This page records public questions and answers in one place. News items are quoted verbatim and credited. Questions and answers given in meetings are usually taken from transcripts made from audio recordings, and may be edited down to remove extraneous material.
Any omissions of content, whether extraneous or unintelligible, are indicated by [...]. In some cases content may be paraphrased for clarity and conciseness, rather than using direct quotes; if this is done it will be indicated.
Unless stated otherwise, answers given in meetings of the Trustees are given by the Chair.
In general, the most recent Q+As will be first. The initial set reflects material current at the time (April-May 2025); we may "backfill" will older material as our capacities allow.
NOTE: this website has no affiliation with the Sounder News or other media sites.
Quicklinks:
Q+A: new Assistant Fire Chief position
(Meeting of the Board of Trustees, 2025-05-07)
UPDATE MAY 28/25: Sounder News, "Fire Chief requesting creation of full-time Assistant Fire Chief position"
NOTE: The Sounder reported April 2/25 that the position of an additional Captain had been proposed. This request has now been withdrawn. The Chief is now recommending creating a new Assistant Chief position. "This role would fulfill the administrative needs, including equipment and supplies management, as well as acting as a duty officer and overtime for overtime. We'd ask the trustees to consider this proposal and bring it to the next Finance Committee meeting in full." Motion presented by Chief and carried: "to have the Finance Committee review the new position requested by the Chief of an Assistant Fire Chief."
Question: I am interested in the new position proposed by the chief, which I gather is Duty Officer and administrative duties?
Answer: Yeah, they would be taking care of equipment and supplies and [indistinguishable], things like that.
Q: Duty Officer would normally be done by Captain rank, so by Assistant Chief, it makes a [...] tall command structure for a relatively small department.
A: We currently have a Deputy Chief, and then we would have an Assistant Chief. There's a lot of administrative roles in this, and the role of the officers is becoming fairly complex, with more regulations and more more obligations to fulfill. So yeah, we're considering, and we are presenting the job description to the Trustees at this time.
Q: Why not a Captain level, I mean you have an Assistant Deputy Chief...
A: Because we already have two Captains, and it just makes sense to bring up the Assistant Chief at this time.
Later, comment from floor: I understand that the proposal for the Assistant Chief position has been referred to the Finance Committee. If I understood the Chief's description of this new position correctly, it would involve a good deal of administrative work. You've just appointed an Administrative Officer. So I would just like to urge the Finance Committee to not only see the job description has the T’s crossed and the I’s dotted, but that they evaluate the real workload and the necessity for this position and whether it's being categorized correctly in terms of its level of seniority and salary.
Q+A: AGM voting
(Meeting of the Board of Trustees, 2025-05-07)
NOTES:
- The use of supplementary voting procedures for GFPID elections has been under discussion for some time—the minutes from March 2023 state, "Absentee ballots: Trustees stated no change for this year; will require a lot more time to set up"—but no changes have been implemented.
- Mail-in voting for RDN elections is mandated and regulated by the the RDN 2018 General Local Election Bylaw.
Question: A question about the AGM. [...]so many voters live off Island, right? and only are here in the summer. Is there going to be a mail in ballot for them?
Answer: No.
Q: How do they vote? Is there an advanced vote?
A: To the best of my knowledge [...], the only way you vote is day of the vote here. I believe we reviewed that when you were on the board.
Q: I know. It disenfranchises a lot of people.
Supplementary Trustee comment: I do believe that members of the board asked the RDN and other areas, and they said, it's a nightmare, for the amount of vote that you could actually get, that it is costly. I know, if I was away I’d like to vote too.
Q: That population [...] has got larger since COVID and and to me, [...] it's excluding a lot of people, but I just thought I’d ask.
Q+A: in camera meetings
Questions: (Sounder News, 2025-04-02) Can Trustees identify how any of these issues were in camera discussions? Given that none of them deal with land purchase, HR, or legal issues. Why were these not either old or new business during the regular Board meeting?
Answers: (Sounder News, 2025-04-10) Giffin said because there was a need to find out if the board could legally do either of those things [take a loan from a restricted fund or the 2025 levy], making it a legal discussion, so it was discussed in camera. As for why the board is looking at a loan, Giffin cited the costs associated with the ongoing Freedom of Information and Privacy (FOIP) requests, and the board paying the company Privacy Works to answer those.
