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!)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.