

DM: So we can vote on each thing within the motion.

EJ: It’s gonna happen, it’s—

WM: Let’s get there. If I can’t stop it, let's roll.

EJ: All right then. So we're splitting it?

CO: Yeah.

DM: Yeah.

EJ: Okay, so we're good on—

OB: So this is an amendment, then? So just to understand procedurally—

CO: No. Procedurally, any trustee can say they want a motion split, and the motion will become split.

OB: And if it— So just hypothetically, just to familiarize myself with the procedure, this—so if was to fail, does it go back, like, to an amendment to the original motion? Is that how this works?

CO: No, it's now two motions.

WM: Is it two motions or three?

OB: That's what I'm asking, because [unclear, multiple voices]

WM: I’ve got, there’s a motion for the financials, and Mallett Creek dam, and insurance stuff. So I'm just asking because I have three motions now, how will we—

JM: I’m asking for it to be two, but you can make it three. Information to the auditor, I would suggest we do first, and then approval of the audit.

EJ: A little late in the day for for this new thing, as far as I'm concerned. Go ahead.

WM: So I've got Bylaw 97 in front of me here, clause 24 which reads, “When the questions under consideration contains distinct propositions, upon request of any trustee, the vote upon each proposition can be taken separately.” [Ed note: the quote is copied directly from the Bylaw to ensure accuracy.] So not “must” be taken separately, can be. The move to split a motion is a motion defined under Robert's Rules of Order, and so I believe the decision to split the motion must be put to vote, and I would call that a Point of Order and request a ruling from the chair.

EJ: I think we can split it.

CO: No.

DM: No.

[multiple voices, unclear]

EJ: Well, we put it to a vote, then, and the question is whether we can split it into different motions? Is that what we’re doing?

WM: So my belief is that, should you sustain my point of order and consider it well taken, then trustee Moeller could make a motion to split the original motion into two distinct propositions to be voted on separately. So two separate motions, one, the first, that we approve the financials, and a separate motion regarding disclosure of material related to the Mallett Creek Dam and insurance deductibles. Does that correctly [unclear]?

EJ: And the Mallett Creek dam and insurance go back in the second one…

DC: Could that be the first one?

EJ: The insurance can go in the first one, no?

DC: [to WM] Could the first one be the Mallett Creek dam and—

WM: I'm not making this motion. So whoever makes the motion would have to decide how they want it to go.

EJ: (to trustee Moeller) Do you want to make the motion?

JM: Well the first thing is you have to decide whether or not the Point of Order stands, which is whether or not we’re putting it to a vote.

EJ: Hands in the air for the affirmative?

WM: Well, you have to make the decision. Split automatically or vote. That's the decision you need to make.

EJ: I would make—what did you say? [to trustee Moeller]

JM: You can decide whether to split it up automatically.

EJ: Well then, I’ll do that.

WM: And I will pose the question, Shall the chair be sustained? Which moves it back to a vote of the board.

EJ: We put that vote to the assembly, people here?

WM: So will the chair be sustained in his determination that things get split automatically on request of trustees?

DC: So an affirmative would be yes, negative would be no.

WM: Yes—support the chair with a yes vote—wait, sorry. The question is, shall the chair be sustained? If you vote yes, that supports the position of the chair, if you vote no, that’s against the position.

EJ: Hands in the air for the affirmative. [Trustees Moher and Moeller and the Chair vote in the affirmative, trustee Moher explains to the Chair that he can’t vote on the motion. The motion to sustain the Chair is not carried.]

JM: So it’s defeated. That means a trustee has to make the motion to split it up. So that is what I will do. I did it before, but I'll do it again. I make a motion to split his motion into two, with the caveat that the Mallett Creek and the other information for the auditor be first.

[seconded]

JM:  Like I said before, I didn't attend the Finance Committee meeting, I have not seen the financials. If they're bundled together, I simply can't vote on any of them, but I do feel the information should go to the auditor. That's why I asked for it to be split up, a very straightforward request [unclear].

[multiple voices, unclear, partly clarifying that it was seconded]

EJ: I just want this to be clean. That's, that's my whole thing here, is that that it’s a little late in the day to be talking about, Mallett Creek, and if that was the case, which we talked about months ago, so we're not at this juncture here, but that's what we got. So, yeah. Hands in the air in the affirmative.

[motion to split the resolution is CARRIED]

EJ: Thank you. Just so you know, I mean, it's not a big deal, we’re parsing things here unnecessarily, I think. All right, can we move on?

[multiple voices, unclear]

WM: The motion on the floor, now, I believe, is

MOTION:

THAT material related to the status of the Mallett Creek Dam as circulated by trustee Mercier in advance of the meeting be disclosed to the auditor,

AND THAT the material related to insurance deductibles be disclosed to the auditor.

[seconded and CARRIED unanimously]

EJ: Told you. It’s just, I’m so sick of talking about Mallett Creek.

[multiple voices prompt second motion]

WM: … “that the Trustees approve the unaudited financials as reviewed at the last finance meeting.” Maybe we should change that to the finance meeting of whatever the date was.

CO: February 25^th.

WM: So at the February 25 2026 Finance meeting.

MOTION

THAT the Trustees approve the unaudited financials as reviewed at the February 25 2026 Finance meeting. CARRIED.

---

2. Communications Committee

Chair: Trustee Diana Moher

[video 53:15]

Chair Moher thanks trustee Appel for his work on the website and notes that his report is in the meeting package (pp 12-16, includes draft Correspondence Guidelines and flowchart). She expresses appreciation for correspondence received on Communications policy, and thanks member of the public Nola Johnston for providing input at a committee meeting. There will be another committee meeting on March 16^th at 2 pm.

---

3. Website Committee

[video 54:40]

See the meeting package pp 17-19.

---

4. Freedom of Information Response Committee

Chair: Trustee Erik Johnson

[video 54: 50]

EJ: I'm the chair, but I think trustees Bussler and Appel have run most of this, yes?

OB: We have not met. We’re waiting for you to call the meeting.

EJ: We have met but not lately. We have not really got anything hammered down.

[overlapping voices]

OB: We’ve never met, I believe. Maybe once…

CO: We’ve met. Once a long time ago.

[unclear]

EJ: Well then, we will meet on this.

OB: I think our due deadline is in April.

EJ: All right. I think we can do it by then.

OB: Trustee Appel had put together a draft agenda, so if you action that, then we can meet.

EJ: I thought you did a fair amount of work on this.

RA: It’s getting started behind the scenes, but—

EJ: But both of you have done a fair amount of work on this.

RA: But we want the public to be there, to hear their input.

EJ: Yeah, sure, but it's not like you haven’t been doing anything. All righty then, Policy and Bylaw Review.

---

5. Policy and Bylaw Review Committee

Chair: Trustee Diana Moher

[video 55:55]

Chair Moher explains that they are working through some of the existing the bylaws and with Kees Langereis’s recommendations in mind. The last committee meeting was excellent, they worked primarily on the Code of Conduct. She thanked participating member of the public Sybil Frei, who attended and “brought up some incredible information and insight into the way to word things and where our Code of Conduct was lacking,” and provided “very insightful comments and assistance.” The committee also looked at Bylaw 97 (procedures for calling meetings of the board and for the conduct of its business) and plans to bring it to an open Bylaw meeting. There may be half a dozen bylaws beyond that which may need revision.

---

6. Human Resources Committee

Chair: Trustee Oliver Bussler

[video 57:50]

The HR committee met in camera on February 9^th to review employment contracts for fulltime staff. There was also an open meeting on February 24^th. As noted in the agenda, next steps include preparing a GFPID / GVFD HR needs assessment. Staff reaching out to:

• Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association and North Cowichan for recommendations.
• Amui Inc. to ascertain what HR services were provided.
• Labour Relations Board Collective Agreement Arbitration Bureau.

Once needs are determined committee will reach out to consultants to determine how to best match needs with services and costs. (https://cphrbc.ca/resources/independent-consultant-directory-search/)

MOTION

THAT the HR select committee mandate be extended from March to April [CARRIED]

Next meeting March 24 at 1 pm.

---

7. Meeting Safety

Chair: Trustee Oliver Bussler

[video 59:00]

Meeting was held on February 24^th. Trustee Appel compiled an extensive literature review and summation around psychological safety in meetings (see meeting package pp 20-36). The committee is working on guideline documents to use going forward. Existing policies and other documents already provide a lot of tools. Mandate is to complete work by April meeting. Next meeting: March 24^th 2 pm.

---

8. Performance Management Framework

Chair: Oliver Bussler

[video 1:00:25]

Committee met February 24th. Task is creating a performance management framework for fulltime staff so that performance evaluations can be done going forward. They are looking at two examples, from Salt Spring Island and the Ontario Library Association, and will use those as templates.

MOTION:

THAT the mandate of the Performance Management Select Committee be extended to the April general meeting [CARRIED]

Next meeting is March 10 at 1 pm.

---

9. Long Range Planning Committee

Chair: Trustee David Chorneyko

[video 1:01:35]

(Item added to the agenda. The Long Range Planning Committee is a standing committee.)

Trustee Chorneyko indicates that he just wants to kick that off. The committee consists of himself and Trustee Bussler; he asks if anyone else would like to be involved. Trustee Johnson indicates that he wants to participate.

The current Long Range Plan came out in 2024, in preparation for the budget levy of 2025: “This is a Living Document and as such it will be reviewed and amended throughout the 10-year period.”

Next meeting is March 18^th at 1 pm “to just start talking about strategic direction of the fire department in very broad strokes.”

---

REPORTS

CORPORATE OFFICER REPORT

[video 1:04:10]

The Corporate Officer’s report is included in the meeting package (page 37-46). It includes a log of motions carried in 2025 and gives their status, as well as providing updates on the audit, work relating to policy and bylaws, and grant applications.

Chair Johnson asks about a recommended motion.

WM: So this came up in conversation with Ms. Colebrook. We need to formally appoint—So we, by convention, use the job title of Corporate Officer to describe Ms. Colebrook’s job, and that job title encompasses a range of responsibilities. It also comes with statutory responsibilities under the Local Government Act, because she is an appointed Officer of the board. But that needs to be made explicit, and so the motion that I'm bringing forward is

MOTION:

THAT the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District recognize that the staff position of Corporate Officer, held by Marjorie Colebrook, is assigned the statutory responsibilities of Administrator and Treasurer, as defined in improvement district Bylaw 109. [CARRIED]

Which is the bylaw that we have to have that sets out those two officer positions. The purpose of the motion is just to reconcile the language in the bylaw, which says Administrator and Treasurer, with the job title Corporate Officer, which we use by convention in operating.

WM: Because Bylaw 109 is not online, I want to make sure that's the right number before we go too far, because the bylaws that are online, stop at 108, and I think I checked in the minutes. So I just want to… So Bylaw 109 was an amending bylaw for Bylaw 66, because Bylaw 66 makes reference to sections of the Local Government Act which have been superseded as the Act has been updated since that Bylaw was enacted. So I think it was in August that we passed Bylaw 109, and … [unclear]. Okay, I found it here in the August minutes. It says amending, Bylaw 109 amending Bylaw 66, read and passed, so [unclear]. And then at the same meeting we had Bylaw 110 amending Bylaw 97, so we should maybe get this in writing, especially if we're looking at Bylaw 97 in the policy committee.

DM: Yeah.

WM: So anyways, thank you for taking that time. The motion that I made is correctly worded.

EJ: So you got a motion, got a seconder, any more discussion?

[motion CARRIED unanimously]

EJ: Is there anything else in the Corporate Officer’s report other than that? No, okay, so we have the fire chief’s report—

OB: Actually, just before we move on to that. I found this Corporate Officer report, this table, very helpful. Thank you, Marjorie. The one question I had, which I was a bit surprised by, because I haven't seen it, was around the showed “completed” on —there’s no page numbers—but at least to a September request by Mr. James Arends, consisting of the names of all members of the finance committee during the specified period. The names of the chairs of the finance committee, meetings. I just—I haven't seen that go out.

CO: It did go out. [unclear]

OB: Okay, so that has been completed. Okay. There seems to be some disagreement on that.

