Copyright © Alcyone Books 2016

Canadian Cataloging In Publication Data:

Varzeliotis, A. N. T. 1932 �

Czarism in Salt Spring Island

A critical review of the ways and means by which the Islands Trust, a levelof Government imposed on the Southern Gulf Islands of British Columbia,made �Bylaw No. 480 - the Salt Spring Island Riparian Area Bylaw�, a badbylaw that could not be done by democratic means.

This Book has been researched, written and published without any grant or otherassistance from any government, institution or commercial interests.

Designed by Lena Varzeliotis

ISBN 978-0-921081-11-1Printed and Bound in Canada

Alcyone Books 1985

www.Alcy.ca

Dedication:

A minute manifestation of my enormous appreciation for the Malcontents who gave us civilization.

Tom V

Table of Contents

Prologue

Part I - RAR Wars

Preface 1In Conclusion 1Recommendations 3In the Alternative 3Firing the Starting Gun 4But, What is the RAR 5But Who are QEPs? 6The Trust, The RAR and I 8

Part II - Chronicle

Preface 9Year 2010 9Year 2011 10Year 2012 - the First Quarter 20Year 2012 - the Second Quarter 29Year 2012 - the Third Quarter 34Year 2012 - the Fourth Quarter 36The Year 2013 - a RARe Quiet year 41Year 2013 - Second, Third and Fourth Quarters 43The Year 2014 44The Year 2016 46

Part III - The RAR, that with which the Trust �Yoked� Us

Introduction 48A Brief Review of the SSI 49Confessing Innocence 53Scanlan & Clarke, a Brave Couple 57The Trust Would Not Talk RAR 58Comments and Correction to the August 31 Driftwood Article 59The LTC, The Day After 61The September 23, 2016, LTC 63RAR-In-Action 64Sledgehammering a Flea, For Fun and Fees 65For the Record 66It Does Not Take Much to Silence the Trust 66What Does a Trust RAR-Licence Looks Like 67Hold the Presses! 69Making a Mountain out of a Molehill 70Trust Intransigence Or How They Did It 71For the Record 72

Part IV - Remarkable RAR Episodes

The Fritz Fiasco 73Perplexing? 75A Cosy Cuddly Evening at the Fritz 76The Submission They Censored 77Explaining the Play at the Fritz 78The Stefan Cermak Explanation Letter 78The Nichols Era and Its End 82Soliciting Public Input, Trust Style 84POP Constipation 87The April 28, 2011 RAR Information Meeting 87An Unsolicited Submission 88June 21, 22 & 23, 2011: A Public Hearing, Thrice Aborted 88A New Approach 89November 4, 2014: the Last RAR Hearing 90Sampling the Staff Reports 92Trust RAR Scholarship - A Very Funny Thing 99Affidavit of Current RARinnocence and Perpetual RARpurity 102Kris Nichols Gone AWOL from the RAR Reference Documents 103�Peer Review� Under It and Other Names in the Reference Docs 103Maps of Something or Other... Who Cares What? 103The Trust Had Ordered the Staff to Educate Us... 105RAR Likes in the Neighbourhood 107In SSI, We Suffer the RAR Epidemic... 108End of the Article - But Not of the Torture 111

Part V - Trust FOIbles

Preface - A Strong Propensity to Hide 112October 20, 2011 Cermak and I Talk RAR 112Censoring by Fake Legal Advice 116Linda Adams Attacks Eric Booth 121The Kris Nichols RARe Saga 126FOI May Help... 127Another Nichols Remuneration FOI 128Trust Lying, Again... 137April 29, 2015 138It May Be Parenthetic, But It is Mighty Important 139Trust Bon FOI 140Trust SmartAlecky 142

Part VI - RAR Submissions I Made

Introduction - Being Blasphemous 145Tom�s Funtasy 146A Four Page Town Crier 147Booth Canal 150September 23, 2011 - A Truly New RAR Start 153A truly New RAR Start 153

A RARely Serious MisMap 155Fallow Follow-ups 158Addendum - September 2016 159June 7, 2012 - A Peoples� Review of the Trust Request for Peer 161ReviewA Review of the Legal Advice on Censorship 162Three Reports 164Another Wave of Trust Censorship 167The Road to RAR... 169Requesting Agenda Correction 170RARe Tough Questions 171The Trust Would Not Talk RAR 172Let the Truth About the RAR Triumph 176Caricature Trust Meeting 177

Part VII - Trust Educational

An Afternoon at the ArtSpring Theater - May 8, 2014 182The Trust Plays RAR at the ArtSpring 183A Close Look at the Trust RAR �LitterRature� 184Infographic No. 1: �What is the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR)?� 184Infographic No. 2: �What is Riparian Area (RA)?� 187Infographic No. 3: �Timeline� 188Infographic No. 4: �Riparian Areas Proposal� 190Infographic No. 5: �Watercourses �streams� - Riparian Areas 192Scaled� Infographic No. 6: �Riparian Area Regulation� 192Infographic No. 7: �Riparian Area - Ravines� 195Infographic No. 8: �Development Permit Application Process 195For Development Proposed Within Riparian Area�Infographic No. 9: �Next Steps� 197Infographic No. 10: �Help Us Put Together the RAR 197Implementation PuzzleCelebrating Success - For The Record 198

Part VIII - Testimonials

A Comment on Ad Hominem 200Grams RAR Testimonials and More 200Grams Finds the Trust �Dysfunctional� 201�Bylaw a �Fundamental Assualt� on Local Rights and Freedoms� 203The Real Mob Shows Its Hand 205When the Shoe is On the Other Foot 207

PROLOGUEAt the end of 2014 the Salt Spring Island (�SSI�) branch of the Islands Trust, known as

the Local Trust Committee (�LTC�), adopted Bylaw No. 480, the Salt Spring Island RiparianArea Regulation Bylaw. They also made Bylaw No. 482, a twin to No. 480 applicable to PrevostIsland which comes under the jurisdiction of the SSI LTC � henceforth I shall refer to bothbylaws as �Bylaw No. 480", or simply the �Bylaw�.

The professed intent of the RAR Bylaw remains confusing, as the Trust alternatedbetween calling it an �obligation to adhere to its own Official Community Plan�, and/or to�compliance with the British Columbia Fish Protection Act� and/or �been dictated by the LocalGovernment Act� and so on. The predominant �justification� was �compliance with the�Provincial Riparian Area Regulation�. The Trust would not answer inquiries about when or whofired the starting gun for the Trust dash to RAR.

The Trust started out on the road to RAR with a �hired PRopaganda gun� to do the dirtywork for them so they could remain RAR blemishless and, therefore, RAR blameless. Thisraises serious doubts about the Trust assertion that love for the fish was the propellant thatdrove them to the RAR. They moved increasingly surreptitiously for they quickly felt the need tohide what was fast piling up and which was unsightly. They reacted vehemently to public inputand this while the RAR is a draconian imposition of serious and widespread consequence toIslanders. Oblivious to public interest, they cast the RAR net wide to ensure that virtually allIslanders are caught in it.

In this book, I relate my first-hand knowledge, the result of observing closely the Trust onthe way to the RAR. There is no hearsay in this book. Moreover, virtually everything I have putin it, I have run through the Trust mainly in the form of �public submissions�, all of which theTrust answered uniformly by censoring them and then censoring their act of censorship to hideit all from the people. I have been so open with them that I can state that nothing in this book would surprise the Trust.

My purpose in bringing out this �book-report� on the RAR is to lay before the public andthe government of British Columbia substantive aspects of the SSI LTC Bylaw 480 and itsimposition, which the Trust has gone to great pains to hide. Indeed, the extremes to which theTrust went to obfuscate the way they did the RAR gauge the importance of exposing it.

Moreover, at this point in time, (Year-end of 2016) we, the people of Salt Spring are at aserious cross road as we consider whether to incorporate the community into a municipality orremain with the Trust status quo. This process is like a divorce which is not necessarily a pursuitof bliss, but often an ending of a hopeless regime. We need all the facts of the matter bothabout the Trust and the alternatives � yes, plural. I hope this book proves helpful in making thedecision on the future of our Island.

The Parts of the Book

In �PART I � RAR Wars� I introduce the RAR and present the gist of my deductionsfrom observing the ways and means by which the Trust did the RAR and ponder what came outof it. The process was characterized by intrigue and deception and was met with strong publicreaction. The Islands Trust spent freely from the public purse and deployed a long array of�dirty tricks� to push the RAR through against the public will. The bylaw that came out of that

process reflects well what the men and women of the Trust involved in that project put into itsmaking... In less elegant but stronger terms, Bylaw 480 conforms to the �Garbage in, garbageout� adage.

In essence, PART I is a short version of the Book, presenting the �Conclusions andRecommendations� usually found at the end of this type of report.

Perhaps I should mention that PART I is substantially an �Excerpt� from the book whichI released to the SSI LTC on May 14, 2015, in the hope that the Trustees and the Staff couldtake a look at what they were doing to this society and would master what it takes to re-think theRAR. They did not even acknowledge receipt of the document much less thank me. Indeed,after I spoke to �Excerpt� at the LTC meeting, Chairman Luckham insinuated that I was trying toget the Trust to sell my book!

