Councillor – HRM Departments to Review LWF AGM Details
Fall River (D2N) – Many residents of the LWFRA (Lakeview – Windsor Junction – Fall River Ratepayers Association) have been waiting for answers to questions raised following the LWF AGM (Annual General Meeting). In a Jan. 24 interview, Barry Dalrymple – Councillor of District 2 of the HRM – gave residents an update on the situation, which he said is being reviewed by various departments of the HRM.
During the Dec.6 meeting, then sitting Chairperson of the LWFRA Board – Sandra Carr – was told she must step down from her position due to technicalities of the newly passed bylaws. Carr was told the new bylaws disqualified her from remaining as Chair of the LWFRA Board, however many people complained that while Carr was told she no longer qualified to be the Chair of the LWFRA Board based upon the technicalities of the new bylaws, other people who did not qualify under the new bylaws for the same reasons Carr was disqualified, were then voted onto the Board. It was a move that did not sit well with many Ratepayers, and many immediately launched complaints about the entire proceedings of the LWF AGM. People came forth after the meeting to voice concerns about the conduct of a number of people who attended the AGM, and to ask questions about what constitutes a conflict of interest, as well as the rules of privacy as they applied to Area Rate funded programs. Questions were also raised about the qualifications of many of the newly elected Board members. The Councillor confirmed he had received a vast number of phone calls and emails from concerned residents, about the LWF AGM.
Dalrymple said he has received “many, many” calls from upset residents wanting answers. LWF Ratepayers expressed displeasure and concern regarding the events of the LWF Ratepayers meeting. However, explained Dalrymple, “the matter is not an HRM issue. It is a community issue,” he said. But whether it is strictly an HRM issue or not, something must have prompted the Municipality to look into the matter, which resulted in a meeting being held between Dalrymple and a number of departments of the HRM, on Friday, Jan. 22. Dalrymple explained the results of that meeting, and gave a brief update of the ongoing situation.
“Well, as you know, I have received many, many complaints about the LWF AGM,” said Dalrymple. “I met with a number of departments from the HRM on Friday to discuss the matter and to see if, and what, can or cannot be done. In fact, we have had numerous meetings already with the departments that will be involved in this.”
The Councillor laid out the HRM’s job, in relation to Ratepayer Boards, saying the HRM’s responsibility is to collect the money and to see it is being paid out in a legal and proper manner.
Dalrymple addressed one of the concerns expressed by residents, Area Rate Money Expenditures.
“The Treasurer has said that financial information cannot be released under the rules of Privacy. That, is absolutely false,” said the Councillor.
“We cannot say “Joe received x number of dollars at 40 hours a week. We can say, that x number of lifeguards work x number of hours and get paid x number of dollars”; that should be on the financial statement. What I can also say is, this issue has gone on for about 20 years, and hasn’t been solved yet. This Board that was brought in last year, was brought in to fix most of that and was in the process, as in bringing in new policies, registering the Ratepayers Association for the first time ever with Registry of Joint Stocks – that’s what last years Board was supposed to do. So we were in the process of fixing many things on a long, list of long-standing issues. Having said that, has this process taken some time? Yes. Will it continue to take some time? Absolutely. I think that most people understood in last years municipal election – when they were voting for me, they were voting for an ex-police officer who is very used to long, painstaking and exact investigations and processes. But they did not vote me in for fast, knee-jerk decisions, and they will not get that. They will get a thorough and detailed effort in this search for solutions.”
Dalrymple said although residents have not been aware of it, “I have had numerous meetings already. I started off with meetings with various departments, which will be involved; we have already had our first large departmental meeting, with everybody, to review this. We have come up with, actually, a series of questions that these departments need answered.”
“Unfortunately, I am not going to, I guess, haggle this out through the media, through the public,” said Dalrymple. “I have certainly read some of the comments (on district 2 news), and actually, many of them are pertinent, and well on,” he said. “But some of the comments are ludicrous and to the extreme.” Dalrymple addressed the misconception presented among the comments being made, that LWF Minor Baseball has enjoyed a cozy relationship with the LWF Ratepayers Association. The LWF Financial Report provided at the Dec. 6 LWF AGM apparently gave many people the wrong impression. It listed a payroll amount to LWF Baseball, however the paperwork failed to explain that those monies came from grants, not area rate tax dollars; thus many residents believed that the LWFRA gave Area Rate funds to LWF Baseball.