WM: So the motion that trustee Bussler is speaking to, the motion that I made, that that information as requested by Mr. Arends and his correspondence be distributed to the board. The information requested by Mr. Arends is information that we've identified as being able without special requests, and communications policy calls it out as being available without delay. So I guess I also have questions why that information hasn't been provided to Mr. Arends, because we've done a whole bunch of work with communications policy and getting prompt replies up to people and stuff, so that’s I guess [unclear].

CO: [unclear] already sent it.

OB: That’s all I have.

AUDIENCE MEMBER JAMES ARENDS: If I could speak to that for just a moment?

[multiple voices]

WM: Nothing personal, but our rules don't permit the taking of questions from the floor during the conduct of the meeting until, so I’ll raise a point of order on that, without any—

ARENDS: But you called on Ms. Waldo.

WM: If I may, Ms. Waldo is a staff person, and so has a different status, but I don’t want the meeting to go off-track, so… [gestures to Chair].

EJ: Thank you once again, sir. That’s two beers I owe you.

WM: I would like the minutes to reflect that Chair Johnson owes me two beers.

EJ: Keep it up, it’ll be a six pack.

---

FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT

[video 1:10:30-2:15:00]

The full report is in the meeting package. Updated callout breakdown: 29 calls in February.

• 1 burn complaint
• 1 wires down
• 2 motor vehicle incidents
• 23 first responder
• 2 lift assists.

The total call volume to date is 68 calls for the year.

Update re ongoing projects:

• Harmac Pacific insurance documents have been received ($5 million liability).
• Operational guideline completed

The Chief asks for the public to write letters of support and help advocate for the UBCM and FireSmart grants, which may be reduced.

Staff: one candidate has dropped out.

SOS: the two courses listed in the meeting package have been cancelled.

CECA AGREEMENT (part 1)

[video 1:17:25]

 

CHIEF: I've sent the trustees back the agreement. I did some research in regards to the MOUs with CECA and with the RDN. CECA is the Coastal Emergency Communications Association, and I’ve provided a letter from them supporting. They were established in 2010, they set up in the basement in 2013. They are a mutual aid partner, providing radio and communication services for the island. They've helped out on many communications outages, and they've also assisted at calls. They also have their equipment on one of our support vehicles, and we can call on them if our dispatch goes down or we have any communications breakdowns, and they're more than happy to help out. We have also been advised that they are the main hub if we do have a big earthquake, they're some of the best equipped on Vancouver Island to handle the emergency radio.

So we strongly advocate for the MOU. And the reason for the MOU is they cross the area of ESS RDN space downstairs, so a lease agreement won't work without it getting very complicated, and I don't see them needing to pay any lease fees because of the service that they supply back to us. They don't receive any funding through any grants or any taxation. So I think the best support would be the agreement between—the partnership that we have, and an MOU supports that. So I'll be looking for a motion to support that MOU.

And also Shirley Nicholson in the back there is our ESS (ed: Emergency Support Services) director for Gabriola. She's been a great help. She's at every big emergency there to support the fire department and the island, and we want to support her downstairs. She has lots of great equipment, training material. PALS (ed: Pets and Livestock Services) is also down there with all their equipment to support animals in an emergency. So to support their partnership—they are the RDN, their umbrella under the Regional District of Nanaimo, we would like to support them with an MOU recognizing their ability to come on and off the property and sit downstairs.

And I don't think that lease agreements supports that either. I talked to the RDN and asked what they did in other areas, and they said, “Yeah, no, they don't hold any lease agreements.” They would hold an MOU to recognize their partnership with the organization. And so those two agreements have been supplied to the Trustees for consideration.

And then the last, the last contract that we would like to bring off the table is the SOS contract. We'd like to move forward with that and formally accept that as well. Now that the last condition was the Operational Guideline that supports it has been adopted by the fire department.

The last item is I sent out, I just want to make sure that the board got the letter from Wildfire asking for our support for the 2026 season, I just want to confirm that the trustees got that.

CHAIR: I haven’t got it.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I don’t see it.

CHIEF: I'll send it right after this meeting so you have it for consideration, but like, a motion that would support the fire department to consider deployment for the 2026 season

 Some back and forth between Trustees Bussler and Mercier about who will speak first.

---

 SOS AGREEMENT

[video 1: 22:00]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Chief, I did I hear you correctly that the courses are not going ahead. Is that correct? Or they are going ahead?

CHIEF: They are not going ahead. They Advanced can go ahead as present. You saw in that documentation I provided, the Basic and the Basic Refresher are on hold until they conduct the rest of their audit on on the Basic so…

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So for that document you shared, they're not certified to teach those courses, or they're not approved by Transport Canada.

CHIEF : They're just held, yeah.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Okay, thank you.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So first, just following up, only the Basic fire training is covered under our current contract with SOS. So anything outside that is outside the scope of the contract we’ve got in place. So it's not clear to me why we would support things that we don't have a contract for.

I have a motion about the Operational Guideline, the revised Operational Guidelines that's been distributed. So I shall speak to that for just a moment. I have concerns regarding the revised “Operational Guidelines 4.08. SOS training,” released to the trustees on Tuesday, March 3. Like its predecessor, signed October 2025 and disclosed to the trustees on February 2, 2026, this guideline establishes a financial framework for the receipt and the allocation of revenues from Safer Ocean Systems. It directs how those funds are to be used, including the payment of instructional time and facility rental revenues and the allocation of surplus funds for training equipment and facilities. The Fire Chief's job description authorizes him to oversee training and monitor expenditures within budget parameters established by the board. It does not authorize the creation of independent revenue structures, the allocation of externally generated funds or the establishment of compensation mechanisms tied to third party contracts. Further, the board has not approved this policy. If the guideline is intended to govern financial flow, compensation or contractual terms, those matters rest within Board authority. An Operational Guideline cannot substitute for Board approval, nor can it create financial authority that has not been formally delegated. So I'm going to request that the board declare this policy to be invalid and direct that SOS revenue be handled in the same manner and according to the same protocols as other revenue.

 I move “That the Board directs that Operational Guideline 4.08 SOS training has no authority to set or direct financial matters, and that all SOS revenues be received, recorded and spent in the same manner as all other district revenues, under the Board's established financial policies and approved budget.”

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, I’ll second that.

CHAIR: discussion.

[Some murmuring between trustees.]

TRUSTEE MOELLER: [to Chief] Was there any reason…for this?

CHIEF: Just to make sure that we, if we do spend money, just that we pay back the costs of, if there's training occurred—we train our service instructors, so we just want to make sure that the money from the SOS funds goes to pay those instructors, for the courses for those instructors, and pay all those expenses as well. We set the going rate for instructors, so there's a fee schedule there. So when instructors are teaching, they know what they are paid, I think it's fairly simple.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, I mean…I said my piece already.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I was just gonna say that, because things that you want to put money aside our for training, training materials and equipment. We do budget for that already. So, we do support, in my opinion, firefighters on training. We're underspent on training this year. So I don't think it's such a big move to move the money away from dedicated. You still have access to training, we're not trying to take that money away. It's more so, we can't—I agree with trustee Mercier. We can't create a secondary kind of pot, pool of money here. It's all one.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The policy, the Operational Guideline that I have in front of me, for instance—prepared by the Chief, signed by the Chief—assigns to the Chief the responsibility of directing the use of SOS funds and ensuring expenditures align with this policy. But the responsibility to direct the spending of funds is held by the board and established through the budgeting process. It cites the board, the role of the board in this policy as merely to approve the policy. But, I mean, the board hasn't even considered the policy, and it's, I mean, it's the responsibility of the board, through its budgetary process, to train its staff to pursue its ends according to the strategy decided on by the board. A separate pool of money being used to train staff to deliver a separate service, this outside of the oversight of the board, is not, to my mind, an appropriate use of taxpayer funds and resources.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I understand what trustee Mercier is bringing to the table on this. I think from some of the—when we started looking at the procurement policy and issues that were coming up, I saw the city of Saanich had gone and taken their procurement material to a totally different level. And to me, something like this might even fall under the procurement, so it's a procurement type of thing. It's an interesting take on it. And they had lifted their levels of procurement within the structure of what they were doing with their staff, because they trusted their staff to know what they were doing and why they were using it. So I'm wondering if there's a level of inquiry that we need to do here to support the work that our staff is trying to do as we move forward, rather than just doing a blanket motion that's been thrown at us at this point.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have no objection at all the sort of initiative that trustee Moher is proposing. I think, in fact, the decisions about that kind of structure, that kind of financial structure and direction, are appropriately decided by decision of the board. My objection is to an Operational Guideline which operates outside the authority of the Fire Chief to sequester and direct decisions about financial revenues generated using taxpayer owned resources, with taxpayer owned infrastructure, outside of the direction decided on by the representatives of the taxpayer.

CHAIR: Any response?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I don’t know, I would need to go through the Brownlee Report again to—

CHIEF: It still says in the Operational Guideline that the board has the ultimate decision, [unclear].

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Respectfully, it says that the responsibility—that “the Fire Chief directs the use of SOS funds and ensures expenditures align with this policy.” And I mean, that might be okay if the board had approved the policy, as the policy says the board should do, but the board hasn't considered this policy prior to March 2nd when you signed it into force. And so it's just not clear to me how board authority can be allocated in this way without participation of the board. And so I made a motion which trustee Bussler has seconded.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: The role of the board, it says in here, approves this policy. We haven't approved this policy, it was the Chief that approved this policy, right? I don’t understand.

CHAIR: Can we table this for further discussion? Can we do that? I don't know that we're going to, you know, we're going to get this hammered out right now, tonight. Is that possible?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I suppose that you could make a motion to table the motion on the floor, but the motion is on the floor

CHAIR: I would like to make a motion to table it. You know, maybe a week later, maybe next Wednesday? I think we need to sit down and work this out as a whole… can I make that motion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: You can make a motion and then you need to seek a seconder.

CHAIR: When there is a motion on the floor—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: A motion to table, either indefinitely or to a defined future date, would be in order. You could make that motion, then see if anyone seconded it, and then we would vote on tabling that motion.

CHAIR: That's three beers now.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Can we have the media report on that? Three beers?

CHAIR: Let's do that. I'm going to make a motion to table this till… What are we agreeing on? Did we say next Wednesday?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Is that going to be a special meeting of the board?

CHAIR: Special meeting of the board.

[Discussion about people’s availability.]

CHAIR: I'm lacking some of the information on this to tell you the truth. So I'd like to see it be, you know, fully and complete [unclear].

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I don't see what the time pressure on this is. I don't know why we need to meet next week, either way we could… So if Wayne's motion passes, we start fresh and we'll see another, when we see another version of this, or we table it and have that same conversation. So either way, I don't, I personally don’t think we need to meet next week, as soon as next week, unless there's some other time pressure on this?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: [to Chief] You’ve got courses scheduled in March, and if the contract is not…

[Unclear discussion between Trustee Moeller and Chief clarifying that the March courses are cancelled.]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I'm curious what the ambiguity is, because, I mean, I think it's fairly clear that the board has all the responsibility for dealing for dealing with the finances through the Treasurer, which is responsibility of the Corporate Officer, as we just, we've just moved. The Fire Chief has no authority to make decisions about revenue streams, how they're directed or spent or restricted. […] The Operational Guideline, fairly straight-forwardly, claims authority that isn't present, either by—through the establishment of the fire department in Bylaw 98, or the job description of the Fire Chief. So why, I wonder, would the board permit this to continue in force at all?

CHAIR: I'd like to ponder it. I'd like to hear all the information, at a different meeting, that’s what I would like. It’s up to you guys.

TRUSTEE ?: So we’ve got a motion to table—

CHAIR: Yes.

CORPORATE OFFICER: You need a seconder

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’ll second it.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Did we settle on a date to table this to? Like, is it to the next meeting?

CHAIR: Yeah, Let's talk about that before we go any farther.

[unclear discussion]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Just so I’m clear, if we table, the alternative is to deal with the motion you [Trustee Mercier] put forward.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s right.

CHAIR: April? I just think we should have a fulsom discussion, and not right now.

TRUSTEE APPEL: I think it should be before the April meeting

CHAIR: Ok, before the April meeting, what have we got? Late March?