In �PART II � Chronicle� I trace the Road to RAR that the Trust took us for a ride on. Istart in late 2010 when the Trust retained a consultant, Kris Nichols, and charged him with thetask of selling the RAR to us. This unusual approach was to keep the Trust immaculate in theeyes of the people and to bring in an �independent� persuader with the skills to convince thepeople that RAR was imposed by the Provincial Government, and that the Trust was simplyplaying Moses bringing to the masses the Tablets from Heaven.

I relate chronologically the mileposts on the Road to RAR with some commentary,leaving spectacular flare-ups of Trust ineptitude and sinistri for later, to relate them individually,for they are stories on their own and together make up a high definition portrait of the IslandsTrust, in addition to explaining how this RAR was forced on us. Several of these flare-ups areamusing, too!

In �PART III � The RAR, that with which the Trust �Yoked� Us� I explore, the RAR asit came to be and expose aspects of it the Trust systematically hid from the people during themaking of the RAR and in its deployment since the beginning of 2015. Things such as the�Affidavit For Properties Not Subject to the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation�, asthey call that infamous �Affidavit of RAR-Innocence and Affirmation of Perpetual RARcelibacy�, which they push in the face of Trust �captive customers�.

In �PART IV � Remarkable RAR Episodes�, I describe significant milepost-events onthe road to Trust RAR. It is kind of an album of snapshots of extraordinary vistas from the trip towhere the Trust has brought us. It is painful to leaf through the album but this underlines thevalue it has � pain is the alarm system nature embedded in living creatures to facilitate survival. But, it too, has a silver lining, it being that some of the episodes are ridiculously funny.

In �PART V � Trust FOIbles� I sample �plays� the Trust staged to evade the Freedom OfInformation Law. The Trust operates in secrecy so much that their Coat of Arms ought toinclude �In Hiding We Trust�, or some other pun like that. However, true to its credo the Trusthides its coat of Arms, too!

In �PART VI - RAR Submissions I Made� I present a sampling of the many submissionsI made to the LTC. I include a 4-page flyer about the RAR, done by other publicly-mindedcitizens and which contributed substantially to spreading awareness about the RAR. Spaceconsiderations prohibited me from bringing all the public submissions I took to Trust about theRAR and which the Trust curtained from the public eye to prevent discussion and evade debate.

The ferocity with which they suppressed information manifest the magnitude of themalfeasance they were engaging in when doing the RAR.

In �PART VII - Trust Educational� I review briefly the �public events� the Trust stagedostensibly to obtain public input, as obligated to do by the Local Government Act. I focus on thetwo most prominent ones, the November 21, 2012 Fritz Fiasco � �Popcorn and Poppycock� andthe May 8, 2014 ArtSpring �Cheese and Sweet Talk� PRopaganda events. These speak reamson the Trust determination to deceive.

�PART VIII - Testimonials� is lots of fun to read, but is of utmost significance becauseshowcases a very serious problem of modern day governance. It exposes the transformation ofpublic service-minded citizens who seek to help the society govern itself, only to metamorphoseinto tools of the bureaucracies and instruments to be used by the bureaucrats to prevail uponthe people. Showing some articles Trustee George Grams wrote about the RAR and the Trustin 2011, just before becoming a Trustee, illuminates how Power Corrupts ...

This work leads to a deduction that the RAR Bylaw # 480 (and # 482) should be tossedfrom the books of the Trust. And more than that, it is an alarm that should bring us together toreconsider the adequacy of the �checks and balances� we have built into our governancesystem. Because if those whom we entrust to manage the affairs of our society get away withconducting themselves as the Trust did with the RAR, nothing is sacred and no one is safe.Which means we must fix it � for the sake of the Future.

And that is the Book. Don�t cry much, laugh a bit, have some fun for we shallovercome...

Tom Varzeliotis, SSI 2017.

PART ONE � RAR WARS CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR BASES

Preface

Here I present the Conclusions I arrived at after six years of close observation and analysisof the Islands Trust making, imposing and administering the Salt Spring Island Bylaw No.480, theRiparian Area Regulation Bylaw. And the Recommendations I make for ridding ourselves of the�yoke the Trust put on our neck�, which is as Trustee Grams called the RAR before collaring uswith it.

This is a succinct presentation intended for people-in-a-hurry. For those who need acomprehensive rendition of the imposition of the RAR on us, the people of SaltSpring Island, Ihave written the other PARTS of this Book.

Wish I possessed the imagination it would take to author some of the amusing parts of thisbook. The ultimate test of humor is the potential of the story to elicit a smile from people in pain �the Trust has met this test by acting in ways ranging from the hilarious to ridiculous. The dark sideof this cloud been that the Trust caused pain that requires a laugh to endure...

In Conclusion

1. Numerous pivotal ways and means by which the Trust enacted the RAR bylaws No480 are illegal and unethical;

2. As enacted, these are Bylaws of Mass Confiscation (�BOMC�) of citizens� propertyand a perennial tax on peoples� well-being; and they are instruments ofconveyance of power and wealth to a given group of people with the attendantconsequence to society.

3. The RAR Bylaw 480 delivers substantial control over the property of at least 1,544 (Trust figure, highly under-estimated) SSI island citizens to a group of peopleknown as Qualified Environmental Professionals, empowering them to, in effect,�sell licences� to people in need of regaining some use of their property, or the partof their property clawed away from them and turned into RARland.

4. Qualified Environmental Professionals is a loosely defined �trade�, as contrasted tothe �learned professions� which have been established along the road in the marchof civilization through the eons, such as the Medical, Legal, and EngineeringProfessions, which are governed by traditions reaching to the Fathers of Civilization� Hippocrates, Solon, Archimedes...

5. The Fish Protection Act (�FPA�) and the RAR require decisions on �riparian� areausage to be made on a �scientific basis�. This clashes with delivering theadministration of the law to QEPs due to them not being �scientists�. QEPs are not

1

necessarily skilled above the �technician� level, and accordingly they are not in aposition to do �scientific assessments�.

6. The RAR Bylaw 480, as it now stands, will result in what the FPA professes toprevent. Worse yet, this Bylaw will affect a substantial collateral cost to society.This because it steals peoples rights, passes them to a group of people and forcesthose from whom the rights were taken to buy them back, which is akin to paying a ransom. And because it relieves the Trust bureaucrats from the essentialaccountability to society by enabling them to say �the QEP made us do it!�.

7. Since the Bylaw as it now stands empowers the QEPs to sell and forces us to buyfrom them relief from the RAR, the QEPs will compete with each other on the basisof how efficiently they can deliver relief to their prospective clientele rather than howeffectively to protect fish. Who pays the piper calls the tune, it is human nature.

8. Our society�s dedication to the proposition that we are and remain innocent until weare proven irrefutably guilty in the eyes of the people comes into play too. This isbecause, living under the RAR, we will have to buy �absolutions� from the QEPand/or swear �Affidavits� before a Lawyer or a Notary Public affirming that we are�innocent as NOT charged� and commit ourselves to remain RAR pure and innocentforever after.

9. The RAR, as it now stands, is bare of counterweights to induce responsibility on theQEPs and/or the Trust bureaucrats; simply said, the RAR bylaw includes no checksand balances.

10. The RAR Bylaw, in its majestic equality, bundles the gardeners of radishes and theberry pickers with the manufacturers of fertilizers and pesticides, the timberharvesters, the mineral extractors ... It revives the scene Anatole France painted forus:

�The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleepunder bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.�

11. The RAR, as it now stands, lacks a pragmatic facility for dispute resolution betweenApplicants, QEPs and/or Trust Planners.

12. Bylaw 480 is a pitifully worded document, so much so that this aspect suffices byitself to render it an �instrument of tyranny�. The wording is foggy as if specificallydesigned to ensure mass �ignorance of the law�. And it correspondingly fostersarrogance on those who are to administer it. It is thereby bound to proliferate theTrust�s attitude: �We screw you and if you do not like it, get yourself a good lawyerand go to Court praying all the way for a sympathetic judge�. This Bylaw is all overthe map, so to speak...

13. Euphemisms aside, Bylaw 480 affects property expropriation, albeit partial, in thesense that it confiscates usage of property. It is also partial in the sense that itpenalizes a part of the population ostensibly for the benefit of the whole society.

2

This makes it appropriate, or imperative, that the resulting expropriation-without-compensation be addressed in a court of law, perhaps by a class action.

14. There is no impact study done, or shown to the public, of the effects of RAR on theoverall well-being of the islanders, the economy of the island or the future of thepeople.

15. There is no impact study of the effects of the RAR on the well-being of the fisheither.

16. Let�s us not loose sight of the forest for the trees � if the Trust RAR was good, andif the Trust had honest intentions, �they� would not have resorted to illegal andunethical ways to impose it upon us. The means do identify and characterize theend, but do not justify it...