To the contrary said the Councillor “I want to dispel rumours that baseball has ever received one cent from the LWFRA. The Ratepayers have never given one penny to baseball.” Dalrmple explained that any monies LWF Baseball received, was only money that came from baseball to begin with. “There is no cozy relationship,” he said. “There is a distant relationship”.
The result of the HRM’s review of the LWF Ratepayer Association’s Annual General Meeting is still some time away. Although the HRM is looking into the situation, Dalrymple stressed the fact that the LWF Ratepayer issue is not an HRM matter. “At the end of the day, this is still a community issue,” he said.
The Councillor said the HRM departments have a series of questions to ask, “and now, we need answers,” he said. “We will be having a dialogue with some of the people involved.” (At the LWF AGM).
For any person who is not satisfied with the efforts being made to find answers, or if they are not satisfied with the end result of the HRM review of the situation, there is an option. “If somebody decided they didn’t like what took place, anybody in the community has the right to take this to a civil court,” said Dalrymple.
For those willing to wait for answers, Dalrymple said those will be made public when the investigation is completed. “When we arrive at a solution, we will let you know about it,” the Councillor said.
Thank you Barry for your hard work and for looking out for the citizens of this great community. I have been reading some of the anonymous comments posted after previous articles were published and your statement … “some of the comments are ludicrous and to the extreme”…appears to be accurate. As a community we need to stick together to protect our best interests…not point fingers at the leaders of the community who have our best interest in mind…Great effort Barry!
Our councillor has made a good start on getting to the bottom of the internal workings of the LWF Ratepayers Association. Everyone I know that knows Barry Dalrymple tells me he is an honest, sincere and hard working person.
That all aside it is interesting that Counicllor Dalrymple states “the matter is not an HRM issue. It is a community issue.” He is not the first councillor to take this approach. Gary Hines has stated on this site that he also had difficulty obtaining information on this organization when he was councillor.
On the one hand I can see that it is a community issue because LWFRA is a community organization, with the rules of the organization set by the community and the board chosen by the community at sparsely attended annual meetings.
On the other hand this body has been given the ability to tax property owners. This begs the question of whether any number of people could start a “community organization” and have as one of its mandates the ability to tax property owners. Why and how is the LWFRA the only community group with taxation powers.
In terms of how community organizations operate they should have immunity to a degree from any influence or interference by HRM. I maintain that since the LWFRA gets it funding through a property tax managed and collected by HRM it is distinct from other community groups that have not been granted taxation power by the municipality.
Mr. Dalrymple might want us to believe: ““Unfortunately, I am not going to, I guess, haggle this out through the media, through the public,” but the fact is we have already forced him to go much further than he wanted to. He might not want to have the public set his priorities for him, but guess what—we already have and we are not going away!!!
I guess I should be thanking Mr Dalrymple, and HRM, for doing this ‘review”out of the GENEROSITY of their hearts. If they have no responsibilities in this mess, as is claimed time and time again, than it can only be a generous act on their part. I would be absolutely excited if our councillor spoke with conviction that we will get to the bottom of this, that the process will be transparent, that the review will be thorough, the review will be timely, the results will be made public, and funds collected through the tax process will be frozen until the review is completed and any recommended changes/ controls/ processes are implemented.
Often things happen in the community, such as vandalism, and it is easy to say it is a community issue and the community/ parents must deal with it. But at the end of the day if the community cannot deal with it, and the issue is damaging the community, it is up to HRM to stand up and fulfill its responsibility to protect the community.
The same theory applies to a community organization, which uses the TAX SYSTEM to raise funds. Use of the TAX SYSTEM means individual community members have NO option to opt out. It also means there are big community $ at stake. Therefore it is first and foremost a community issue but when the community cannot or is prevented from getting action HRM HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, or give us the option to opt out of this TAX. The citizens are paying a TAX, the city gave the community organization the privilege to raise funds through the tax rate, and it is the city’s RESPONSIBILITY to exercise due diligence over that Community Organization.
Slowly, the city is acknowledging and accepting responsibility. It is counter productive to say, “the matter is not an HRM issue. It is a community issue”. It would be far more productive to let tax rate supported organizations know that should the organization loose the confidence of the community, should there be issues of integrity, should there be perceptions of conflict of interest, should there be concerns regarding accountability and transparency, should there be a lack of record keeping, should there be a disregard for bylaws, should there be disregard for democratic principles, then HRM IS prepared to exercise its “policing” responsibilities.