[discussion of scheduling, interjection from the floor which is challenged by another audience member, more discussion]

CHAIR: How about we table it to the April meeting. You’ll be there anyway. Shouldn't take that long. I just think everybody should be papered up on this, so they know what they are talking about, including myself. Hands in the affirmative. Hands in the air in the affirmative to table to the April 1st meeting.

[Moher and Johnston vote to table; the motion to table is NOT carried.]

All right, then.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Back to the original motion.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Trustee Mercier, can you please repeat your motion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion that's on the floor is “that the board directs that Operational Guideline 4.08 SOS training has no authority to set or direct financial matters, and that all SOS revenue be received, recorded and spent in the same manner as all other district revenues, under the Board's established financial policies and approved budget.”

CHAIR: We have a second right? Any more discussion? Hands in the air, in the affirmative [Trustees Moeller, Chorneyko, Appel, Bussler and Mercier vote in favour] Carried. Thank you, gentlemen.

MOTION CARRIED:

THAT the board directs that Operational Guideline 4.08 SOS training has no authority to set or direct financial matters, and that all SOS revenue be received, recorded and spent in the same manner as all other district revenues, under the Board's established financial policies and approved budget.

---

CECA MOTION (continued)

[video 1:38:30]

 

TRUSTEE MOHER: We still have the Chief’s other motions on the table, regarding the MOUs.

[some discussion]

CHAIR: Okay, does everybody have that Memorandum Of Understanding? From the radio folks? I don't have it in front of me.

TRUSTEE MOHER: So the first one is a motion to approve the Memorandum Of Understanding between Coastal Emergency Communication Association, which is CECA, and the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Are you making that motion?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I'll make that motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’ll second it.

CHAIR: Any discussion?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Just, in in this Memorandum Of Understanding, you talk about “mutual aid”, and I question if it's mutual aid. Isn't this more of a support agreement, like, mutual aid is like two fire departments supporting each other. This is really like a support agreement, isn't it?

CHIEF: It’s like a mutual aid agreement. They're going to come support us if we, our dispatch goes down. To help with emergency communication.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So at the last general meeting, we agreed that this was going to be a lease agreement, because they are leases, in my mind. We have a Land Use Policy that speaks to, these types of arrangements should be leases. We would have to create a bylaw formalizing this lease agreement. We have done the exact same thing with GERTIE, which provides us with services in addition to the lease. And we have a lease agreement with SOS as well. So I honestly don't understand why we would not follow our Land Use Policy, which speaks to things, like, important things. I see that you've included an insurance provision, which is great, but there's other things such as an indemnification that we're required to have pursuant to our Land Use Policy. And then another thing that was mentioned at the last meeting, was that we actually give full access to three members, key access to this building, and that's after hours access, and that's a concern that's not addressed in this agreement. So I think it needs to be more fulsome. And I would propose that, like we agreed to at the last meeting, it becomes a lease agreement. And then, if you want to tag on like what we did with GERTIE, a provision where we deal with the emergency services that they provide, why not?

CHIEF: Because GERTIE is quite different. GERTIE is [unclear] taxing, taxation to run their association, of their group, and so they take tax money in. They are also, we are getting an asset from their lease right now, so we have to create a lease agreement so we could acquire those assets after 10 years of their formal lease agreement. And SOS is paying us for that space. Currently, we are not receiving any funds, and they can't, I believe CECA can't afford to pay us, and so they wouldn't be able to pay us. And then the other bit, with a lease agreement, we would, you would have to, the RDN would have to contact CECA, or, sorry, CECA would have to contact the RDN every time they want access to their space in the building, because they cross over the lease. And they're crossing over the lease of the RDN if we do a lease agreement for the RDN as well.* So it gets very complicated when it could be just a simple MOU, but if you want to further complicate it, that's fine.

* It is unclear exactly what is meant here but presumably it relates to crossing space being used by ESS (Emergency Services Support), a provincial program implemented by local governments during emergency events. 

TRUSTEE MOHER: I believe our conversation, with respect with whether we're going to go with an MOU or a lease, had to do more with whether or not the building’s insurance covered them. It had nothing to do with, we agreed on the lease. We wanted to make sure that if they were in under an MOU, then it was predicated on whether or not it was going to be covered.

MOUs are not unusual. They're not something that pops up. And I'll give you an idea... In 2007 an MOU between BC and Alberta speaks to further partnerships and recognition of mutual aid, so they use it in that term. BC government has numerous MOUs with federal government in place, including West Coast tsunami warning documents signed in 2008. The Province also has MOUs in place with the RCMP that allows the province to utilize RCMP radio communication systems, which would tag in with what we are doing. So therefore we would be in conjunction with the MOU type of situation that they use there. An agreement with the City of Vancouver provides the province with access to the city's Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Unit, and two agreements that were signed with Canadian Red Cross, an MOU designated the Canadian Red Cross Society as an auxiliary to the government, and MOUs with Red Cross units and field assessments. And it goes on and on and on. So it's not an unusual situation for people like us to enter into something that substantiates the relationship that you have with community members that are not making money off of what they're doing, but provide for the community a substantial and valued service, and what we're doing is recognizing that value and substantial service that they're giving back to us. Thank you.

[Ed: you can find a transcript of the discussion referenced by Trustee Moher that led to the motion for a lease agreement in the extensive discussions following the Fire Chief’s report to the February 2026 general meeting. There was discussion about the appropriateness of a lease vs an MOU, and a motion to change the agreement from “MOU” to “lease” passed; the motion to enter a specific agreement with CECA was tabled pending more information about insurance coverage.]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So I'm not suggesting that we should charge, that's not my point here. What I’m saying is we should have a formalized agreement that's consistent with our Land Use Policy. And just to read again, the motion that we agreed to last month was “to change the Memorandum Of Understanding to a lease agreement between the Coastal Emergency Communications Association, CECA, and the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District.” Very straightforward. And then also to point out, Trustee Moher, you are a CECA member as well. So just from a conflict of interest, point of view—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Absolutely, and I'm a very, very peripheral one, so I only get called up if something goes absolutely sideways. I do not sit on the board. I do not sit in on any of the meetings. I do not sit in on any of the decision making. I was not here during any of the conversations that was had around this at all. And you can check with the President, which is Rich Williams, and you can send him an email and ask him about that.

CHAIR: Can I say something? I think this type of agreement that is proposed that we’ve had for quite awhile here at the hall with the radio folks... It exists in a number of other places, they have... This isn't the only place they have this bunch of people working the radios. It's in Vancouver, no, not Vancouver, in Nanaimo, and I think there's another fire hall. There’s three of them altogether, I think, isn’t there? [looks at Chief]

CHIEF: CECA’s agreements? CECA has agreements with the city, and some other other fire halls.

CHAIR: Yeah, and those aren’t leases that they have, they're the same as what we have here.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I just want to, I guess, relate this issue to what was discussed earlier, where the board, as I understand it, Trustee Bussler has refreshed my memory here, the board decided last meeting to pursue leases. That motion was put on the floor. It was voted on by the board, and the board made a decision, and we see that the decision made by the board is not being carried out. Again, I have to wonder why that is, because, I mean, we made a decision.

CHAIR: Well, the board made a decision but, but I think we're getting some pushback from the radio folks, because they traditionally, in their arrangements have—it is not a lease. And I think we should talk to them. We should have them in, and talk to them, to see what, what the deal is. Why can't they go with a lease? Remember I said, here's a buck, a buck a year, or something like that. I just don't under—there may be some technical issues that we're not aware of.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I concur with your statement. I think, though, it speaks to the notion that we should not approve something other than a lease today, if we decided at the last meeting that we should consider a lease. Now, if the people that we're talking to, in this case CECA, have a counter proposal to make to us, a rationale to extend to us, negotiations that they want to enter into with us, I mean, that's great. That would—doing those things would be acting in pursuit of the motion that the board, the resolution that the board has made. But to ignore the resolution that the board has made, and approve some other document that doesn't conform with our existing decision, seems unwise.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’m fine with the Memorandum Of Understanding. My concern was the insurance. We confirmed with the insurance.

CHIEF: Yeah, so we confirmed with the insurance, we've added that document into the MOU now.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: That was the rationale—

CHIEF: We’d be named second by their policy, their liability.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So I just did a quick Google here on leases versus MOUs and when they should be required. What popped up is, you know, a lease is generally required when exclusive possession of land or premises versus a MOU which would be shared use. And so the CECA situation is exclusive use of that room. Which is where a lease would be appropriate. With ESS that's more shared use.

CHIEF: That’s not true, we're down in the video room. During the communications outage, I made the first important call to get RDN over here in the last communications outage. And if I hadn't had a joint use to that space, I wouldn't have been able to make that call.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Again, a lease agreement deals with those types of emergency access provisions. [Ed: the Land Use Policy requires terms providing GFPID with Right to Access in both regular and emergency situations, see clause 3, Emergency Access and Response, and clause 5, Right to Access.] So, again, I would reinforce that lease agreement does exactly that. And definitely we have a Land Use Policy, that we are supposed to be following, that speaks to how we contract. The old fire hall is also leased by two entities. Right? They're sharing, and again, their leases speak to common space, common space that they share. So I don’t see this as being absurd. I'm not suggesting that we should charge them any money. That's not the issue here. It's more so formalizing this—following our policy, and formalizing the service that we're providing in a lease.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Can I suggest that a trustee take over the negotiations and it not be left on the Chief’s head?

CHAIR: Go ahead.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I guess that the negotiation with, like, it’s not the role of trustees to engage in the day to day management of things like that, that’s why we have staff, I guess, is my response to that. But it's not a matter for [unclear], that's just my...

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Is there a motion on the floor right now?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion on the floor right now is to approve the CECA Memorandum of Understanding as presented by the Chief.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Who made that motion?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I did.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Has it been seconded?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I seconded it.

CHAIR: So, I guess my worry is that if…

[Multiple voices say “Just call for a vote”]

CHAIR: Well, I’ll call a vote then. Hands in the air for the affirmative.

[Moher, Johnston, Moeller vote in favour]

CORPORATE OFFICER: You need to call for opposed.

[confusion/discussion re calling for opposed]

Ok, call for opposed.

[Trustees Mercier, Bussler, Appel and Chornecko vote against]

CHAIR: Doesn’t carry then. Can I just say this? I hate to lose this, this very valuable service to the community. So hopefully we can get some clarity from, this organization as to why they don't want to do the lease that's one dollar.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Can I make a motion? Can I ask the trustees to indicate what changes they would like to see from the MOU to lease besides the title, so that it's clear to all of us what the difference is?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Would it—I’m just trying to figure out how to reflect that in a motion. And so if we considered the motion, “that any agreement with CECA be consistent with our existing land and facilities use policies.” Because I—my understanding is that that's the foundation of trustee Bussler’s objection, is that we have a Land Use Policy and a facilities policy that specify one thing, and that the desire is to have this agreement conform with those existing policies.

 TRUSTEE MOELLER: So can I make the motion that Trustee Bussler submit [unclear, good natured joking]. That Trustee Bussler provide the information that would satisfy those who are opposed, so that the chair can go back to CECA, with something that the board will agree to.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I guess that’s up to Trustee Bussler, but you can make that motion, certainly.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Rather than the Chief continually going back and forth between the board and CECA, it's easier if we just give an example of what we would accept, and then he can have the negotiation.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: A lease. A lease would be acceptable.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: But what are the terms of the lease, other than changing the title, what are the terms of that? That's what I'm looking for.

CHAIR: A dollar, dollar here.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I don't care about the money.

CHAIR: Yeah. I think they need to have some kind of value.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, it has to be a dollar, you are right, but I’m not saying it should be a hundred or a thousand.

CHAIR: I would give them a buck, I think they’re very, very valuable.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Well, just… like that’s exactly the kind of information that would be in the [unclear], for example.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Well, I would be sending him a copy of—

[unclear, multiple voices]

CHAIR: We're talking about, we're going to make them an offer, now? Is that what we're going to do? Counter offer?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Please interrupt me, Trustee Bussler, if I'm in any way misrepresenting your intention. But we have here policy 23-06 adopted, September 6, 2023, which is the Land Use Policy, which governs use of improvement district land or facilities, and outlines guidelines and requirements for other entities seeking to lease land owned by the improvement district. It talks about the leasing entity. It talks about our relationship with these outside entities as relationships with leasees. So, I too am curious why we would ignore our policy about how we do that? And I believe, in response to Trustee Moeller's concerns, that what would please Trustee Bussler is an agreement that conforms with our policy.