The above leads to the conclusion that the SSI RAR Bylaw 480, as it now stands, is a �bad bylaw� and in need of re-thinking on a Zero Basis. A RAR Bylaw, if indeed one is needed,must be reasonable and endurable to the majority of the people who I strongly believe are notmasochists. If it is shown that the fish need protection from us, the islanders as distinct from�industrial and commercial� entities, we can devise a bylaw that does that, a bylaw that is not �anass� in the sense Charles Dickens used the word and a pain in the ass, in contemporary parlance.

Recommendations

1. Rescind SSI RAR Bylaw 480.

2. Obtain a legal delineation of the obligations imposed upon the SSI �local� government by the BC FPA. Publicize it and honestly invite public input in atransparent, truly democratic way to a reasonable bylaw.

3. If the need arises, petition the BC Government to relieve us from any FPA provisionthat is too onerous and/or against the interest of the SSI society, as determinedthrough public input. Solicited relief may be affected by modification, removal, orexclusion from current RAR-imposed obligations.

4. Apprise the public of the RAR imposed obligations, as they may evolve, and call thepublic to the podium for a debate of the matter with a view to making a decent SSIRAR Bylaw.

In the Alternative, and/or In Addition

5. Make an ad hoc branch of the Ideas Bank to receive ongoing public input on thesubject of the RAR in general and the performance of Bylaw 480, in particular, sothat the people may expose and debate the issues.

This process is commonly referred to as �democracy� and is deemed by the majority ofhumans to be the best known way to arrive at an optimum solution.

3

Firing the Starting Gun

It was on January 14, 2011, that the Trust let the people know about their hitherto secretplan to do a version of the RAR on Salt Spring Island. It was the first meeting of the last year inoffice of that Local Trust Committee composed of locally elected Trustees George Ehring andChristine

Torgrimson and chaired by Sheila Malcolmson, then Trustee for Gabriola Island, who wasalso chair of the Trust Council and almost everything else Trust. She was parachuted to SSI by theIsland Trust for six years to oversee the �local� trustees and ensure the security of the �interests�of the Trust on the Island which contains 40% of the population of the Trust �republic�.

Being near the end of their term, the Trustees sought to do the RAR on their way out. Wedo not know whether they wanted RAR to be their legacy or whether they were driven by the Staff.We do not know either whether it was the RAR that ended their career by signaling defeat at thepolls if they were to run again. What matters most is that both the Trustees and the Staff wereaware that the RAR was a very bitter pill and accordingly it was hard to push it down the throat ofIslanders.

Anticipating public resistance, the Trust retained a PRofessional consultant to do their dirtywork. At that January 14, 2011, LTC meeting Trustee Ehring introduced Kris Nichols, RARconsultant, and spoke of the RAR. Ehring �explained� that doing the RAR was dictated to the LTCby the Provincial Government and assured us that Nichols would make it all nice and easy for us. Iwas there and I felt that Ehring was seeking to soften the target for the attack by exalting the RARand assuring us that it was void of evil.

Ehring was not economical with assurances that it would not hurt us. After the RAR isdone, he said with a straight face, we, the people of SSI, will be able to do what we now can do, bygetting a �report� from a Qualified Environmental Professional (�QEP�) and taking it to Trust � thatis all there is to the RAR, he said.

This last aspect was the final blow. Either the LTC could not understand the magnitude andthe significance of what they were doing, or they were true believers, thinking of us as too dumb tounderstand the goodness of an additional layer of government, contracted out, to boot, to theQEPs.

Kris Nichols partook in the next eight LTC regular meetings reading reports he wrote. Buthis were not rousing words and did not cause a bandwagon effect for the RAR. He just could notinduce the public apathy that would allow the Trust to sneak the RAR by us. Eventually, in June ofthat year, Nichols and the LTC attempted the mandatory public meeting for the RAR, whichresulted in what they had tried very hard to avoid.

The event was aborted thrice, due to �unprecedented public interest� as they put it, and to asevere shortage of public apathy, plenty of which they needed and had been paying for andpraying for but which they were denied by the �Force�. Faced with the public ire, the LTCsurrendered and in retreat they blamed their defeat on us, the people, being incapable ofunderstanding the goodness in that RAR. Compassionate as they were, the LTC passed five

4

resolutions ordering the Staff to �educate� us, to prepare us for la prochaine fois. They praised,thanked, paid and relieved Nichols of his commission.

At that time, it took several Freedom of Information (�FOI�) access requests of which I willmention two - the one by me - for the Trust to misinform us that the money they had wasted onNichols was about $50,000. Nothing to sneer at any rate, but this is only half of the true figure. Four years later, after another FOI access request and with difficulty akin to extracting teeth from alive crocodile, I obtained the cost of the Kris Nichols contribution to the failure of that RAR thrust asbeing in the order of $100,000 taxpayers� dollars! Evidently the figure they gave me this timearound is not true either � the Trust just would not tell the truth about it...

The Trust Staff ignored the LTC order to educate us on the lovely RAR. They laid low toawait the Trust elections of November 2011. As it turned out, the election result was a serious blowto the Trust, not entirely but substantially attributed to the way they attempted to do the RAR. Onthe aggregate, the �reform the Trust� candidates gathered 85% of the vote and the lone Truststatus quo candidate got 15%!

Regrettably the newly elected Trustees, Peter Grove and George Grams, did notappreciate early warnings about the intransigence of the Trust bureaucracy and theyunderestimated the strength of its resolve to get the RAR done. The Trust bureaucrats exploitedthe then new Trustees� substantial personal credibility and public confidence so as to push theRAR through. They over-succeeded where Nichols, the �specialist�, had failed. The failure of the�Trustees for Change� is a feather in the cap of the believers in the adage: �If elections couldchange things, then they would have been abolished�...

I will not discuss the faults of that adage here, but I will expose the outcome from a processwhere bureaucrats conducted themselves in the very way we elect �representatives� to guardagainst them behaving...

The product reflects its genesis. That the Trust found it necessary to trample democracy fordoing it is well reflected in Bylaw 480. The shortage of merit of that RAR bylaw measures theimpropriety of the ways and the means by which the Trust made it and imposed it upon us. ThatDemocracy would not let them do it, illuminates the eternal and universal human quest forDemocracy.

But, what is the RAR? Do not listen to the Trust...

�What is the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR)?The Riparian Area Regulation (RAR), enacted under Section 12 of the FishProtection Act in July 2004, requires local governments to protect riparian areasduring [sic] residential, commercial and industrial development [sic] byensuring that proposed activities adjacent to fish bearing streams are subject to ascience based assessment conducted by a Qualified EnvironmentalProfessional (QEP) [sic]. The Islands Trust Committee is currently reviewing [sic]how best to implement [sic] RAR into through its development permits areas.�(Emphasis added)

5

This is the definition of RAR according to Islands Trust. Irrespective of the motives of itsauthor, this suffices to declare its author, the Trust, unfit to do the RAR. I would like to elaborate.

It neither identifies nor reproduces the Section of the RAR allegedly compelling the Trust todo the RAR. The RAR does require Local Governments to protect the fish, but that isunderstandable. I found that much myself but I found nothing commpelling Local Governments likethe Trust to spend quarter of a million dollars to do a RAR bylaw, like the Trust did, ostsibly tocomply with the RAR. This is accentuated by the four year long Trust refusal to divuldge theobligation imposed upon them to do the RAR � they just kept on chanting the mantra about havingbeen told to do it...

Next check out the clever wrapping into the RAR the �residential� with �commercial andindustrial� development. The Trust is out to mislead society into believing that RAR is to protect usfrom the big bad guys, the likes of those who �silenced� Rachel Carson�s spring; and to divert ourattention away from the RAR suppressing the aspiring broccoli gardener, and those who need toadd a room to their home to accommodate an expanding family; and to obfuscate the imposition ofanother layer of government for us to endure forever. This is like the RAR promoters calling butterflies �raptores�, or passing an oil pipeline for a garden hose.

Next take in the lie about the RAR being a temporary inconvenience to endure �duringdevelopment�. RAR victimization is not a temporary inconvenience, it is a burden forever.

The reference to RAR affecting �proposed activities adjacent to fish bearing streams� isalso misleading. According to Bylaw 480, the RAR envelops all �watercourses� including �drywatercourses� and �watercourses� which may be in the view of QEP a �potential fish habitat�!

The requirement that �a science based assessment [of a proposed use of land must be]conducted by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP)� reveals the secret agenda of theRAR bylaw: it delivers the society to the QEPs, boosts the finances and the power of the Trust anddiminishes or eliminates Trust personnel accountability. RAR is killing many birds with one stone ...

But who are QEPs?

Enormously fuzzy is the RAR description of the �science based assessment� through whichcitizens may obtain some relief from the RAR. The SSI RAR sets no criteria, draws no lines, givesno direction or indication on the �science� it expects � that is to say, except decreeing that this�science� must be done by Qualified Environmental Professionals and must be paid for by the�applicants for projects�, as if the owners of the land had brought the RAR upon themselves! Essentially, as written, the RAR compels citizens wishing to get some use from their land to searchfor a QEP willing to pronounce the project benign for the fish, purchase a report from him or herand take it to the Trust for the rest.