Q+A: personal email use
(Meeting of the Board of Trustees, 2025-04-02)
Question: Can you provide an estimate of how much board business is conducted through personal private emails, circumventing the GFPID email system?
Answer: No, I can't. [...] What I will say to you is that the board is currently conducting investigations with respect to the unauthorized release of information through the email system. That's all I'm going to say. [...]
Q: [Noted examples of personal email use]
A: Was that before we had the current email setup, or after?
Q: ...certainly the most recent emails took place after the establishment of the current system, and concern coordination of human resources consultants and lawyers.
A: You're going into an area that I can't comment on. [...]
Q: Can you acknowledge that during those dates, some, I would describe it as critical business of the board, was conducted through personal email accounts of board. Is that an accurate assessment of how the business was conducted? [...]
A: I would say [...] that may have happened, but I will also say that those emails have subsequently been forwarded into the corporate officer box in the fire hall. [...]
Q: It's certainly the case, though it's no longer [...] online, that the governance report that you commissioned and accepted in 2022, and the doing-business-by-emails policy, which has also been in existence since about 2022, addressed this issue of board business being conducted through personal emails. Why is it that now in 2025 the conduct of board business through our private emails continues?
A: I think I answered that. We are conducting investigations into unauthorized release of information in the board email account. I can't say any more than that.
Q+A: video recording and Q+As
(Meeting of the Board of Trustees, 2025-04-02)
Question: […] the video recording policy. Are you going to put that up on the website?
Answer: We will get it up on the website when we can.
Question: Will it include the question and answer periods at the end of each meeting?
Answer: Always.
Question: And are they in the minutes?
Answer: [paraphrased] Based on directions from Corporate Officers to simplify the minutes, only motions and actions are recorded. (NOTE: minutes of a Trustee meeting [October 2022] indicate that a motion "To amend recording of minutes as described in Robert's Rules" was carried. Robert's Rules recommends limited, streamlined minute-taking.)
Q+A: Complaints policy
(Meeting of the Board of Trustees, 2025-04-02)
Question: Last meeting I asked you about […] your complaint policy and you told me that I was using the wrong one. I was using the GFVD one as a firefighter. So I did get a copy of your complaint policy and it states in paragraph 10 of page two that a person […] or persons who […] were named in a complaint shall be present and explain their position, after which they may be requested to leave the meeting to allow the fire chief and/or trustees if applicable to further consider the matter. My question is, you told me that you were following your policy? However, you have not. And so, why did you choose to spend taxpayer money engaging HR Consultants […] prior to having a meeting and hearing that complaint and attempting to resolve an issue at the lowest level?
Answer: Because as a result of reviewing, the complaints the board took the position that it did not want to investigate the complaint, we followed the policy that the next level of investigation would be HR. The HR person was unacceptable to those involved in the complaint. So, we hired an independent third party to investigate the complaint.
Q: I seem to recall at the beginning of this meeting that Diana spoke about making sure that you have all sides of the story […] prior to making any decision. As a board, and as the people that are elected, why did you not listen to more than one side of a story prior to using taxpayer money to engage in external resources, when something could have been resolved at the lowest level? And why did you tell me last meeting that you were following policy? When I just read your policy and that is not following your policy.
A: We followed policy.
Q: I choose to disagree. And I'm not sure how your policy that I just read is you following policy or that all seven board members have not listened to two sides of an issue.
A: The board reviewed the complaint, the board took the position that we would not investigate the complaints. I can go no further than that because it would breach confidentiality rules. So, the board took the next step. The next step was to go to the HR person. When the […] parties involved in the complaint were advised, they chose to not accept that person. So it went to an independent third party. You are correct when you read the policy, the policy refers to the board investigating a complaint. The board did not investigate the complaint. It is my understanding that those involved in the complaint all spoke to the independent investigator. An occasion occurred where one person may have spoken to the investigator more than once. So from my perspective, all parties have an opportunity to speak their piece to the investigator. As a result of that the investigator made a finding; that finding was conveyed to the parties. And here we are today.
Q: Well sir, I contend that you are twisting your policy to suit your needs, and you have wasted taxpayer money. When you could have done your actual due diligence at the board level.