CHAIR: Let’s just get ahold of Rich Williams and work this out.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Through the chair, may I ask a question. When did you say that policy was…?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: September 6, 2023,

TRUSTEE MOHER: 2023, when did you say that the the agreement with CECA started?

CHIEF: It started in 2015.

TRUSTEE MOHER: So when does grandfathering come into effect?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We don’t have a policy for that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: When would grandfathering come into effect? That, to me, would be something that we could take a look at, and that might satisfy both sides [unclear].

TRUSTEE MOELLER: The purpose of my motion is because you guys obviously are very well read on this, and you have objections to the way it's written right now, so I'm just asking you to write those objections down, rather than having the Chief go back and try and negotiate something that you're not going to be happy with in not going to be happy with, it would just speed the whole thing up.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So trustee Moeller? If what's provided to us is consistent with this Land Use Policy, I have nothing to object to. So if it follows what's in here, then that's it. Like, I mean, I can't even, like, there's no point like, that’s all I’m asking. It talks about insurance, which is already halfway there, but indemnifications, access… So there are things that, if it's in here, and it's in the lease agreement, then we're good. So that's like, literally, all I would do is have a look at this policy.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I'd like to see “mutual aid” pulled out and talked about, like a functional support service being provided, which is a different issue, but that's one thing that would make me friendlier to this.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Again, this is sort of like, going back to my point, it'd be easier to just have all this in an email or something, so next time it comes up… So can my motion ask you guys to meet, even if it's by email, and even if it is just “follow the Land Use Policy,” at least then there's a structure that you can follow to get this across the line. If that’s all it is, that’s great, and if it’s more than that, then that’s the opportunity to raise it.

CHAIR: it seems like semantics to me, really, but then I don't know, why… [unclear].

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So can I just make that motion, vote on it,  “That trustee Mercier, Cherneyko, Appel and Bussler communicate amongst themselves and submit an email to the Chief indicating what what would it take for them to be satisfied with the MOU.”

CHAIR: Seconder? [no one seconds] Well, that went dead, didn’t it? I feel a chill in here.

[muttering]

CHAIR: Well, I'd like to propose that we have a discussion the next time we meet, perhaps… I don't know. Does it have to be formal? I don't know. I'd like to get this straightened out. I know what you're saying. This is the law. This law. But may I suggest, maybe, I mean, these are people that we know, these are people that work on the island, these are important people to us. And they're doing a service for free, and if we get into a firestorm on this island, they're going to be very, very valuable. So I think we need to take that into account. So, I don't, I mean, if you'll allow me, I'll talk to Rich and see if we can’t get the... I think we would take that information that you just put forward as to how we deal with renters, and hand it to them, let them sit on it for 48 hours. And get back to us. No? In the meantime, they’re still there, hopefully? No? Yes? No? Anybody?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m not sure, I don’t get a motion out of that, but I have a motion.

CHAIR: Make that motion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I move “that staff be directed to negotiate with CECA to arrive with an arrangement for continued use of the space in fire hall number one that conforms with policy Number 23-06.”

CHAIR: That's four beers, now. You got a second for that?

TRUSTEE APPEL: Sure

CHAIR: Hands in the air in the affirmative [Appel, Bussler, Chorneyko, Johnson and Mercier vote in favour.]  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

[Trustee Moher says something inaudible to the Chair.]

CHAIR: Yeah, and it was just pointed out to me that we’ll have to look at grandfathering, because it seems like everybody on this island has a grandfather clause.

TRUSTEE MOHER: No, we don’t need a grandfather clause, we [unclear].

CHAIR: I’m just kidding.

MOTION CARRIED

THAT staff be directed to negotiate with CECA to arrive with an arrangement for continued use of the space in fire hall number one that conforms with policy Number 23-06. [CARRIED]

---

ESS MOTION

[video 2:01:35]

TRUSTEE MOHER: And we still have to deal with—are we putting aside the one for ESS then too, because they fall under the same problem?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I think ESS is different.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I don't think so.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, I do.

TRUSTEE MOHER: (to Dave) Well, they don't. She’s sitting right there, shaking her head. So you want to tell her that she’s—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: No, I think that… I agree with an MOU for ESS.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Oh. Oh…

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It’s a different situation, it's a government to government contract, or it's a government to government agreement, and so I'm more comfortable with an MOU with that,

TRUSTEE MOHER: I see!

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: —and it's not dedicated space.

CHAIR: What part of the ESS are you talking about? [unclear] dedicated space.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: The access to the basement.

CHAIR: Okay, is that—I’m trying to understand it, have they had access to the basement?

CHIEF: Yes, since 2013.

CHAIR: Okay, so we're not crowding each other out? I dunno, I haven’t been down there, so I want to know.

TRUSTEE MOHER: It’s the same situation for them down there that CECA’s had all this time.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: CECA has a lock in the door. ESS—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Has a lock on the front door.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah.

CHAIR: I don't see the difference, but whatever.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: CECA walks through ESS space to get to… CECA

TRUSTEE MOHER: Mmhm. Yeah.

 CHAIR: So, what are we…is somebody making a motion on that?

[multiple voices, unclear]

CORPORATE OFFICER: There’s no motion on the floor.

CHIEF: Somebody has to make a motion.

CHAIR: Can’t be me. Anybody making that motion, it’s not me.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’m a little confused, you are saying that MOU that’s already out there is acceptable?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I think that an MOU for ESS is acceptable.

CHAIR: But you're not gonna make the motion.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: No, I’m not that dedicated to it.

CHAIR: And nobody else is. We got nobody to make that motion?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I’ll make that motion.

TRUSTEE APPEL: And I'll second it.

CHAIR: Discussion.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So is the motion that you're making “that the board approves the MOU with ESS as circulated by the Chief”? Is that a correct interpretation of what you're moving?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Excellent. Thank you.

CHAIR: Any further discussion?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I still have the same issue with the terms of “mutual aid” in there, like to me, it's more of a service agreement. They're providing us specific services versus mutual aid. So I don't agree with that. I'm not going to stop it for that, but I don’t agree with it.

CHAIR: Let's just have a vote on it, then, right? Hands in the air, in the affirmative [Appel, Chorneyko, Johnston, Moeller, Moher]

MOTION CARRIED:

THAT the board approves the MOU with ESS as circulated by the Chief.

---

DEPLOYMENT MOTION

[video 2:05:15]

CHAIR: So anything further on the those…?

CHIEF: Just a motion in favor of supporting the fire department going on deployment, and for the 2026, season, we've been invited back. I'll provide the letter from BC Wildfire, but it asks for the partnership that we've held for many years.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’ll make that motion

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have a question, but I'll wait to see if it’s seconded.

[seconded]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So my question is, what trucks, what resources are we committing to deploy if we get the call?

CHIEF: We put out a list of apparatus. We would put out a list of apparatus, type 6 engine, which is number 4, number 11, which is the tender, type 3 engine, which is number 5. We’d only ever send one at a time. Just gives us more options and looks to see what deployments we get with those three types of vehicles

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I’m not sure what the wording of the motion on the floor is?

TRUSTEE MOHER: “That the board support the fire department deployment this wild fire season.”

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So I would like to suggest, based on the Chief's response to my question, a friendly amendment to that motion, which would change it to read “that the Board Support support the deployment of engine number 4 or number 10 or number 5.”

CHIEF: Can we state what their status is?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yeah, absolutely.

CHIEF: It's a type 6 engine—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: That’s in the report?

CHIEF: Yeah, so a type 2 tactical tender, and a type 3 wildfire engine.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Just to clarify that we would not send any of our new assets off, right? You said that the new pickup truck, for example, is a type 6. I don’t think we would be sending that, or number 9, which we just bought and paid for?

CHIEF: I'd like to consider the new command vehicle as a possibility, if we keep the older vehicles in the fleet for right now, just to see if we get the call for a type 6 engine.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Does that affect our our ability to protect the island? So if it seemed like we needed that commanded vehicle, right, so now we’re sending it—

CHIEF: No, we have a—we've had an extra skid that we had in the trailer. That extra skid could possibly go on command vehicle, if we wished to do that. It just gives us flexibility [unclear].

TRUSTEE MOHER: Can I reread that?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah, to make sure it’s right.

TRUSTEE MOHER: So, “that the board support the deployment of type 6 engine, type 2 tactical tender and type 3 wildfire engine for deployment for the 2026 wildfire season,” right?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Should it be “or”? Because we're only going to be deploying one machine at any given time, so “type 6, or type 2, or type 3,” is, I believe, what’s being asked of us.

CHAIR: I'm curious to know what happens in a situation where we actually do have a real, real forest fire in Cassidy or some place like that, where we've got a mutual aid agreement, and they really do need more than one vehicle from us. That's what I want to know.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I'm just saying, I'm trying to interpret the Chief's words correctly. He said we wouldn't deploy more than one at a time. That's where that comes from.

CHAIR: Is that in stone or what?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: As I say, I'm just trying to accurately represent what the Chief is saying.

CHIEF: I mean, I wish I had the autonomy to make that decision. If there was a call so close that it was just an hour away, then we could send two apparatus. But I’ll leave that up to the board.

CHAIR: It’s a concern for me. I mean, it really is. Because we're all in this together. If we have a fire at Mount Baker or Cassidy, or any place like that, or here on the island. And mutual aid means they come to our aid too.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I don't even know which organizations we have mutual aid agreements with, so I don't know—if we have a pre-existing mutual aid with someone—

CHAIR: I just wish we didn'—somehow put an emergency thing in there, so that you know, if we really, really…

CHIEF: Can we just say and/or?

CHAIR: Can we say and/or? Good?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, that leaves us open to having three engines go on… in any [unclear].

CHAIR: We have six of them, don’t we?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I know, but I also know that the Chief's primary thought is to never put the island in the position of not having what he needs here. So he would not actually do that.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Can we say two?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Your motion is making deployment sound like one item, and so we could have three wildfires, and say, one in May, one July, one in August, where we would be sending different apparatus. So I don't think the motion covers… possibly multiple deployments..,

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: In a year.

CORPORATE OFFICER: In a year, or in a season. And they might need different resources.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Can I? I hope to suggest this by unanimous consent that we add the words, “in response to requests for BC Wildfire”, which would would allow for multiple requests. So the motion, I believe, would be “THAT the board support deployment of type 6 engine, or type 2 tactical tender, or type 3 wildfire engine, in response to requests from BC wildfire,” or something along those lines.

TRUSTEE MOELLER

I think the point that Chief was making is, if there is a fire on Vancouver Island, that's close enough by that you could retrieve the vehicles.

CHIEF: Yeah, we can stand down from a deployment.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Like if there's a fire on Mount Benson, for example, you know, you could want to send two and if there was an incident on Gabriola, you could retrieve them really quickly, I think that’s the point. It gives them the opportunity to respond with more than one. It's sort of a judgment call on whether or not we believe that Chief has the ability to make those decisions.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: [unclear], but I hear what you are saying.

CHAIR: I did say that if you have a fire on Mount Benson in a particular wind situation, we stand the risk of having a fire on Gabriola as a result of it. So, you know, as much as we need to protect ourselves I guess, first, that's one way to protect ourselves, is by putting out fires that could come over here.

TRUSTEE MOHER: It actually happened.

[Ed: Trustee Moher is probably referring to the “big fire” of 1938.]

CHAIR: Sure it happened, yeah.

TRUSTEE MOHER:

One of our biggest fires started on the big island, on the mainland, and came over here.

TRUSTEE MERCIER:

So I mean, I'm with you in trusting that the Chief wants to keep the island safe from fire, and so I'm going to propose, again, hopefully in friendly fashion, that the amendment—that the motion read simply “that the board authorize the Chief to deploy a type 6 engine, and/or a type 2 tactical tender, and/or a type 3 wildfire engine, in response to requests from BC Wildfire.”