But who are the QEPs?

The �Professional� on their title may denote that they are �doing it for money� as contrastedto doing it �for pleasure�. A cobbler, a ditch digger and a candle maker can be �professional�trades-people. But they are not necessarily �professionals� as per the definitions of the dictionary,to wit:

6

�Professional is a practitioner of an occupation, such as law, medicine, orengineering, that requires considerable training and specialized study.� (TheAmerican Heritage Dictionary)

The split meaning of �professional�, that of �employed-in�, as contrasted to members of a�highly skilled occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering� is confusing.

�A Sc T� stands for �Applied Science Technologist�. This is substantially at variance withthe �A. Sc� which is often used in a university degree to distinguish an �applied� scientist from a�theoretical� scientist, the former being trained to know and implement science, the latter trained toknow the science, in broad terms.

An Applied Science Technician or Technologist, or �A Sc T�, is qualified to become amember of the �Applied Science Technologists & Technicians of BC� Association, which has thefollowing requirements:

�Technologist and Technician Certification Basic Requirements

Applicants for certification and registration as an Applied Science Technologist (AScT) orCertified Technician (CTech) under the Applied Science Technologists & Technicians Act &Regulations of British Columbia require post-secondary education qualification and relevantwork experience. The minimum education required for AScT certification is a Diploma ofTechnology (2 or 3 years) from a nationally accredited program or equivalent. Theminimum education required for a Ctech certification is a Certificate (1 or 2 years) from anationally accredited program or equivalent.�

�Post-secondary education qualification� is not necessarily university level education whichis essential for entry in a �learned profession�. In a word, a QEP has skills in parallel to those of alaboratory technician, surveying technician and people in other occupations existing to supportpractitioners of the learned professions. Even Registered Nurses who are university trained do notdecide whether to do an operation such as knee or hip replacement, removal of an appendix andso on - this is the precinct of a physician; a surveying technician, similarly, cannot exercise theduties of a BC Land Surveyor; ditto for a �legal assistant�, a �dental assistant�, a �bookkeeper� andso on.

This is not to detract from the importance of people working in such positions. They areindispensable in the practice of their respective fields. However, by definition, there is a substantialdifference of knowledge, responsibilities and other facets of practice between the Technician andthe Professional.

In the instance of RAR, water is the fish habitat and education in the various aspects ofApplied Fluid Mechanics, Engineering Hydraulics if you will, is therefore essential to understandingassociated concerns. And so is the ability to determine instances that practitioners from otherdisciplines are to be called into the decision making process.

Marine Biology is also a complex science and the skills that go into making a MarineBiologist are not necessarily possessed by persons who may become QEP.

7

These are demanding scientific disciplines and it is inappropriate to give persons with onlybasic training responsibility to administer the Fish Protection Act and exercise control over whatowners can do with their freehold property, or part of property that by a rule of thumb, is clawedinto the RAR.

More than that really. That land, even if �immediately adjacent� (the expression taken froma SSI LTC RAR document) to a body of water is not necessarily critical to the fish population, oreven �potentially important� to the fish. To decide whether it is or not is a serious matter and thedecision should be made accordingly.

To take so much property as the RAR claws in and make it the domain of any group ofpeople is imprudent. Much more so when the parameters of the task are not clearly delineated;and yet more so because the skills of the QEP are not compatible with the task.

It is like having the cabin stewards fly the airplane...

The Trust, the RAR and I

I fought the RAR because I saw the Trust proceeding about it deceptively and because theRAR is a matter of serious consequence to all islanders. My efforts and those of other citizens fordesigning a reasonable bylaw were vociferously fought by the Trust. They abused the powersentrusted in them to serve society as they unabashedly deployed power in lieu of reason and wentfar to suppress the expression of views contrary to �their�own. They managed to stifle meaningfuldebate and to contain discussion of the RAR within tightly controlled bounds of theinconsequential.

I persevered, but power prevailed over reason; at least it has thus far. What happened isreally exactly what democracy exists to prevent. In this work, I will relate events in some detail, formany of the actions of the Trust are so far out of the ordinary that most people would not believesuch can happen in Canada.

Perhaps I should mention that among the numerous papers I submitted to the Trust callingon them to consider a less painful RAR than what they started with is a 42-page Report titled �TheCensors of Salt Spring Island - August 2012". As it was revealed by a slip of the tongue two years later, the Staff of the Trust had censored that Report from the Local Trustees. I am flattered by thisrecognition of the potency of my work, but on the other hand, I lament the suppression of itspurpose by the tRust. And I lament the failure of the LTC to hold the Staff accountable for that.This is one of many submissions on the RAR that the Trust suppressed.

For those who may not read the whole book at hand I moved the �Conclusions andRecommendations� up front, supporting each with some basic reasoning. This I follow with ananalysis of the RAR Bylaw 480 which is the �sinistri-child�, as contrasted to a �brain-child�, of theIslands Trust. Following these, for those who endure, I relate the inappropriate ways and meansby which the �Trust�s Deception Squad� (I made the name up) managed to saddle us with theirversion of the RAR.

8

PART TWO � CHRONICLE � THE SSI RARPreface

In PART TWO I trace chronicle style the road to RAR the Trust dragged us through. Itstarted in late 2009 with the Trust being on the lookout �for new Areas to regulate byDevelopment Permit� and discovering the RAR. The process ended in early 2015 when theTrust �yoked� the people of Salt Spring with the RAR. Incidentally, �yoke� is how George Gramscharacterized the RAR before becoming Trustee and an accomplish in the �yoking� us with it.

In late 2010, Regional Planning Manager (�RPM�) Leah Hartley secretly retained a Mr.Kris Nichols to sell the RAR to us. He debuted on the LTC stage at the first meeting of 2011,introduced by then Trustees George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson. By Midyear 2011, thepeople rose against the RAR and the LTC relieved Nichols of his command, halted the RARadvance and recoiled, ordering the Staff to �educate� us on the RAR to make us manageable fora new RAR round.

The second RAR round commenced soon after the November 2011 election. The newlyelected Trustees did not make any effort to understand the RAR and see why the people hadreacted as strongly as they had and stopped it. Instead they dove headlong into it making theRAR a priority, as if dead fish were covering the shores of Saltsping.

The Staff steered the new expedition underground but this proved problematic becausethe LTC meetings were video recorded as the Trustees were making a half-hearted, short lived, attempt at �fulfilling� the electoral commitment they had made to institute open governance. Thepresence of the camera impeded seriously the Trust�s drive for the RAR, not unlike light does tothe dam-construction activities of the beavers. The Trust reacted violently againstdemocratization by brutally censoring irreverent citizens who made noises against the officialTrust line.

Not surprisingly, the censoring evoked strong public and media reaction. The Trustanswered it by ceasing video-recording the LTC meetings, thereby providing for the Trust to dothe RAR by stealth. Trust censorship became rampant, silencing voices of dissent and facilitating pushing the RAR to completion, virtually �underground�.

I report the chronological mileposts on the Trust Road to RAR with limited commentary,leaving some of the spectacular flame-outs to relate individually in PART III so that the readersmay appreciate the tragically funny events that resulted in the SSI RAR, and in turn, made mewrite this work.

But, let�s start...

Year 2010

November 15:

SSI RPM Leah Hartley retains Kris Nichols to do the RAR in SSI.

9

Year 2011

January 14:

The SSI LTC, 2008 � 2011 vintage, held its first meeting of its last year in office. ThatLTC was composed of local Trustees George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson, and waschaired by Sheila Malcolmson. The latter was elected Trustee in Gabriola Island and wasparachuted into the SSI LTC to oversee the Trust hegemony over Salt Spring Island. TrusteeTorgrimson opened the show. She called on us to be �positive and constructive� in ourcomments to the work of the Trustees. Although she was not explicit, one should take heradvice as being primarily directed at preparing us for the RAR ride on which they were about totake us.

Then came Trustee Ehring. He spoke about the RAR, drumming up its benevolenceand assuring us that it would save the fish without hurting us. He crescendoed his performanceby introducing a Mr. Kris Nichols, a �RAR specialist consultant�, whom the RPM had retained acouple of months earlier (we found out later) to do the RAR in SSI. Then Ehring called onNichols to start the RAR ball rolling.

Nichols had ready his first Report to the LTC and, by extension, to society. He broughtus his authoritative determination that we had to do the RAR, because, he said, the Governmentin Victoria decreed that Salt Spring Island must do it. He followed that with seven more reports,the last of which he delivered at the July 7, 2011, LTC meeting.

After he delivered his last report, Nichols received accolades from the LTC for hisprofound work on the RAR, which had just ended in utter failure for the Trust RAR. The total billfor the Nichols efforts to trap us into RAR came to a whooping $100,000 - the figure beingestimated on the basis of what the Trust �answered� in response to several FOI accessrequests. And that was not the end of it, nor was it the end of Nichols association with the Trust.