Those in power sometimes believe they can abuse their power because they conclude there is nothing that can be done to stop them. They take all the necessary steps to insure the outcome of elections, friends and relatives are used extensively on boards and at meetings to override those wanting change or answers, complaints and requests for details are blocked , informative records are scarce, individuals retain important positions for a long time, and thus they retain power. If HRM would acknowledge that organizations with taxing privileges do in fact come under their review, then the perception that “nothing can stop us” would be curtailed.
Fraud is the deliberate/ intentional misrepresentation or deception for personal gain or to damage another. If someone goes to a meeting and misrepresents himself or herself as a member when in fact they know they are not, are they committing fraud? If someone allows himself or herself to be elected as a director and they know they are misrepresenting themselves as a member, are they committing fraud? If these misrepresentations are undertaken to benefit their friend/ relative or help eliminate a threat to their friend’s power is there not deception involving personal gain or damage caused to someone. If those in charge of a meeting, knowingly, do not apply the bylaws and/or allow “outsiders” to participate as if they were members and they benefit from that misrepresentation are they not participating in a fraudulent act? If there is collusion among more than one person to carry out these actions is there not a conspiracy to commit fraud??? Many in the community have this very concern because they believe several of the above elements apply. Fraud is a crime and would belong in criminal court not civil court.
It has been apparent to many that civil court actions were/are a possibility. Many directors and those in power fail to understand their governance responsibilities and also fail to understand they can be held responsible for their failure to fulfill those governance responsibilities. The problem the citizens have is they have no investigative powers, and it is difficult for citizens to move forward to a court solution without facts. What the citizens need is information and it is the city’s responsibility to insure we get that information. The City has the leverage, the investigative powers and the investigative staff to provide that information.
So Mr. Dalrymple thank you for your generosity, but I think the community is expecting more than generosity. I think the community is expecting more than a “dialogue”. I think the community is expecting a timely, thorough INVESTIGATION, by qualified staff.
I think the citizens are putting the responsibility for action on the HRM doorstep. And given you have brought up legal action let me remind you a city can be held responsible for its (in) actions as well.
I concur with those who have characterized Mr. Dalrymple as “ hard working”. I hope his hard work will lead to results on this serious issue.
As a community we have faced 2 very significant issues recently- redevelopment of Laurie Park and the concerns of inappropriate actions at LWFRA. We have been fortunate to have Joanne Jordan’s responsible and factual reporting and her District2news community website to inform us of the issues, to give us the power to express our views and to demand better. In both situations she provided detailed reporting of the meetings and then followed up with those involved. Thank You.
Barry,you have used much sarcasm in half heartedly endorsing the work of councilor Dalrymple in seeking accountability at the LWF. I hope you understand that before Barry became elected he could smell the stench from years of lack of accountability at the LWF.It is fair to note that Barry was very instrumental in the developement of new bylaws to afford residents with accountability and has not given up on those efforts even if you don’t like the language of his stAtement regarding HRM participation in an investigation. I can assure you HRM are not acting out of the goodness of their hearts but out of Barry’s persistent efforts to have them do so. Hope to see you at the next meeting of the LWF . Your input will be very valuable if you don’t back off in the presence of the board like so many in the past.
Gary, Unfortunately I do not have access to insider information as you obviously do. I have to go by the limited comments expressed by our councillor, and having read them, several times, I have concluded what I have concluded. I stand by my conclusions!
Your comments do not really change my opinion. I CONCUR that Mr. Dalrymple is a hard working councillor. If Mr. Dalrymple had these concerns, and felt he needed more support from the community than he had ample opportunity to raise the red flags and energize the community. He chose for whatever reason to remain silent and not engage the community. Maybe, if we had been advised in advance, about the issue, about his concerns, more “members” would have been at the annual meeting. However as I understand it attendance was double the normal, so obviously some people knew about the issues.
A number of people, apparently you and Mr. Dalrymple, believe the old bylaws were the problem. Someone is going to have to prove to me that the “old” bylaws PREVENTED accountability and transparency. What did they say—The executive of LWFRA is accountable to no one and shall employ whatever means necessary to operate in secrecy. I suspect the old bylaws were not the problem. People can chose to be accountable and transparent or they can chose to hide their actions from the scrutiny of others. Such people rarely have any regard for bylaws. You were at the annual meeting were the bylaws enforced? Many there suggest they were not!!! The new bylaws were passed at the annual meeting. If the new bylaws were the solution, why do we still have a problem? Perhaps you would like to fill in the blank: Bylaws are not morally deficient, p are!!