CHAIR: There you go, do we call for a vote? As a friendly amendment.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, if we…we can vote on that, if we all agree that that's a sensible motion. I'm just, that's the broadest sort of interpretation of… [to the Chief] Does that accurately reflect what you’d like? I know you're like you said you'd like the autonomy to make those decisions.

CHIEF: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe this gives you that autonomy. So I hope that you support this in that way. I mean, I'm making it, so I think that should be the motion.

CHAIR: Well, then it is. That's the motion.

[some general, good natured chatter]

CHAIR: We have a seconder already, don’t we? Diana seconded.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So, if this is agreeable to everyone, this would be the motion as amended by general consent.

CHAIR: Yes, exactly. Hands in the air for the affirmative [unanimous]. Isn't that nice? Carried. Semantics.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The law is made out of words, it’s important.

MOTION CARRIED: (unanimous)

THAT the board authorize the Chief to deploy a type 6 engine, and/or a type 2 tactical tender, and/or a type 3 wildfire engine, in response to requests from BC Wildfire.

---

Training Report

[video 2:15:12]

The Training Report, presented by the Deputy Chief, is in the meeting package (p49). In response to a question, the Deputy Chief confirmed that by the end of April the Department will have four employees with Fire Instructor Level 2. The Chief suggested that an opportunity be scheduled so any interested trustees could see some of the live fire training happening on the weekend of March 28-29.

Association Report

[video 2:18:40]

Carol Waldo: “The Association had a very successful fundraising for Tumbler Ridge on Saturday, and I’d like to acknowledge the work of Captain Goodall and his team, as well as Ray Appel, who did the art for our card, and the community, which was very supportive.”

---

BUSINESS ARISING

1. Privacy Management Program

[video 2:19:10]

Motion tabled from January meeting: “That the Corporate Officer provide the trustees with a work plan and timeline for bringing the GFPID into compliance with 36.2. Which is implemented in privacy management program and have this due at the March General Meeting.”

Trustee Chorneyko says that the motion was passed in the February meeting but that the deadline was the March meeting. The Corporate Officer says that the work is not complete yet because of more urgent work requirements. Consultation about reasonable deadline.

MOTION CARRIED: (unanimous)

THAT the corporate officer have until the June meeting to fulfill the requirements of the aforesaid motion.

---

2. Fire Department Establishing Bylaw

[video 2:21:05]

The Fire Department Establishing Bylaw is a standing item because it is known that it needs revising and updating.

The Corporate Officer recommends “To restart work on the bylaw – adding training, deputy chief and fire inspections and fees,” and asks if the policy committee can start looking at it.

Trustee Mercier notes that they would also need to address the EMR agreement, and suggests that they need legal advice about the new material being incorporated. He also points out that the outcomes of union negotiations may affect practices and so that should be considered. He thinks that this should be one of the things brought up with the governance lawyer who will be hired to advise on certain things.

The chair says that he will be talking to two governance lawyers on Friday, and things are getting closer to settling on one to hire.

Trustee Moher (chair of the policy review committee) thinks that they can start looking at it and highlighting concerns, and asks the Chief if any updates to relevant legislation need to be reflected in the new bylaw.

The Chief says that there needs to be content regarding the Fire Safety Act and some other things.

Trustee Mercier says there are things going on currently relating to whether fire inspectors should be coordinated by the Regional District or improvement districts, with advocacy coming from improvement districts to retain that power, which would be relevant to the content of the GFPID bylaw. He also notes that the draft bylaw previously circulated suggests changing the name of the Department, and that he wanted to confirm that renaming would not take place without consultation with the Association.

Overlapping voices replied, unclear.

The Corporate Officer says that the Fire Department Establishment Bylaw has now been given the number 118.

MOTION CARRIED: (unanimous)

THAT the policy committee examine draft bylaw 118, and that the chair seek input on bylaw 118 from legal counsel.

---

3. Records and information management

[video 2:27:40]

MOTION CARRIED: (unanimous)

THAT we accept the draft Records and Information Management Bylaw circulated by the Corporate Officer for information.

---

4. Election Report

 [video 2:28:35]

Returning Officer Cheryl Hannebauer reports.

The Election Report is in the meeting package (pp 51-52).

It is clarified that “landowner eligibility at the Annual General Meeting is required only for the purpose of voting, and that the meeting itself is open to the public.” The task of ruling on voter eligibility has been delegated to Trustee Appel, because the Returning Officer will be working in a different room. Voting eligibility at the AGM will be confirmed at the door, with ID, and landholders will be given a coloured piece of paper to hold up when voting on any motions arising.

The Returning Officer added that at the last election “quite a few” people assumed that they were eligible but were not, because in order to vote your name must be on legal title. She suggested that people check their BC property assessment forms, which list all persons on title, and suggest bringing those forms with their ID.

The election will be for four trustee positions: three full 3-year terms and one 1-year term.

Trustee Bussler asks if there is still an intention to use a safe to store ballots from the advance poll. The Returning Officers says yes, and it will be big enough to hold the sealed voting box and other material, but it hasn’t been purchased yet. It will be screwed to either the floor or the wall. The safe may only be used for other purposes after the election is over.

Trustee Bussler asks if the inaugural meeting of the board can be postponed to another date [Ed:traditionally it has been held immediately after the election results are posted, which recently has resulted in holding very late meetings]. The Returning Officer says she has left that up to the Corporate Officer.

The Returning Officer thanked Trustee Appel for his help.

Trustee Appel said that the website now indicates that in addition to the specific time set for doing so, candidates can set up appointments with the Corporate Officer in order to submit their forms.

The Returning Officer says that if candidates wish to put an ad in the Sounder, the last opportunity to advertise under BC election law will be in the April 29^th edition.

Trustee Chorneyko thanks the Returning Officer for the report, the RO says, “Thank my co-workers!”

Trustee Moher asks if candidates are required to take down advertising on mailbox bulletin boards on the morning of the election; the Returning Officer says that she is not being picky about that. Unfortunately people on Facebook largely ignore the law when it comes to electioneering on social media.

The Chair thanks the Returning Officer for all her work.

---

NEW BUSINESS

1. Code of Conduct

[video 2:37:15]

The Draft Code of Conduct is included in the meeting package (pp 53-56).

CHAIR: Adoption of the Code of Conduct. We’ve all seen it. All read it.

TRUSTEE MOHER: All worked very hard on it.

CHAIR: Anybody want to make a motion to accept?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I would like to make a motion “that we accept the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District Code of Conduct.”

CHAIR: Seconder?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: [raises hand]

CHAIR: Any discussion beyond that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I have a few comments. Generally, I like the changes that were made. I think it's good work. On “Integrity,” number five, should it be “from resolution”, not “by” resolution? Like, is that a typo?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Just give me a second.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ve got to call it up here. Take me a minute to find it too.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Which point now?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Integrity, number five. “Follow through on all responsibilities from resolutions and bylaws.”

CORPORATE OFFICER: Or “made by resolution and bylaw”?

TRUSTEE MOHER: I would say it’s still “by” resolution and bylaw. But it could be “made by.”

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It's our job to follow through on responsibilities from the resolutions or bylaws.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: What if we say “established by.”

TRUSTEE MOHER: Established by—

[Multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: So we have a motion and we have a seconder or two… Any discussion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I have discussion. So there are things about this that I like. I've enjoyed the process of working on it so far. I wasn't aware until it came out in the package that we'd advanced it for consideration to the board, but that could have been inattention on my part. I do have reservations, particularly around wording in the Conflict of Interest section in this draft bylaw, where it establishes “another interest in the matter that constitutes a conflict of interest”. That seems vague and open to contention. There's also some language in here about conduct not addressing public—anyway, there was other wording here that I had reservations about, but primarily because of the wording in the Conflict of Interest section of this proposed Code of Conduct, I will not be voting in support.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Could you clarify what your issue is?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, so under the law that binds us as an improvement district, a conflict of interest is a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter, as stated in clause (a) of this section. The clause (b) of this section defines “another interest in the matter that constitutes a conflict of interest”. But there's no indication of the “constitutes conflict of interest” under what set of rules, or the “constitutes a conflict of interest” in whoever's opinion, or what another interest in the matter could mean other than— like, a pecuniary interest is an obvious kind of thing, you know, there's money in it or there's not. But “another interest that constitutes a conflict of interest” is too vague for me to support as language in a long-lasting policy.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Could you make a motion to amend this?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, I could. I had also considered making a motion to refer the whole matter back to committee, but the fact is that the committee, did, you know, do quite a bit of work on this, and I think that that work should—I'm willing to have it be put for vote, but I'm not myself willing to support it, for the reason of my reservations around the section on conflict of interest.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Thanks for bringing that up. I know you and I have very different ideas around conflict of interest, and there's much information and detail out there that talks about other areas of conflict of interest. It's not just money. I do think that I'm happy if we take (b) out because some of it is, (b) is also dealt with under apprehension bias, and we put that in. So I'm happy if we take (b) out.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If (b) is removed, then I would remove my main objection to this.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I’m okay with that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If you were to move to amend the policy and strike (b), I would support that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I think, because we put the other one in, and that was a big discussion, and it was quite well received by both you and Mr. Bussler at the time of the committee meeting, and I was pretty happy that we found it and put it in, so I’m pleased, thank you for that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, if in the case of conflict of interest, a trustee has to recuse himself from the matter. But the language here, under Apprehension of Bias, has, like a clear set of steps to follow, which leads to seeking a legal opinion, and—

[multiple voices, discussion re amendment]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So Trustee Mohler moved to amend the policy as presented, to strike clause (b) under conflict of interest, and I seconded that motion.

CHAIR: So we can have a vote on that, hands in the air with the affirmative.

MOTION CARRIED: (unanimous)

To strike clause (b) under Conflict of Interest.

[video 2:43:56]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: I have a couple of points on the confidential information. I think there's some grammatical issue going on with Trustees will and shall. If you look at that again, if you were to clean that up a little bit, I think that wouldn’t substantively change it, but it's just something before we finalize this. And then, as Trustee Moher pointed out, the Apprehension of Bias. We talked about this quite a bit at the committee level. I'm not, I don't love it, just because it is very nebulous, in my opinion. As Trustee Mercier pointed out, there are relationships that exist on this island, people are very close friends, and that's the reality of this. I don't know what we do with that information, so I—

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I have a motion for that.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Okay.

[2:44:59]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So I also have an issue with the Apprehension of Bias. As much as I agree with the concept of it, I just I think there's better wording. So, I make a motion “TO delete the Apprehension of Bias paragraph and replace it with the following two points under the integrity section.” And the points are: “Trustee shall avoid conduct that could reasonably be perceived as pre-judgment, particularly when the board is acting in an adjudicative capacity,” and the other, the second point being: “When circumstances may reasonably raise concerns regarding impartiality, the trustees must disclose the relevant facts and consider recusal to protect the integrity of the decision-making process.” I can read that again if you want. I can send this to you. Marjorie.

CHAIR: Do you want to take it back to the committee level?

TRUSTEE MOHER: That's a big decision to make. Apprehension of Bias came from the island's trust Conflict of Interest, and they were very strongly recommending it. I know Sybil Frei was quite excited to see us put that in. It was strong support from her that made me continue with it. I hate to lose something that has been put in a lot of other areas. It’s there for a reason, and to whittle it down to one or two things, this opens it up to make it very specific.

CHAIR: Does it add to it, subtract from it?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Well, I just think that the wording I'm adding is more actionable. You know, it focuses on my actions, not somebody else's apprehensions, yet, at the same time dealing with the same issues.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I think the word “apprehension” doesn't mean feeling apprehensive. It's a legal term. So it's not that somebody's feeling apprehensive about something, it's just the way the phrase is.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: So, I have that in here, and it's, “apprehension” is very much when you're in an adjudicative capacity, and not at other times. We are brought, we’re politicians, and we're brought on the board because of our biases. The problem comes in when it's in an adjudicative capacity, and that's the legal term. So that's why I put in “trustees shall avoid conduct that could reasonably be perceived as prejudgment, particularly when the board is acting in an adjudicative capacity.” Conflict around Apprehension of Bias is—it's a legal term [unclear]. It's a legal term when you're going to court, and you're worried about the biases of the judge that you're facing. This is where it's originated from, and so it's in an adjudicative capacity.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So listening to your words, Trustee Chorneyko, I'm not persuaded, because what you said is complicated. But I am persuaded that there's material there that bears discussion. I don't see us making a lot of progress on the discussion in this context. So I'm going to make the motion “THAT the Code of Conduct Policy be referred back to the policy committee to consider changes suggested by Trustee Chorneyko,” which you will circulate to the committee.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Sure, I'll make that motion.