The eight Nichols Reports, each costing the Taxpayers some $12,000, have goneAWOL from the Trust archives. My requests for access to them in the course of writing this workwere answered with deafening silence by the Trust. And, of course, there is no word aboutNichols� or mention of his Reports in the �RAR Reference Documents� which the Trust postedon its website, after making the RAR a fait accompli, of course. Hence, I am relying on theMeeting Minutes for the footprints left by Nichols and the content of his reports.

According to the Minutes, in his first Report, January 14, 2011, Nichols informed the LTCthat:

* Implementation of the Riparian Area Regulations is required by provinciallegislation.

* There is distinction between all 24 watersheds and eight �drinking waterwatersheds�.

* It is important to consult with others to ensure that the OCP is not interfering withothers� legal rights to manage drinking water.

10

* The watershed approach was prefaced with the notation that all water coursesmay not be exactly as indicated on the mapping and that a clause such as�notwithstanding the areas identified on Map X, the actual developmentpermit area will in every case be verified and measured on the ground orthrough definitions by defining a stream as including �watercourseswhether mapped or unmapped� along with the RAR definition.� (Emphasisadded)

This last aspect was a catch-all-measure intended maximize the market for the QualifiedEnvironmental Professionals and to ensure that no conceivable RAR suspect escapes theTrust�s RAR fangs.

February 10:Kris Nichols delivered his second report. What did he say? According to the TrustMinutes, here is what he recommended the LTC do. The LTC did it!

�Incremental DPA Review UpdatePlanning Consultant Nichols presented a Staff Report dated February 3, 2011. The Trustees provided some suggestions regarding the draft Landowner�s Guide.

1) the SSI LTC directs staff to continue with the Environmental DPAReview and public consultation process

2) that the SSI LTC directs staff to meet with the Environmental andPlanning Advisory Committees during the day on February 24,2011;

3) that he directs staff to hold additional meeting4) that the SSI LTC directs staff to amend the draft Landowner�s

Guide...�

As far as I can imagine, it says that the $12,000 spent on the Consultant for that reportsaved us from the consequences we would have faced if the Staff had somehow discontinueddoing what they had been doing... What a blessed relief that was!

Incidentally, I did not know the Trust had a Communications Specialist. I presume therevelation was inadvertent because, in the ensuing three years, the communications specialisthas not made his/her existence known, for the Trust dispensed �information� though randommouths.

February 23 & 24:

On February 23 and 24, 2011, the Trust staged two RAR �Public Fora� - one in Gangesand the other in Fulford. We, hoi polloi, were invited to go and be �educated� on the RAR. Planners would be available to answer our questions on a one-on-one basis. Then, after thestaff had warmed us up, we would be lectured ex cathedra by a big gun. I attended the Gangesevent at the Harbour House Hotel but only for a short time. All of my questions about the RARproject were answered uniformly with: �We are working on this�.

This type of �public� meeting is designed to intercept and �privatize� public commentspotentially harmful to the cause of the organizers. The method is attuned to creating a mirage of

11

transparency where openness is due but denied. The �dynamics� of that type of public meetingis to �divide, rule and hide�. The people individually or in small groups are �educated� andpersuaded by the trained �leader�. Many of the �innocent� are won over this way to the side ofthe organizers.

The main feature of the procedure is defusing potent adversaries of the organizers. Thetough questions are drawn in to be dealt with �privately� away from the reach of the public ear,thereby stifling debate and handicapping democracy, for democracy cannot function beyondreach of the public eye and ear.

I elected to move on and left the meeting. I report more on that meeting and the publicinput sought and obtained by the Trust elsewhere in this book.

March 3:

Kris Nichols delivers his third �Staff Report�. Here is what he reported on, as per theMinutes:

�14.2 OCP Review � Environmental DPA Review UpdatePlanning Consultant Nichols presented a Staff Report dated February 23, 2011that reviewed the various public meetings and consultations which have takenplace in recent weeks. A draft brochure has been prepared and the website iscurrent.�

This is not serious stuff. But there is something very significant that happened at thatmeeting and found its way into the Minutes, apart fron the Nichols news. It reads:

�Regarding implementation of the Riparian Area Regulations, the Trustees expressedinterest in streamlining the process and asked if staff could be trained to do apreliminary screening to advise if a Qualified Environmental Professional isneeded.� (Emphasis added)

It was Trustee George Ehring who raised the issue and deserves credit for that. But hemust also be held accountable for failing to stand up to the Staff and make them include that inthe then budding RAR Bylaw � but he did not persevere and the Staff killed it ... Incidentally, Iraised this issue myself with Trustees Grove and Grams, who automatically failed silent ...

That Trustee Ehring made the suggestion in the first place indicates that he may hadrecognized that the welfare of the fish was a secondary concern of those who were pushing theRAR on us and the the primary objective of the RAR was the welfare of the QEP industry.

Nevertheless, this is of utmost significance: The failure of the Staff and/or Nichols torespond is of enormous consequence to the people of SaltSpring on the one side and a greatgain for the QEP and the Trust Staff on the other.

Then the Minutes of that meeting relate the following LTC resolution: �SSI-41-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee directs staff to present, at the April 7, 2011 LTC meeting, a draft

12

bylaw to amend the Development Permit Area 4 regulations to include provisionsto implement the Riparian Area Regulations and increase the protection ofdrinking watersheds.�

�Drinking watersheds�?

April 7:

Kris Nichols - oops! Sorry! �Planning Consultant Kris Nichols�, I meant to say - delivershis fourth �Staff Report�. (RPM Hartley told the LTC to refer to Nichols as Planning Consultant�.This meant that if the Staff were serving distasteful stuff, it was due to �consultation� the Staffwas receiving).

The chair conducted the LTC trio through a recital of at least seven Resolutions on theRAR:

�14. REPORTS 14.1. OCP DP Area 4/RAR Proposed Draft Bylaw No. 449

SSI-060-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee receives the Staff Memorandum re: Draft OCP Bylaw No. 449 -DPA 4 - Lakes. Streams. Wetlands, and Riparian Areas dated April 7, 2011.CARRIED

Planning Consultant Nichols spoke to the Staff Report dated March 30, 2011and the Staff Memorandum dated April 7, 2011. It was noted that on page 5 ofthe report in the second paragraph, Staff Comments, �applied for� should be�approved�.

SSI-061-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee gives First Reading to draft Bylaw No. 449 - DPA 4 - Lakes,Streams, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas cited as �Salt Spring Island OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1, 2011' attachedto the Staff Memorandum of April 7, 2011. CARRIED

SSI-062-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Localtrust Committee directs staff to refer proposed Bylaw No. 449 - DPA 4 - Lakes,Streams, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas cited as �Salt Spring Island OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1, 2011' to thoseagencies listed on Attachment 4 of the Staff Report of March 30, 2011 and to theSalt Spring Water Council. CARRIED

SSI-063-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee directs staff to schedule a community information meeting withregard to proposed Bylaw No. 449 - DPA 4 - Lakes, Streams, Wetlands, andRiparian Areas cited as �Salt Spring Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No.434, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1, 2011'. CARRIED

13

SSI-064-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee directs staff to schedule a Public Hearing for proposed BylawNo. 449 - DPA 4 - Lakes, Streams, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas cited as �SaltSpring Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment BylawNo. 1, 2011' soon after the community information meeting. CARRIED

SSI-065-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee refers proposed Bylaw No. 449 - DPA 4 - Lakes, Streams,Wetlands, and Riparian Areas cited as �Salt Spring Island Official CommunityPlan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1, 2011 to the AdvisoryEnvironment Committee and the Advisory Planning Commission for review andcomment. CARRIED

OCP RAR Proposed Timing for Bylaw No. 449 Adoption - Report received forinformation

14.2 DPA 4 Implementation Strategy Measures.

Planning Consultant Nichols spoke to the Staff Report of March 30, 2011. SSI-066-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee directs staff to initiate implementation measures, includingnecessary bylaw amendments, for completion prior to the final adoption of BylawNo. 449. CARRIED

SSI-067-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Local TrustCommittee refers Staff Report �Development Permit Area 4 ImplementationStrategy Measures� to the Advisory Planning Commission and the AdvisoryEnvironment Committee for review and comment. CARRIED

It was noted that the Handout dated April 7, 2011 was made available to theTrustees and the public.

The Trustees thanked the Planning Consultant for his work on this project.� (Emphasis added)

You would never guess what �the Handout dated April 7, 2011" was. They hid its titleand the author and �identify� it �presisly� for the enlightment of the reader by its date! It appearsstupid but it is sinister, as well. The Handout, was a written contribution concerning the RARwhich I had brought in a leaflet format to the LTC (�leaflet� evolved into �Tom�s Town Hallplacard� and became a feature of LTC meetings). They did not like it, and in effect theycensored it in this bit of nonsense that appeared in the minutes.