Mr. Dalrymple said: “The Treasurer has said that financial information cannot be released under the rules of Privacy. That, is absolutely false,” Given the issues at stake, and what transpired at the annual meeting, that statement sets off alarm bells. Gary, please tell me when the Treasurer was making that statement was it a reflection of the old bylaws, was it incompetence, or was it an intentional misrepresentation, or something else. If it was the bylaws I guess the problem has been solved, because the revised bylaws have been approved. If it was one of the other two, I guess the Treasurer should resign. Gary you were at the meeting and you have inside information, so please share your thoughts with us.
Barry, the problem goes back many years when Paul Pettipas was the chair and very conveniently and effectively for him, ran a small dictatorship with control over the executive , the agenda, the spending ,the voting patterns etc to best serve his developement of Fall River Village. The bylaws were seemingly non existent and accounting was questionable and there was no transparency a way back there. Anyone who dared ask questions were treated very rudely and usually ceased to ask questions because the community let it happen. Area rates were set and money came and went as the executive saw fit. Budgets lacked only standard line items and no break down of accounts were presented.
The presidency was passed on to the former treasurer and the practices of spending with no breakdowns other than about 5 or 6 line itemsn continued . For example ,I remember one year the mowing bill for the ball fields was in the area of 5000.00 and no breakdown of providers of this service, equipment maintenance, etc were given . That year if memory serves correctly, the baseball family maintained the fields with the exception of 3 mowings by HRM contractors.At one meeting I asked for directions toward obtaining breakdowns and the chair broke down in tears . This charade has gone on without much in the line of guidelines or bylaws and that is why the new bylaws were implemented at the behest of President Sandre Carr and Councillor Dalrymple.
Have the new bylaws changed things ? Not yet ,however we have an opportunity and individuals like you need toget out so the executive selection process does not get hijacked by a stacked meeting. One problem that those of us seeking reform have had is , we have been out numbered. Also another problem is the fact that the councillor does not have authority with the board and needs tax payers support as well. A vibrant democratic movement is needed to over come the ditactorship that exists currently or the process will continue.
Gary, thank you for the back ground, I found it very informative.
I have a mental block (surprised) that I cannot get past and that pertains to: “another problem is the fact that the councillor does not have authority with the board “, because this is our tax money.
If the city really believs this the city should provide written notice to LWFRA board that this is the last year for this arrangement. In the future there would be a yearly service agreement/ contract between LWFRA and the city. The contract would only be renewable if certain standards were met for the previous year, audited and detailed financial statements, enforced bylaws at annual meeting, signed statements verifying no conflict of interests, term limits for executive and board members, signed financial statements by the executive indicating the statements meeting accounting standards.
The area councillor would automatically have a seat on the Board, but would not hold an executive seat, and would be required to sign off on the LWFRA statements indicating the organization operated with due diligence, in the best interests of the taxed community, and continuation of the service agreement is recommended.
My sense is this abuse is so ingrained that our only hope is to start over. And I think the community is of the same mindset!
Gary, do the new LWFRA bylaws provide for the membership to demand a “special” meeting. Usually such articles provide that if x number of members ( normally a small number) sign such a demand then the Chair/ President must convene such a meeting within 15 days and should that not happen the members are free to convene such a meeting without the executive and all business conducted at the meeting is binding on the executive and organization.
Barry,
I can’t answer that one .I don’t have the bylaws and depending who you ask there remains a question as to whether ratification by HRM and joint stocks has enacted the bylaws as they were passed at the meeting.
A system of secrecy, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability have allowed a number of our MLAs to abuse their power and spend money that most of us would consider inappropriate and some would consider fraud or theft. Over the years they personally benefited from some of their expenditures under the cover that there were no rules that prevented from doing this. It took an audit to uncover this.
LWFRA appears to have a duplicate system of secrecy, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. The Board has said privacy laws keep them from being open and disclosing needed information (since proven Wrong). Someday (soon I hope) we will in fact get inside those secret files and I wonder what we will find.
The MLAs did not want us to know what was happening with our tax money, and LWFRA has been less than forthcoming about what is happening with our tax money.
We now know why the MLAs did not want us to know how they spent our taxes, why does LWFRA not want us to know what is happening to our taxes!!! HRM and Mr. Dalrymple you are our version of the auditor. And we want the details published!! (Privacy laws did not prevent details from being published provincially and neither should they here!)