CORPORATE OFFICER: We already have a motion on the table.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But a motion to refer to committee is a motion of precedence.

CORPORATE OFFICER: So it’s a motion to refer.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Yes.

[Trustee Moher seconds the motion.]

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

MOTION CARRIED: (unanimous)

THAT the Code of Conduct Policy be referred back to the policy committee to consider changes suggested by Trustee Chorneyko.

---

2. Governance

[video 2:49:30]

The chair reports that contact has been made with two lawyers and that more will be known in the next few days. Trustee Moher says that of the four lawyers contacted, two did not reply, one was too busy, and one was open to the work. The process of finding a lawyer for consultation continues.

---

3. First Due

 [video 2:52:00]

A quote from First Due is included in the meeting package (pp 57-58).

CHIEF: So we currently use a platform called Fire Pro Two to do all our incident reports. It logs the call from when the call is pushed out by dispatch. But it's very limited. It's old software, needs upgrading. So the Deputy and the Corporate Officer were looking at other options, and First Due has lots of features. One of the big features, we need to be able to do is payroll, and have it produce files that we can transfer directly to the payroll system. And so they looked into First Due, and it supports a lot of that. Corporate Officer, do you have any…

CORPORATE OFFICER: No, it  would just have better records than paper and pencils. So that’s what it is. But it is significantly more expensive than what we were using, so we have that price breakdown.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Do we know anybody else who uses this software? Have you talked to them?

CHIEF: Tofino is currently using the software, and I just talked to Surrey dispatch, and they’re just interfacing it with Surrey dispatch.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So this also supports the CAD stuff that we have coming in, I see, and what are we paying now, for the system we use now?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Five grand. Five grand plus about $600 for Active 911, so this will also push the calls out on first responders’ phones as well. Instead of two separate systems.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And this is the thing that's modern and up to date. It's likely to keep pace with changing stuff, whereas our existing system is cludgy and old...

CHAIR: Is it replacing Sage, or does it work with Sage, or…?

CORPORATE OFFICER: It has nothing to do with Sage.

CHAIR: So we still go that

CHIEF: It has nothing to do with Sage or accounting. It’s strictly doing incident reporting.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But also, I see here it covers, like, assets and inventory management, which is good. And there's a whole Personnel Management section. So, because I mean a lot of that stuff and how that work is assigned and tracked, and to who and whatever, is going to become more complex with union stuff. And so having a more flexible system that supports that need for increased flexibility, seems that keeps pace.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And we will be looking at the $13,800 each as a one-time payment, and then go forward from—

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Does that $13,800 cover the first year, or is the first year—?

CORPORATE OFFICER: That’s the first year.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Okay? So it's not like 25, and then 11 after, it’s just 13—

CORPORATE OFFICER: That’s the first year.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Have you contacted this company?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Have they given you a presentation on this?

CHIEF: Several.

DEPUTY CHIEF (?): We looked at it several months ago, but it wasn’t cost effective at the time.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Are there any competing products other than the antiquated system we use now? Are there any other options?

CHIEF: This is kind of the leading one right now, because a lot, it’s got a lot of features. One of the big features that will be new to us is pre-fire planning. So we'll be able to push pre-fire plans to the CAD on the responding engine. Just kind of putting all these features together, which some software have done, but it’s all [unclear].

DEPUTY CHIEF: We did look at another company, but they're more for large departments, career departments, they're even more money.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Do you get a trial, I guess, a chance to play around with the system and stuff?

DEPUTY CHIEF: Our main focus was, well it has to work with our current PayWorks system, and it does, so it’s the starting point. We have an actual talk with them on the 12th of March.

CHIEF: That's a good point. We can ask them to set us up with a demo.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Most of them will be, like a month or whatever, just to fool around with it.

DEPUTY CHIEF: Yes, but you have to integrate so much, so…

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Yeah, I understand the limitations. At least you might look at the menus, and see if it's got the categories of all the data you’re looking for, and get a feel for it.

CORPORATE OFFICER: It seemed very— that we could tell them what we wanted, and they would make the reports look like what we wanted, and all the information wanted. And they also said they’d take all our past information.

DEPUTY CHIEF: Yeah, that's why it’s $13,000.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: So data migration?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yeah.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: One thing that I think would be useful… I mean, this looks great. Going forward, we're going to need to train our personnel on how to use this, presumably, very complex system. We're going to have to train them on CAD stuff anyways, but it would be good to have an estimate for training costs for the people that need to be trained on this, which is presumably the officer corps, primarily, if they’re going to be integrating with it, if it's going to be—you know, if we can ask the vendor, on average, how long does it take someone to become competent with this system. Then we can estimate, okay, if it takes five hours, and we've got 10 people that need to become competent, then that's 50 hours of training, which will cost 50 times the training. That kind of thing would be useful.

DEPUTY CHIEF: We’ll ask that.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I see there's a training module here, “Essentials online training package for up to four hours online training”. I'm assuming that's for free, if you sat down at the same time.

DEPUTY CHIEF: Yeah. Well, we'll get more details on it.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I assume they'd be setting up your CAD integration as well, it’s not going to fall on us to hire someone?

DEPUTY CHIEF: Yeah, that's part of it. We have to, because you kind of get the whole system, you don't get pieces. They say, when you integrate, they want to integrate it to work on their system. So we would be changing out of our current format to their format. [unclear] It’s more money, but it does a lot more.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Would it be worth waiting until the CAD system, when you got the CAD systems in the trucks to implement this?

DEPUTY CHIEF: Well, what's driving it is the payroll, that we may have to [unclear].

CORPORATE OFFICER: But they aren't going to implement, like they they know the CAD system is coming, so we will schedule ours based on the CAD system coming in, and the changes at Surrey dispatch. So they know that it’s coming in, so they won't put us on the current plan. They know it's going to change in three months.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So this is a report on where things stand now. You'll take our questions and concerns, get answers, and come back to us with a “we've answered your questions. This is what we want to do.”

CORPORATE OFFICER: Right.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Can you do this within existing budgets right now, like, this year?

CORPORATE OFFICER: I’ll have to double check. I think it's probably do-able. Depends on how much other stuff goes over.

---

4. Trustee access to information

[video 3:00:00]

CHAIR: Moving on. It’s question period—

[multiple voices reminding the chair that late items were added]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We've added an item which we called “Trustee access to information.” I've got two motions that address this piece of business. I've circulated these to the trustees in advance. The first motion is “that the Corporate Officer be directed to contract Mr. Samuel M Pointer of the firm Manning Law, to obtain notarized copies of contracts documents entered into with Rogers Communications Inc, and that such documents be made available to the trustees without delay.”

CHAIR: Seconder?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Sure

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So if I can speak to the motion. There has been dispute among the trustees as to the state of things with Rogers, whether or not the contract exists, what stage things are at. A statutory right-of-way has been established on the title to this property. So that's a contract arrangement, but the trustees don't have access to the signed documents. There were—draft documents that were considered in negotiation were circulated to us, but the trustees do not have access to the documents that would have necessarily been signed for the statutory right of way to be registered. But we do know that the notary who handled that establishment was Mr. Samuel M Pointer of the firm Manning Law. So I believe that such records should be in possession of the improvement district, and the purpose of this motion is to obtain those records and put them into possession of the improvement district.

CHAIR: Seconded?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yes, I seconded it.

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

MOTION CARRIED (unanimous):

THAT the Corporate Officer be directed to contract Mr. Samuel M Pointer of the firm Manning Law, to obtain notarized copies of contracts documents entered into with Rogers Communications Inc, and that such documents be made available to the trustees without delay.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The second motion, similarly circulated in advance, which is “THAT the Corporate Officer circulate in advance of each in-camera meeting an agenda of business to be addressed in-camera along with relevant support material, and that in-camera meeting minutes be made available to the trustees.”

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ll second that.

CHAIR: Discussion?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If I can speak to the motion. As under the current customary practice, the trustees don't actually know until the end of the meeting whether or not we will be meeting in-camera. When we meet in-camera, we don't know until we're already in-camera what business will be discussed, which does not permit the trustees any opportunity to review material or prepare to make decisions that must be considered in-camera.

Similarly with the second clause of the motion, I have requested, in a number of formats, on a number of occasions over the last—since my election, that I be permitted to review in-camera meeting minutes. That has not happened. I have been denied access to that material by staff, by trustees, and by staff and trustees acting together. And so the purpose of this motion is to ensure that I, along with other trustees, have ready access to in-camera meeting minutes which record the decisions of the trustees made in-camera.

CHAIR: Do we have a seconder?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Dave.

CHAIR: Discussion?

TRUSTEE APPEL: So, the agenda of business to be addressed in-camera along with relevant support material goes out by email. That's, that's okay?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, it doesn't—I would be—I mean, I'd be happy with “There's material, it's at the fire hall, you can come in and ask for it”. But as it stands now, for reasons that are known to the trustees, I do not consider myself able to attend the fire hall without making a prior appointment. And when I have requested the opportunity to make prior appointments, as our policy requires, through the Chair, I have not been permitted to do so. So I don't actually, at this point, have strong feelings about how we are permitted access to that material, and how we are permitted the opportunity to prepare for in-camera meeting minutes, but I think we need it, otherwise we can't properly do our job.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Just from my perspective, it would be nice to know if, are we meeting in-camera after this? I have no idea.

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: I can say, this has been a process for a long time. I inherited it. I don't think, don't know that I've had much access to what was going on in in-camera meetings myself as a trustee, up until recently, because I'm [unclear] sometimes. But I do agree. I mean, we have to have an agenda available to everybody a week before. Is that what you would like? Or what are you talking about here?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Can I respond with… I contacted my mentor about this question, the Corporate Officer of Mill Bay, and her response is, “We do not provide any information before an in-camera meeting. In-camera meeting minutes are kept in a binder that only I have, and if a trustee wants to read those minutes, they can ask. But other than that, the minutes are kept top secret, so to speak.”

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I hear what you're saying, and I reiterate that even if we were to do that, that would be an improvement over the current practice, where I cannot ask to see the minutes, because I have been asking to see those minutes for eight months now. I have requested it of staff. I have requested it of trustees. I have arranged meetings with staff where other trustees have been present, and on each occasion, without exception, I have been unable to examine the in-camera meeting minutes. Full stop.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: We’re reaching or getting close to needing to go in-camera with this discussion, but I just wanted to say that I agree with, the agenda should go out ahead of time. Is that possible?

CORPORATE OFFICER: Well, she said no. I think this is one I’d like to get advice on.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I will—I am happy to amend my own motion to say “THAT the Corporate Officer circulate in advance of each in-camera meeting notice of whether an in-camera meeting will be happening.” I'll accept that, but I believe that it's the case the in-camera meeting minutes need to be made available to the trustees, and they at present are not.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I just wanted to point out that Marjorie has this mentor, and this mentor was recommended to her from Braden down in Victoria at Municipalities as somebody with the highest level of background and experience in these matters, and so the fact that she was actually referred to this person to go to for these kinds of questions and information is, in my mind, very useful and helpful to us, because if she comes back and tells us that's not what you do and that's not how you do it, I think we can take it to heart that she's using that background of knowledge from legislation that she knows about. So I like your motion to have notice of the meeting put out. And we go from there.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: It does still contain the second clause that in-camera meeting minutes be made available.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We were just told that cannot happen.

CORPORATE OFFICER: It can happen.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Unless you go to the office.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right, but right now, I can't go to the office.

CHAIR: Why not?

