Thursday, July 10, 2014

Korpan Calls Explanation 'Absolute Poppycock''

Rescinding despicable decision reconfirms abuse of power


In case you thought it couldn't get any worse than 8 out of 9 Council members being totally ignorant of the fundamental principles of the Canadian Constitution you were wrong.

In an inept effort to reverse their attack on free speech by arbitrarily banning a conference, no doubt using their apparent ESP powers to invoke pre-emptive censorship, Council made an awful situation even worse.

First, they called in the PR flacks to meet secretly to try and find a face-saving way out of their self inflicted idiocy. These sessions were not announced and if they were really Council sessions in disguise they may well violate the Local Government Act.

Then, after repealing the ill-conceived motion, instead of agreeing to the proposed independent investigation, Council refused to disclose how much all this mess has cost the innocent taxpayers. (You didn't think the perpetrators would pay their own expenses did you?)

The current Mayor stated: "Council could not release the information due to a non-disclosure agreement."  Absolute poppycock. The taxpayers are stuck with paying for all this and are entitled to know the full extent of their financial bailout.

JR promised in his 2008 election campaign to provide the "most open, transparent government (Falsely implying that my administration misused 'in camera' meeting criteria.)  Does the word hypocrite ring a bell? You are no doubt thinking of a stronger word.

PS A sincere apology to Nanaimoites would have been nice too.

Gary Korpan

allvoices

1 comment:

  1. Some comments regarding the Confidential Contract related to settlement of the Daily News/Teleconference issue. I am wondering if this claim of "Confidentiality Contract" is a loophole or if somehow the CON has taken another left turn at the right turn junction of the law. Theoretically if the CON is correct in their position then what is stopping the CON from making all kinds of side deals and calling them settlements complete with a confidentiality agreement? For example what is stopping the CON from paying say $5,000,000 bucks to the DN and then burying that in the other slush funds etc and have no accountability whatsoever. Sounds just too loose and convenient for me to swallow. Maybe it is against some legislation of some kind to have municipal governments agree to a confidentiality agreement in these types of settlements. What I'm saying is that maybe it is actually illegal for the City to enter into Confidentiality Contracts that are not supported by existing law/legislation.It would be interesting to ask Council to seek legal advice on this and report back to the public.

    If I am correct then the so called Confidentiality Contract is not valid and the facts/details must be revealed to the paying public.

    As evidence that I may not be just blowing smoke here I invite folks to read and think about the applicability of the following excerpt from a 2007 letter written by the State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government. It seems to me the same principals should apply here in Canada, British Columbia, Nanaimo.

    [In another decision, the Court of Appeals found that:
    "The Freedom of Information Law expresses this State's strong commitment to open government and public accountability and imposes a broad standard of disclosure upon the State and its agencies (see, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62 NY 2d 75, 79). The statute, enacted in furtherance of the public's vested and inherent 'right to know', affords all citizens the means to obtain information concerning the day-to-day functioning of State and local government thus providing the electorate with sufficient information 'to make intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities' and with an effective tool for exposing waste, negligence and abuse on the part of government officers" [Capital Newspapers v. Burns,67 NY2d 562, 565-566 (1986)].
    Several controversies have arisen in which agreements or settlements have included provisions requiring confidentiality. Those kinds of agreements have uniformly been struck down and found to be inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Law. In short, it has been held that a promise or assertion of confidentiality cannot be upheld, unless a statute specifically confers confidentiality.]

    ReplyDelete

Your comment will appear after moderation before publishing,

Thank you for your comments.Any comment that could be considered slanderous or includes unacceptable language will be removed.

Thank you for participating and making your opinions known.