Why then they mentioned it in the minutes? Simple! It was to record that the Handout�was made available to the Trustees and the public.�, that is why. It is a silly means of theStaff Secret-aries to pass the buck to the disposable elected Trustees. If anyone would ever findthe Handout and ask questions about the Trust response to it, the Staff would point the finger toTrustees. This trick has been a staple in the arsenal of dirty thicks the Staff maintains.

The LTC did one more thing for the RAR at that meeting, always as recorded in the

14

Minutes. One of them is �p. 9: Item 14.1 Add �Planning Consultant� before the name KrisNichols, which I commented in the January 14, 2011 entry. This was meant to impress upon usthat the RAR project was done impartially, authoritatively by an outside Consultant. This wouldcool down potential objectors and fend off criticism of the Staff after the people would realizehow painful the RAR is, after they got a taste of it...

Another yet interesting item in the Minutes is the following:

�11.5 Eric Booth - Riparian Areas Regulations Mr. Booth stated that he believes that the Trust has the choice to implement theRiparian Areas Regulations and urged delay until full and detailed mapping isavailable.�

Eric Booth is a former SSI LTC Trustee. While he was serving, the LTC had discussedthe RAR and at that time the then �Director of Local Planning Services�, Mac Frazer (predecessor to David Marlor), had advised the LTC that they did not have to do the RAR.

The Booth assertion was answered independently, out of the LTC meeting, by TrustCEO Linda Adams. She dismissed publically Eric Booth on the basis of a detailed investigationof Booth�s assertion by David Marlor which �detailed investigation� she did not produce whilepronouncing Booth �wrong� � this has a sequence, as I will relate later.

I will comment on another bit of the Minutes of that day�s meeting which reads: �At the Chair�s request, Director of Local Planning Services, David Marlor, spoketo the process regarding detailed RAR watercourse mapping. He noted that at$5,000 per watershed, the cost for Salt Spring could be $75,000 or more.�

He had the cost figure wrong, but that is not the point I want to make. As it happened,the LTC was furiously resisting public requests to survey the RAR affected Island Land. Theywere arguing that we could not afford the �$75,000 or more� for the survey work, and this whilespending some $100,000 on Kris Nichols RAR �reports�!

April 28:

On April 28, 2011, the Trust held a second RAR �Information Meeting� at the HarbourHouse Hotel in Ganges. The purpose of it was, as advertised, �To give residents an opportunityto learn about the proposed bylaw and associated implementation measures.�

May 5:

Let�s look up for the record what Nichols did for the cause of the RAR:

�15.4 RAR Update � Proposed Bylaw No. 449. Planning Consultant Nicholspresented a Memorandum dated April 28, 2011 regarding proposed OCP BylawNo. 449 � DPA4 � Lakes, Streams, Wetlands and Riparian Areas. 94 items ofcorrespondence have been received regarding this matter to date and the StaffReport highlighted the range of comments. A well attended CommunityInformation has been held and the planner is to meet with the Ministry of the

15

Environment next Monday. A communications piece for the public is beingprepared by Islands Trust communication staff.�

Please do note the blatant violation of due process and established standards of publicdiscourse. The Trust did not divulge at any time, including at their �informing the public�meetings, the �94 items of correspondence�. They stifled debate of the submissions that wouldhave resulted in the genesis and evolution of ideas on which to make a democratic decision. They did not even inform us how many of these �94 items� were �for� and how many were�against� the RAR. De facto this is censorship, common with the Trust, manifesting their zeal forprotecting their hidden agenda from the public eye. Fair Process? Government Transparency?Fueling public involvement? Don�t you trust the Trust?

The meeting Minutes inform all and sundry that:

�13. REPORTS 13.1 Bylaw No. 449 - DPA4, Lakes, Streams, Wetlands, and Riparian AreasRegulation Planning Consultant Nichols spoke to the Staff Report of May 30, 2011. Thefollowing minor errors in the Bylaw were noted: Page 4, E.4.1.1(d) - delete final(OR); page 5, E.4.2 in Background Note in first line add �a� between �of� and�stream�; page 10, E.4.8.17 third word is �of� not �off�.

The Trustees thanked the Consultant for synthesizing the great deal of inputreceived. [Heavens above!]

SSI-106-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee rescinds First Reading of Bylaw No. 449, cited as �Salt SpringIsland Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment No.1, 2011.�CARRIED

SSI-107-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee gives First Reading to draft Bylaw No. 449, cited as �Salt SpringIsland Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment No, 1, 2011'attached to the May 30, 2011 Staff Report and referenced June 2, 2011.CARRIED

SSI-108-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee directs staff to develop wording to amend Proposed Bylaw. 449in the following ways: a) spell out metre for �m� throughout bylaw; b) add adefinition of Riparian Areas Regulation designated watershed; c) correcttypographical errors identified on pages 4, 5 and 10 of the proposed bylaw.CARRIED

The Trust Committee will consider such amendments at the time of furtherreading.�

Incidentally, this edition of the Minutes is remarkable in more than one way. The one Iwant to point out is the attention to minute detail, such as instructing by resolution to �a) spellout metre for �m� throughout bylaw;� Such nitpicking necessary as it may be, contrasts sharply

16

the Trust practice of hiding or obfuscating with abandon serious matters in the minutes.

June 21, 22 &23:

A Public Hearing, thrice aborted!

Eventually, the Trust RAR squad scheduled a public hearing for June 21 at the HarbourHouse Hotel, but it was not to happen. They had to abort it due to �unprecedented publicinterest� as they put it. They rescheduled it for the next day in the 375-seat ArtSpring theater.

The next day, yet more members of the public showed up for the meeting, overflowingthe ArtSpring auditorium and spilling into the corridors and beyond. For the second time in asmany days they cancelled the meeting again and rescheduled it for a third try for the next day,June 23, a Saturday, in the afternoon in the gymnasium of the GISS school. Well... theybecame flabbergasted at the size of the �crowd� and cancelled the meeting again, for the samereason, for the third time, due to a severe shortage of �public apathy� on which they had beencounting to ram their RAR through. There are rumors that the RCMP Crowd Control CommandCommander (I made up the �CCCC�, all by myself!) advised the Trust to �cool it�.

After that large demonstration of public interest in the RAR, the Trust retracted. TheLTC abandoned the attempt and laid low for some time. �They� did not reschedule the RARpow-pow, they left that for whoever would be elected at the end of the term of the by thendoomed Local Trustees, which end was fast approaching.

Incidentally, Malcolmson, being elected on distant Gabriola, did not have to account forthe RAR boondoggle. She survived the November 2011 election and entirely unabashedly re-appointed herself to the chair of the SSI LTC and resumed leadership of the RAR campaign andbrought it to conclusion.

July 7:

This was the LTC meeting after the triple PR disaster and marks the end of the NicholsRAR era. At that meeting, Nichols read his final report on the SSI RAR.

NB: After the SSI LTC relieved him from his commission, Kris Nichols resurfaced inthe Trust Victoria headquarters as a Trust employee. Repeated FOI accessrequests for information on the hiring and the work Nichols was assigned to dofor the Trust were all �cleverly� but fiercely resisted by the Trust, as I relateelsewhere in this work.

The Trust has withdrawn the Nichols� Reports from its website. In the course of writingthis book I asked access to Nichols� Reports, but the Trust would not even acknowledge myrequest. This lead me to rely on the footprints the Nichols reports left on the Meeting Minutes ofthe SSI LTC and which Minutes are routinely very poor, by design.

The LTC abandoned the RAR enterprise, passed five resolutions, and paid out �PlaningConsultant� Kris Nichols. Here are the Resolutions, laced with the farewell to Kris Nichols, alllifted from the meeting Minutes:

17

�13.1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Discussion of next steps Planning Consultant Nicholsspoke to the Staff Report of June 28, 2011.

SSI-130-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee at this time proceed no further with Proposed Bylaw 449, �cited as SaltSpring Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 434, 2008, Amendment No 1, 2001'and direct staff to engage in a community consultation and communications process toimplement the Riparian Areas Regulations on Salt Spring Island. CARRIED

SSI-131-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring island Local TrustCommittee direct staff to ascertain whether the Ministry of Environment will considersigning a Memorandum of Understanding with the Islands Trust supporting an amendingbylaw implementing the Riparian Areas Regulation incrementally beginning with theexisting Development Area 4 mapped streams in the fish bearing watersheds withsubsequent mapping of other Salt Spring Island streams; and also identifying theexpected conditions and timeframe for full implementation as well as any potentialconsequences for lack of full implementation. CARRIED

SSI-132-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee direct staff to work with various community organizations (e.g. water council,Chamber of Commerce, Realtors, stewardship groups, agricultural alliance, etc.) and theadvisory committees to discuss and receive input on the implementation of RiparianAreas Regulation through a Development Permit Area Bylaw. CARRIED

SSI-133-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee direct staff to research ways to improve communication on Riparian AreasRegulation and its implementation (e.g. brochures, website, community participationopportunities, etc.) and to initiate them in consultation with local Trustees. CARRIED

SSI-134-11 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee direct staff to propose options and costs related to further stream mapping onSalt Spring Island regarding the implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation.CARRIED

The Trustees thanked Planning Consultant Nichols for all of his work on this bylaw.�

The Trust relieved Kris Nichols from his commission. But it was not for long. As I willdiscuss later, after his RAR performance, the Trust somehow felt enamored with Mr. Nicholsand drew him into its bosom. For more of the same? One wonders, the Trust would not tell!