[multiple voices]

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We can't discuss that. The reasons why I can’t go to the office are well known to the trustees.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Call the vote.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Can we please separate your motions, move the first part about the agenda and take the second part into in-camera.

CHAIR: Let’s do that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I think that the question of how—the thing that needs to be considered in-camera is how the meeting minutes will be made available to the trustees, and I think that's reasonable, but I think that the question of the board declaring that the minutes are available to the trustees should not be contentious, and  so I would advocate—

TRUSTEE MOHER:  Oh. Okay. Yes, fine.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: —and so I would advocate the method… I accede that for reasons that are well known to the trustees, should be discussed in-camera. That’s fine.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I agree.

CHAIR: So we're splitting this into two?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: We’re keeping it as one.

TRUSTEE MOHER: No, there’s two.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Trustee Moher could make a motion to split it into two. That would then need a second. Then it could go to a vote.

TRUSTEE MOHER: So the motion to split it in two would be that we approve that the minutes, that the going into the in-camera would be part of the agenda...

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The motion to split it in two would just split it at the end. So if I interpret your intention correctly, we would be left with two motions: “that the Corporate Officer circulate in advance of each in-camera meeting notice that a meeting will be taking place”, and then a second motion “that in-camera meeting minutes be made available to the trustees”. Is that the motion, you're proposing to split the motion that's on the floor in that way.

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yes.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So you would now be seeking a second for your proposal.

CHAIR: A seconder? [no response]

TRUSTEE MOHER: No. It fails.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: So we come back to the main motion on the floor, which is both clauses. The motion is “that the Corporate Officer circulate in advance of each in-camera meeting notice to the meeting will be taking place, and that in-camera meeting minutes be made available to the trustees.”

CHAIR: So we have a seconder?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yes, Dave seconded that. I think that’s a subtle change, but Dave still seconded that I believe.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

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

MOTION CARRIED (unanimous):

THAT the Corporate Officer circulate in advance of each in-camera meeting notice to the meeting will be taking place, and

THAT in-camera meeting minutes be made available to the trustees.

---

5. Lawsuit costs

[video 3:12:00]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, I had a few as well. So, recall my motions were "THAT the Corporate Officer provide a breakdown of all costs associated with the civil lawsuit, excluding the settlement amount."

I’ve asked this, even outside these meetings. I didn't want to bring it up here, but I just would like to know what the amount is. I don’t know how best to relayed to the trustees, but I don’t know what the amount is and I’d like to know. I know we're closing the books on 2025, so...

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Seconded.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Sorry, I jumped the gun jumped about my discussion. But yeah, that's just basically it.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO:  I’d just like some clarification on it. There was—costs covered by the insurance company. You're excluding all of that?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, I'm just interested in exactly what we're net.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO:  To the taxpayer?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah. I'm not interested in settlement amounts, which may or may not be covered by insurance.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yeah, I'm just pointing out settlement, plus any other costs covered by the insurance company, you’re not interested in.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: No.

CHAIR: Not insurance then, is that what you’re saying?

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Correct.

CHAIR: Yeah, I honestly I would like—what I'd like, ’cause it falls to me, and I don’t want to be sued here—that we get with this new governance lawyer that we may, you know, and deal with it at that time.

TRUSTEE MOELLER: I just want to point out that this wasn't reported in the August meeting. But I went back and looked at it, there was union negotiation and lawsuit stuff combined from the same order, and that hadn't been broken into categories. And that's, I believe, what you're asking for is that number be broken in two.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Exactly. So I went back, because the last time I asked this question, I was told, “you’ve already been provided in August”. And then I printed this off. And there’s a Privacy Works FOI in there, which is an FOI, right. Again, I don't know what is actually lawsuit versus —there’s audit in here, complaints, right? And so, it’s all the legal—like, if that's the cost, then, you know, just legal, then that's the cost. But I don't know what exactly pertains to the lawsuit.

CHAIR: So who's going to split that up with our, with Stikeman Elliott?

TRUSTEE MOELLER: Stikeman already has that split in their invoicing, as for HR report or whatever? [unclear]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Yeah, I think it would basically boil down to—so on the list that we have from August, there are five different entities, and I want to say it's just two entities that we're dealing with for the lawsuit. The other entities are KMA, which is obviously audit, Orca Health and Safety, and then Privacy Works. I don't think those three entities apply, so it's just a matter of Stikeman Elliot breaking out how much pertains to the actual legal, because, as trustee Moeller pointed out, there's FOIs in there, complaints, and then I have no idea with Amui does for us, but if it's all for this legal lawsuit, then it's all for the legal lawsuit.

CHAIR: You understand what my my concern is here, if we cause—we trigger for the lawsuit.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I mean, we spent taxpayer money on lawyers. Everybody knows that. There's nothing private about that. There's nothing secret about the fact that we hired lawyers. We paid them with money that we took from the taxpayers. And the taxpayers deserve to know how much of the money we took for them, we spent on that. And that doesn't touch on any of the terms of any settlement that may have been negotiated or whatever. All it says is “this lawsuit took place.” That's, that's a matter of public record. “We hired lawyers.” That's matter of public record. “We paid them with public money.” How much? That’s, I don’t think—

CHAIR: The public part, I fully agree with you. Anybody that the public has paid needs to be, you know, they need to know about… Where this gets sticky is where the insurance company has paid the lawyers directly and—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But that—we didn't pay that, so this is just looking for the money that we paid.

CHAIR: Yeah, I've been through some things, and what I realized with lawyers and insurance companies is, when the lawyer bills the insurance company directly, you don't get to know anything. You don't get to know anything in settlement situations, in terms of that money, if you've got your own money into it. In our case, I think we put money into it before the insurance company picked up the—

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe that to be what Trustee Bussler is looking for. In my experience, when an insurance company pays a lawyer, I still see the itemized bill from the lawyer, although that wasn't a matter of the legal settlement, that was [unclear].

TRUSTEE MOHER: Can I make the recommendation that we honor his request, but we do it through the Finance Committee? We just bring it all there, and break it down while we're there. Cause we [unclear].

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So deliver at the next finance meeting?

TRUSTEE MOHER: Yeah.

[multiple voices, unclear]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So I'll amend “THAT the Corporate Officer provide a breakdown of all costs associated with the civil lawsuit excluding settlement amounts at the next finance committee meeting.”

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Second.

[multiple voices, unclear, discussing details of what is and isn’t included]

CHAIR: Hands in the air for the affirmative.

MOTION CARRIED (unanimous):

THAT the Corporate Officer provide a breakdown of all costs associated with the civil lawsuits, excluding settlement amounts, at the next Finance Committee meeting.

---

6. Amui contract

[video 3:18:45]

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: And so my second motion was, we’ve kind of beaten this one to death a bit already at the start here, at the outset, but

THAT the Corporate Officer confirm in writing that, pursuant to the board resolution of December 3, no further services are to be retained by Amui Inc, and that no further payments shall be issued.

It sounds like this is already taking—sorry, I’m jumping ahead, so that’s the motion.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: I’ll second that.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So sounds like this is already taking place and in terms of confirmation, I think it would literally just be an email to Amui from the Corporate Officer, saying that we passed this resolution in December, for your awareness, we are we are no longer engaging you. It could change in the future, I'm not suggesting that it can't, but at this moment in time, we have ceased our relationship with them.

TRUSTEE MOHER: I would say that the trustees have ceased the relationship.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: Sorry, yeah, okay.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The trustees is the only—

TRUSTEE MOHER: The trustees.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: If the improvement district ends the business relationship, as we have resolved, then no money administered by the trustees, which is all the money, should go to the, the —There's no authority for anyone to contract with anyone outside of the trustees. The only entity that has the authority to enter into contracts is the improvement district. The fire department exists as an instrument of the improvement district, and acts on the direction of the improvement district. So when we enter into a statutory right-of-way agreement, it's with the improvement district. When we enter into a training agreement with a third party, that agreement is with the improvement district. All the money is in bank accounts owned by the improvement district. The entity, the corporate entity, that is permitted to engage in contracts, is the improvement district. If the improvement district ends a contract, then staff cannot take up a separate contract, because there's no authority existent anywhere for staff to do that outside of the approval of the board. So if the board ends the business relationship, no money from the board should then go to that contract. Because all of the money— Trustee Moher, you know this well, you sign all the checks —it comes from the improvement district.

CHAIR: We are under some obligation to offer HR services to our staff, so that, there's that.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There is no statute which requires it. And the board has already decided to cease all business relationships, it’s not an ambiguous motion.

CHAIR: Well, I’m not talking about, [multiple voices, unclear] and we’re not necessarily talking about that, talking about it in general.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Right. [unclear] that particular contact.

CHAIR: If we’re nullifying this contract, fine and dandy, but staff, I think, requires HR services from somebody.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And I agree broadly with you, which is why we’re struck a select committee to look at HR contracting. And that committee is, like, doing its work. But until that—if that committee was to recommend, for whatever reason, Amui, than that would be something we can consider. But right now, we've made the decision to cease all business relationships with them. They should not be getting any more money. Which is what Trustee Bussler’s motion proposes to affirm up, again.

CHAIR: Well, I think we better get on it for an HR alternative. And I understand that Trustee Bussler is looking at four different HR people that Salt Spring Fire Department is engaged with. And there must be some someone within those four people that could handle stuff for us, but it’s close. I like the fact that it’s close and it’s another fire department.

TRUSTEE BUSSLER: So that’s the motion. Seconded by Dave.

CHAIR: Call for the affirmative. (Moeller, Chorneyko, Bussler, Appel, Mercier)

Put me down as a negative. I guess it doesn’t matter. I’m chair.

CORPORATE OFFICER: It doesn’t matter, you can still vote against it.

CHAIR: It carries.

MOTION CARRIED:

THAT the Corporate Officer confirm in writing that, pursuant to the board resolution of December 3, no further services are to be retained by Amui Inc, and that no further payments shall be issued.

---

7. Camera

[video 3:23:25]

General discussion about cameras and the exact phrasing of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED (unanimous):

---

QUESTION PERIOD

1. BURTT FIDLER - series of questions

FIDLER: I have a number of questions, and I'm trying to pay attention here, but there's a lot of stuff that happens that you probably don't need to explain to each other in your meetings, because you talk to each other, you're in-camera and so on. So some of these questions are going to be stupid, but I'm going to ask them anyway, just for clarification.

UNION AGREEMENT

FIDLER: I gather what—reading between the lines and what's been going on today, it sounds to me like there is no agreement, no collective agreement, with firefighters at this time. It's still ongoing. Is that correct, negotiations? Am I correct in assuming that?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We're between the certification of the union and arriving at an agreement phase.

FIDLER: Oh, so you're early in the process. I’m familiar with how these things normally work.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: We’re early enough that I think is wisely to be maximally circumspect.

FIDLER: Okay, thank you for that.

LAWSUITS

FIDLER: Okay, the next question I have, which I think I know the answer, but I don't know the answer definitively. From the discussion today about legal costs. Are all—I'm assuming that—are all the legal—I'm not clear how many lawsuits were involved here, but are they all resolved at this point in time?

CHAIR: Yeah.

FIDLER: So there are—no okay, so I was going to ask about the legal cost, but I’ve been paying attention enough to know that you can't tell me that answer today. Okay, so that's fine.

STATUS OF FOI REQUESTS

The next question I was going to ask is regards to freedom of information requests. Are there any of those outstanding at the present time?

CHAIR: I don’t believe there is.

FIDLER: At some point in the past year or so, it was reported mostly on social media I think, that there was a whole bunch of them.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Between mid 2003 and end 2004 I filed, I think nine freedom of information requests [corrected to 2023-2024]. So I made about nine. When I was elected in June of 2025 there were, I think, two outstanding items from me, both of those have been resolved. Since then, we have received I think two other requests from other sources, and those have been resolved. And since that resolution, nothing else has come in.

CHAIR: Knock on wood. They’re real expensive.

FIDLER: Has there been expenses involved with the ones that have come in since 2025, because of the need to hire people outside, is that why?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: There have been costs. I think there's a breakdown in here. And so the way that—and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, and giving Mr. Fidler wrong information—but the information, the request comes in, the Chair does his level best to find the records and figure out what obviously needs to be withheld. You know, this is a lawyer's opinion, stuff like that. And then, once the Chair has exhausted his resources in dealing with it, we employ a company called PrivacyWorks, and work with them to—they’re experts in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and they ensure that no information that must be withheld is disclosed. So, for instance, there might be an email that's requested, and so I'm speaking from experience now, there might be correspondence that's requested, and it's correspondence about setting up meetings. And the trustees in the course of setting up meetings, someone is like, “Oh, I can't make this particular date, my mom is having heart surgery.” That would, that could be withheld, but that might—the chair might miss that in his search. Because none of us are experts, and so we have, sort of, the experts come through and make sure that such material is correctly redacted, and that incurs costs.

FIDLER: And it's necessary to go outside to do that? That’s not work that the Corporate Officer or somebody can do?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: The Corporate Officer, in concert with the chair, can do some of that information, because some things are obvious. But there's a level of due diligence that—so sometimes, they're not required in all cases, but depending on the nature of the request or the scope of the request and the nature of the records that need to be analyzed, sometimes it’s necessary.

TRUSTEE MOHER: We've even been surprised by what's ended up being redacted.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: And just to make sure you understand the full process, so I, as a requester, might get something back that's been passed through PrivacyWorks. I still have the right then to contest those redactions, and that can sometimes lead to further costs. Because if the board directs PrivacyWorks to redact something, they'll take the board's instruction, but then that can be contested, and it might need to be released. And there can be a back and forth there that takes an odd and substantial amount of time. And then costs become necessary.

CHAIR: And then at the end of that process, when you’ve exhausted, you send in an FOI, it goes back and forth, sometimes numerous times. And the final adjudicator is the, I guess, investigator, lacking a better word, at FOIPPA, and they say, “yes, no, maybe so, done.” So it can be a long process. One of those was two years, no?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Well, a year and a half.

[video 3:32:22]

FIDLER: Thank you for that information.

FINANCIAL REPORTING

FIDLER: The next question I wanted to ask, I think the last question, and I think I’m going to direct it to the Finance Chair, Mr. Chorneyko. I may not have the numbers quite right, but my understanding is, okay… Maybe I should just explain why the question comes up. In my mind, we have a budget. The budget that you're operating on now, the money, the cash that you're operating on now, is actually, because you haven't received it for this year, except for the $100,000 you asked for ahead of time, is really the budget that was approved for 2025. That money has to last until July, the first. Correct?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO. Right.

FIDLER: Okay, so the question I have is, I haven't seen a financial report come through and be public and made it one of these meetings since, I think, November… the Corporate Officer is nodding her head.

CORPORATE OFFICER: Yes.

FIDLER: Judging from what we remember as having happened, and we tried to look it up earlier today, there was, there should be, I think, about $400,000 left, to last to, something like that, less than half a million, to last to July 1st. Now, barring any emergency that would gobble up a big chunk of that, is that money still there? Is there—What I'm concerned about, I'll just get the point here is, is there going to be enough money to pay wages and keep your lights on till July 1st?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes. There's, there's about, my best recollection is $450,000 plus $100,000 that we got advanced. So we're going about $550,000 cash on January 1st.

FIDLER: Okay.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: And my understanding is that puts us in pretty good shape till July, 3rd or 2nd, or whatever, that whenever the levy comes in.

FIDLER: Okay, because my concern came from, if I remember correctly, a comment that was made by somebody at one of these meetings, may not have been one of you, that isn the past, it has actually happened at least once, where wages couldn't be paid and people had to wait until the levy came through. I'm just concerned that that not happen again.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: We're really focusing on that, and there's more work to be done on that, but we need to be able to calculate that and fully understand what kind of cash reserves we need December 31^st in order to make it through to till the levy.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I suspect that the comment with respect to wages not being paid relates to, at the end of 2004 everybody got a raise. [corrected to 2024] At the end of 2024, everybody got a raise, and there was some delay in the implementation of that raise, rather than a delay in actual payroll. So that was spread out and dispersed,

FIDLER: Okay, and that’s not an unusual situation. Okay.

NONI FIDLER: So what about the union settlement, though? Because I saw something somewhere, I think it was in your report, Marjorie, about the backdating of the payments once the settlement is made.

CORPORATE OFFICER: That's all under negotiation, so we don’t know what that will look like yet. Or how long [unclear].

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: But to alleviate your concerns. First, we're really, I'm really focused on coming up with this and being able to have long term plans for liquidity at the end of Q2 then just before the levy comes in. But we're getting a handle on that.

FIDLER: And so you have enough access to information to be able to do that?

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Yes.

FIDLER: Thank you

---

2. QUESTION – use of overhead projector

[video 3:36:37]

 

JACQUI BRAID: I know you did mention that there was going to be an overhead put up that you guys are going to work on, so that we have something to follow along. And is that still in the works?

[unclear voices]

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It's falling through, Jacqui.

CHAIR: Well, we’ll try.

BRAID: It was just something that the board...

TRUSTEE MERCIER: One of the things that you may have noticed over the past couple of meetings is Marjorie over there with the laptop, you know, typing up the motions and things. And so I think as that process becomes more integrated into the meetings, it will be more easy to integrate the having motions as they develop up on the thing. But there's some ground to be covered, just in terms of, like, making it logistically sound, so that the meeting can proceed at the “breakneck pace!”

CHAIR:  Can I ask you what, what in particular you’re wanting?

BRAID: It's just when there's, like, there's reports and stuff, you guys are in the know, but we're all sitting here. We didn't see them.

[Multiple voices, unclear]

AUDIENCE MEMBER: When you click on the calendar, on the date, on the calendar, then you can choose to see the agenda or the full package.

BRAID: Right.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: And the full package was like another 55 pages.

[multiple voices, unclear]

CHAIR: Honestly, I wish we had, you know, been fired this way and that way, and —

BRAID: That's fine. So, like, all of the reports are in that as well?

MULTIPLE VOICES: Yeah.

BRAID: Okay.

---

3. QUESTION – access for information

[video 3:38:25]

BRAID: And my only other question was, and this is to Wayne Mercier: there has been, like in the past meetings, it's been noted a number of times that not all the trustees are getting all the information, and are you still having difficulties?

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I would describe, I would say that “all the trustees are not getting all the information” is an accurate statement, in my opinion.

BRAID: So that's still ongoing.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: I believe that to be the case.

BRAID: Okay, I would just, you know, you guys need to work all as a, as a board, and it just, it's kind of astounds me that some trustees are not provided all of the information that all trustees are. It's just a no-brainer to me. I don't understand why that should be an issue.

CHAIR: Well, we'll work it out, you know… It shouldn’t be an issue, I totally agree, but there are some extenuating circumstances, I think, if I could say that.

---

4. QUESTION – in camera agendas and reporting

[video 3:39:35]

PENELOPE BAHR: I’m thoroughly confused about the agenda for in-camera meetings, right? I can't… Can somebody tell me why Mill Bay thinks it has to be private and who—so who knows what's on that agenda? Who sets it? Who sets an agenda for an in-camera meeting?

CHAIR: I do, the chair does.

BAHR: So just yourself and the Corporate Officer are the only two that know what’s on an in-camera meeting. Have I got that correct?

CHAIR: Pretty well, unless some people—

TRUSTEE MOHER: Unless somebody sent something in.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: One of the things that's a source of difficulty for me in that respect is, I don't know how to submit an item for consideration in-camera because I don't know what's already being considered in-camera. And in my experience, it's not always easy to get an item on the agenda for public consideration, so not knowing anything about either what's slated for in-camera or what's been decided in-camera in the past, makes it difficult to engage with that process, and I find it problematic.

BAHR: So I'm just wondering why the trustees cannot trust each other to keep an agenda secret. Why is it only two people get to be trusted with keeping an agenda secret.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  That's a good question, it really is.

BAHR: It just doesn't make sense to me, because, [multiple voices interrupt] —may I just, may I just, sort of say, because when I was a trustee, and this is not big deal, but there would be times when there would be, perhaps a complaint, and one of them was an anonymous complaint, and it was on an in-camera meeting, and I didn't know about it until I turned up. And I don't think that's fair, because you should be able to know what you're being accused of, so that you can come and explain your position. So that's just a personal thing, right? So to me, not to have, not to be able to trust your Board of Trustees with an agenda... I mean, it doesn't have to, as you were saying, you know, the method, as opposed to the, what was it we were talking  about?

[?]: Notification.

BAHR: Yeah, so, you know, things are—like, it can be on an agenda without giving a lot of information, but you know, more or less, what the in-camera meeting’s about. I mean, being prepared for a meeting, coming with motions, coming with amendments, coming with ideas—that's your job. I just don't understand the secrecy of that.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: It’s problematic. It’s really problematic.

BAHR: Anyway. I just wondered what the reasoning behind it was. But basically, so an agenda for in-camera, the only people that know about it are the chair and the CO.

CHAIR: For the in-camera. Yeah, at this time that’s what’s going on.

BAHR: Because it seems to me that more people knew about how an agenda should be prepared than just the two of you.

CHAIR: Yeah, I agree, that’s something we need to talk about.

BAHR: It’s just weird. Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:  I agree, and problems that we have had, to some extent, is that in-camera meetings are not for public knowledge.

BAHR: No, they're not. You don’t know the details, but you should know what’s being discussed, I think.

CHAIR: There's just a lot of cross talk, let’s say, in the neighbourhood, and I think that's one of the things that causes, it causes the chair, whoever the chair is, and the Corporate Officer, to kind of keep things under their belt. And the other thing is that there are situations where you don't know whether you're going to, you put aside time for in-camera. We always do, but sometimes we don't have to use them, because what happens during our deliberations in here often says what's going to happen in the in-camera. You know, I think you ran into that as a trustee, though, right?

BAHR: I just wanted to know who knew? I really feel that everybody on the board should know, but that's personal opinion. Burtt has something. I’m okay.

BURTT FIDLER: Well, I just was going to offer this. You know, I worked in union work for about 30 years, and we always operated under Robert's Rules of Order. And if we went into in-camera, we might announce, usually I think, we announced what the topic was in a general way ahead of time, and reported out at the end what any decisions that were made during that time that were suitable for general membership to know. And that doesn't seem to happen here.

CHAIR: No, it doesn't. It doesn't, I don't think it's ever happened here.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: Back in September, we had an in-camera meeting and reported, I believe, six decisions that we made at that meeting, having to do with records being provided to trustees in a timely way, the accountability of trustees to staff, er, staff and trustees, and we made the decision in-camera to report those minutes, those decisions, and did so at the next general meeting. So that is possible to do.

CHAIR: So that is possible to do, but we have not done that usually, because usually a lot of the stuff we’re talking about in-camera is not for public view. It just isn’t, it’s, it—

TRUSTEE MOHER:  Until it’s resolved and/or finished or completed, when it becomes part of the document.

CHAIR:  We’ve had lots… You know, for instance, things to do, things to do with GFPID issues, HR issues, contractual agreements...

FIDLER: No, I understand that. I think the point is, if things are resolved, it would be nice to have them reported. A resolution, or just a report that a decision was made, or something was—

BRAID: Even between the trustees. You know, I don't expect to see the minutes from an in-camera meeting, but you know, your fellow trustees should be able to.

TRUSTEE MERCIER: But if you did want to see the minutes from an in-camera meeting, you could make a request for them. They're available for FOI requests, and what you get back, I published some, is redacted, but you get, in many cases, the resolution that is made. The deliberation can be withheld. There are niceties about that. You know, I have about a year of in-camera meeting minutes, redacted, from early 2023 to early 2024, but I haven’t seen any past that. And so if someone was to make an FOI request for meeting minutes—if someone was to have made a request for in-camera meeting minutes for calendar year 2024, when I got elected, you’d have them now and I still wouldn’t.

BRAID: Right. That to me is a problem.

TRUSTEE CHORNEYKO: Maybe we need to do that. Maybe that’s how we get our meeting minutes, is through FOI.

[multiple voices]

BAHR: It’s expensive!

BRAID: Seems ridiculous, though!

CHAIR: Anybody else?

[Motion to move in-camera.]

PUBLIC MEETING ADJOURNED