July 15:

On July 15, 2011, the Trust published a News Release regarding the SSI RAR flop andthe future of the RAR. It reflects the Five Resolutions and gives us a whiff of what burns insidethe mind of the Trust. It is worth reading and it is cited in its entirety in the Chapter �Trust RARIntercourse with the People� � it is titled:

�New Approach as Salt Spring Local Trust Committee Continues with Provincial RARImplementation�

18

August 4: Silence After the Storm

As the term of the LTC was coming to an end with the RAR flop, RPM Hartley pickedfrom the ruins to prepare for the next RAR round. Here is what is in meeting Minutes:

�12.2 Riparian Areas Regulation RPM Hartley spoke to the Staff Report dated July 28, 2011 and advised that mappingwould appear to have priority consideration. The Trustees queried the differencebetween the current mapping, deemed adequate by the Ministry of Environment, and themapping that formed part of the tabled Proposed Bylaw No. 449. It was noted that aletter sent to the Salt Spring Island Chamber of Commerce concerning the bylaw wasfrom Trustee Ehring and not the Local Trust Committee. RPM Hartley will ask theAdvisory Committees to meet with staff in August to review implementation of theRiparian Areas Regulation.�

That is what the Records show had happened in August 4, 2011, at the LTC Meetingabout the RAR. Are we seriously enlightened?

September 1: RAR info in short supply

After letting Nichols go, the Staff assigned Planner Stefan Cermak to the task. Hemoved quicky to �implement� the Five Resolutions, or pretended to do, so as to keep the RARfrom becoming lost. His inagural Staff Report was to be followed by many in the ensuing twoyears, most of them being low key, generating impressions that the RAR was here to stay andthat resistance was futile. Here is the pertinent part of the LTC meeting minutes:

�12.1 Riparian Areas Regulation Planner Cermak presented a staff report and explained that the communications plan will evolve from ongoing consultation with community groups and others. Investigation ofmapping costs and RAR implementation in other jurisdictions is proving to be moredifficult than anticipated. The Trustees also asked for input on other communities�communication strategies.�

I was not impressed!

October 6: RARrhea Drops

�13.1 Riparian Areas Regulation Planner Cermak gave a verbal report on recent activities including meetings with theAdvisory Environment Committee and Ministry of Forestry, Lands and Natural ResourceOperations. Further meetings are to be arranged with the excavation and constructionsector, the Chamber of Commerce and Realtors. He spoke to mapping issues and described various options including; TRIM mapping,centre-line mapping, SHIM mapping, modified SHIM, and ditch mapping. PlannerCermak is developing a Work Program for the Riparian Areas Regulation and a fullcommunications plan.�

This type of verbal reporting to keep the ball rolling without informing became a staple at

19

ensuing LTC meetings.

November 3: Farewell to George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson

The following, uniquely honest in the annals of the Trust rendition, found its way into theMinutes:

�12.1 Dr. A.N.T. Varzeliotis - Riparian Areas Regulation Dr. Varzeliotis advised that he would not speak to the Riparian Areas Regulation[at that meeting] but wished the best to the departing Trustees. The Chairthanked Dr. Varzeliotis for his comments and noted that some of his ideas forcommunity engagement on RAR and the website are being considered�.

This was nice. Contrast this to how they recorded my �April 7, Handaout�, in which Iwrote and �spoke to the Riparian Areas Regulation�. This time they recorded it properlybecause �I did not speak about the RAR� � Remarkable flexibility of Trust objectivity.

December 19:

After that July 7, 2011, downpour of LTC Resolutions came the calm. There were overfour months left until the next election and we, the people, having been primed, were receptiveto learning about the RAR. But to inform us was the last thing on the minds of the Trust Brass. They laid low, keeping their fingers crossed that the election would produce �suitable� Trustees� so did we but on the other side.

On November 19, 2011, the people rushed to the polls to defeat the one of the sevenCandidates who singularly was supporting the Trust as it then existed. The electorate wasdetermined to avoid more of the same and vigorously fought to avert the advent of change. We,the people, elected the most potent �reformers� � the lonely status quo advocate candidatereceived only 15% of the vote.

We had succeed at the polls, we thought, but, alas, the joy was not to last for we soonlost our Reform Warrior Trustees to the Trust establishment. This will become apparent in therest of this work.

Year 2012: The 1st Quarter

A new beginning � or so we thought

January 5: Change of the Guards

The then �new� SSI Trustees entered the Trust in fighting form. I will mention twoincidents manifesting their attitude: They were mandated to usher in Open Government andmoved on to start it by having the LTC meetings video-recorded and made available to thepublic. They also wanted to have the RAR options shown to the people and have the affectedareas mapped so that people know the boundaries of the proposed RAR land. But neither ofthese was what the Trust establishment wanted.

20

On that day, at their first LTC meeting, Local Trustees Peter Grove and George Gramsfought a battle against the then Chair-of-everything-Trust, including the SSI LTC, SheilaMalcolmson and the SSI Trust RPM Leah Hartley. In a sense, it was a �who will blink first�situation and guess who did! Regrettably, the Local Trustees were pushed back by the reactionto change mounted by the Trust�s Malcolmson and Hartley.

The Trustees retreated to doing only �pilot� runs both of the video recording and the RARmapping. At that point in time the dice was cast in the words Julius Caesar announcing thecrossing of the Rubicon. It was a serious tactical error the Local Trustees made � thereafter, allthat the Trust reactionaries had to do was �manage� the �pilots� thereby making the Trustees fallinto the Official Trust line. In future they would do a bit of cosmetic reform to spare themselvesthe optics of wearing egg on their faces for falling in step with the Staff.

The 2011 LTC, Malcolmson, Ehring and Torgrimson, were chanting that RAR mappingwas already done and that doing more of it would be wasteful. Then, why in 2012 wouldMalcolmson & Hartley mislead Grove & Grams to do a �pilot� RAR mapping? Strange, thingshappen in the Trust world. Do they not?

Furthermore, in 2011 Malcolmson, Ehring and Torgrimson, under public pressure,considered �additional� RARmapping � I do not recall seeing it un-accompanied by the word�additional�, ever. For this they earmarked a piddle $2,000. Evidently they were after �cosmetic�RARmapping! But they did not do it anyway.

In 2012, Malcolmson, Grove and Grams ordered a mere Pilot RARmapping earmarking$14,000 for it, which is seven time as big as prviously approved for the �additional� RARmapping. They had not basis for that figure either, they demonstrated the Trust mind-fog bydiscussing asking contractors to bid no how much RAR mapping would do for $14,000!

In that, the first LTC meeting of 2012, I raised the issue of RAR mapping. I wasexpecting that what I was exposing would shake up the new Trustees and reinforce the warningI had given them, publicly of course, that they would have an uphill battle if they were toestablish control over the Trust Staff.

Specifically, I exposed the fact that the Staff was misrepresenting maps made for otherpurposes as being �RAR Maps� by re-titling them. I suggested that manipulating documentsamounts to disinforming society. Regrettably the Trustees did not appear to understand orappreciate the seriousness of the �Map Manipulation� the Staff had done � in any event they didnot appear being perturbed in the least.

There was another bad sign of what was to come. When Chair Malcolmson goaded theLocal Trustees to defer discussion of the RAR to the end of the day, I spoke against thispractice due to it happening too often and to it being tantamount to breaching the LocalGovernment Act (�LGA�) because by the end of the day public attendance wains, usually tozero. Malcolmson asked the Trustees whether they still wanted to reconsider deferring theRAR for the end of the day � Trustee Grove answered with a resounding �No�. And that was theend to my request and more than that really � it became the dawning of an era of extremecensorship.

At the ensuing discussion, at the end of the meeting, with me being the only member of

21

the public remaining it attendance, the melee ended up with a Pyrrhic victory for the newlyhatched Trustees. This was not merely a fight about videotaping of the LTC meetings, this wasa battle to decide whether it would be �THE TRUST OR US?� , it being a question of many,posed in fora such as vehicle bumpers. The staff super-abstracted the battle to the followingentry in the Minutes:

�The Chair observed that video recording is a meeting expense not a communityengagement initiative as identified in the $15,000 Trust Council budget allocation to SaltSpring.�

Connecting with the people through the video camera �is a meeting expense not acommunity engagement initiative�? �Crazy, man, crazy�, hippies would say to that!

Incidentally, the �$15,000 Trust Council budget allocation to Salt Spring� whichMalcolmson was protecting against opening up the LTC meetings to society was PRopagandamoney allocated to battle the frequent demands of the people of SSI for a �reconsideration ofthe Trust�. �Crazy, man, crazy�...

As for my presentation, it was recorded for posterity in the Minutes as follows:

�10. DELEGATIONS 10.1 Dr. A. Varzeliotis Dr. Varzeliotis spoke about the inadequacy of current RAR mapping. Written Materials were received.�

The truth is that I spoke about the Staff having done document manipulation resulting inmisinformation and disinformation of the public.

�Inadequacy of current RAR mapping� is not an indictable offence � government document manipulation is an indictable offence. That is why they obfuscated what I wasexposing by spinning the latter into the former.

Immediate to RAR story is also that the Trustees took their first step toward a RARBylaw at that meeting and this was reported in the Minutes as follows without mention of the�pilot-ization� of the RAR project:

�SSI-013-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee directs Staff to include a quote for a Simple Assessment Report within thescope of work for Riparian Areas Regulation stream mapping for St. Mary Lake andCusheon Lake watersheds. CARRIED�

January 18, 2012: News trickle through the DriftWood

The January 18, 2012 Driftwood brought out some very interesting RAR news through apiece by Sean McIntyre. He informed us that the Trust had called for bids to do the �pilot RARmapping� � I quote:

�The deadline for vendors [contractors] to submit their quotes [for the Pilot RAR Mapping project] is January 23 and the deadline for project completion is March 15.�

22

This was unduly speedy and mighty suspect. Between closing of bids on January 23and project completion on March 15 is 50 days, winter days, calendar days, translating to 36working days, during which the Trust was to receive and evaluate the bids, award the contract,the contractor to mobilize, do the field work, process the data, plot the mapping and presentthem in a report to LTC. This all appears very difficult to people with a modicum of appreciationof the nature and magnitude of mapping work.

Setting such a timeframe underlines the failure of the Trustees to understand what wasto be mapped. To my knowledge, what was to mapped was never discussed, even after Iraised the issue of �Mismapping� once again at the ensuing LTC meeting.

There were no specifications for the mapping work brought to the Trustees; there wasno mention of what the contractor was to survey and depict on the map. We, the people wereleft entirely in the dark in all aspects of the project.

A most important aspect was that they classed the Mapping to be done as a �pilot�enterprise. Land surveying is not a new science - we are not talking about Chuck Yeagerpiloting the Bell X-1 to see if humans could survive crossing the sound barrier. This mappingwould be simple, everyday work in the life of any surveyor. What was that �pilot� to determine,what did the LTC want to learn the feasibility of? What was the Trust pioneering with the �pilot�?

Having a lifetime of experience with land and water surveys and with using theinformation they produce, I was left with the impression that the Trust staff did not know whatthey were doing and that the Trustees were uncertain of what they were doing, too! And thatthey were unwilling to learn, as evidenced by that they did not discuss my submissions which Ihad brought to them at the January 5 LTC meeting!

A good question: Why would not the Trustees avail themselves of the opportunity for apro bono discussion of the mapping issue with an expert professional on the matter they wereconsidering?

February 2: LTC meeting � Cryptic Cartography

At the February 2, 2012 LTC meeting I brought to the LTC via the TownHall Placard anarticle titled �Fearing a RAR MisMap. Iin it I review the �progress� made by the Staff incarrying out the LTC instructions to educate us, reasoning the progress was backward goinginto darkness, if you will. And, based on this, asking the LTC as follows:

�I am hereby asking the LTC to instruct Staff to release the call to tenderdocuments(s), the bids (amounts only) received, the identity of the successful bidder,and the contract document.�

Once again, the Trustees did not discuss the issues I brought to them. The Chair askedLeah Hartley to respond to my concerns; Hartley said that after the completion of the mappingcontract, she would release the information first to the LTC and then to hoi polloi through theinternet. The Trustees took this as an answer...

The Minutes contain the following:

23

�The Trustees noted that the contract for mapping riparian areas was an open competition and further discussion on this item may be on the agenda for thenext Regular Business Meeting scheduled for February 23, 2012.� (Emphasisadded).

Why and how would the Trustees have bothered to �note that the contract for mappingriparian areas was an open competition�? Well, it was not an open competition; the Staff did notpublish any �invitation to tender� and this alone makes it not an open competition, by definition.The Trustees did not �note� that the process �was an open competition�, either � nothing of thatsort! I was there myself.

An observer of the manner of the Staff would recognize that �the Trustees noted� wasinserted in the Minutes by the Staff to create the false impression that the �electedrepresentatives� of the people ran the acid test on the doings of the Staff and became satisfiedthat the Staff had not botched the contracting process. That is to say, it is passing the buck tothe Trustees to cover up the Staff�s butt.

Trust Transparency

After the January 5, 2012 LTC Resolution SSI-13-12 and suspecting the obvious, I filedwith the Trust an �Expression of Interest� to bid on the Pilot RAR Mapping project � my objectivewas to pry loose from them the project specifications they were determined to hide, hopefully toease my fears that the Staff were out to �manage� the Pilot Mapping project. Planner Cermakassured me that I will get the specks when they advertise the call for bids.

It did not happen and later, when I asked Cermak about it, he told me that they hadchanged their minds and instead of calling for bids they had done a �closed� competition, limitedto graduates of the VIU (the Vancouver Island University of Nanaimo). They had invited five ofthem to bid, said he. Since I was not a VIU grad, I did not qualify, he said. Clever, eh?

The RAR Pilot Mapping specifications, or �Detailed Description of the Services to bePerformed� as the Trust labeled it, were in the Agenda Package for the February 23 LTCmeeting, which was published a week or so prior to the meeting day. When I read it, I thought Iwould signal the Trust to retract it before the meeting. To that end I went to the SSI Trustoffices by the Hydro yard �seeking clarification� of the �Detailed Description of the Services to bePerformed�, i.e., the specifications. The front desk officer did not know, nor would try tointerpret the specifications. She went to the back and brought forth a planner. But the Plannercould not respond, either. I asked them how could I, Joe Q. Public, understand theSpecifications when no one in the Trust office could. The Planner took the question to the RPMHartley who proved equally unprepared to explain the specifications which she had endorsed. Ileft the Trust shop with my RAR curiosity intact, but with my mind in awe at the ways of theTrust. They did not get the message...

After that, I addressed a letter to the LTC reasoning that the specifications weresubstandard and asking them to make things right. I thought I would help them save face, butneither the Staff nor the Trustees would get it, or so it appeared. At the February 23rd meeting,it came out that the Staff had intercepted my correspondence and had withheld it from theTrustees.

24

February 23: A dramatic LTC meeting

Planner Cermak presented a �Staff Report� revealing, after the fact, the �specifications�of the �pilot� RAR Mapping and informing that the successful contractor was the Island Streamand Salmon Enhancement Society (�ISSES�) of Ms. Kathy Reimer, a Professional Biologist, andMr. Philip Grange, P.Eng.

The awarding of the mapping contract to ISSES, whose principals are also QEPs, forobvious reasons, became a source of much grief for many people, including the Trustees, theStaff and the contractors themselves, as I will relate shortly.

At this point I want to make it clear as a bell that I have high respect for both ISSESprincipals, for their professional and ethical integrity. Indeed, I owe them gratitude for valuableassistance they have given me in the past. None of my comments are directed at them � themessy tendering and its aftermath are entirely of the Trust�s doing.

A very interesting aspect of it was that throughout 2011, the LTC had deemed an oldmap on which someone had marked the fish bearing streams as being �the� map on which tobase the RAR bylaw. The Staff had manipulated the title and the legend of this map. The Trusthad suddenly stopped reference to it, after my presentation. However, what they were about todo was no good either � they went on to re-map what they had been saying that they had already mapped!

In any event, I reviewed the �specifications� for the fledgling �pilot� and found it pitifullypoor and potentially detrimental to the cause. Where precision is required, the Trust had builtambiguity and injected inanities. In the preamble of the specification paper the Trust had thegall to call their hodge podge �A detailed description�, which further amplifies the perception thatineptitude was sustaining the Staff self-assurance. Here is this sad document:

�A detailed description of the services to be performed within Cusheon Lake andSt. Mary Lake watershed include:

1. Contact property owners and receive permission to access theirproperties.

2. Applying Riparian Areas Regulation standards: assess and identify thelocation of fish bearing and potentially fish bearing streams.

3. Identify and map the location of any natural or human made permanentbarrier(s) that cannot be reasonably modified to allow fish passage.

4. Map the stream location according to the Global Positioning SystemSpecifications provided by Islands Trust GIS Coordinator.

5. Deliver a final report and presentation summarizing the findings of theRAR stream mapping, outlining the methodology used, and providingrecommendations.

6. Deliver electronic shape files that include raw data from the fieldcollection showing location of streams, including notes on data limitationsor corrections made to the data as outlined in the Global PositioningSystem Specifications provided.

7. Deliver a map of RAR applicable streams, as well as the provision of final

25

stream location documentation to the Islands Trust mapping department(including raw data, electronic files and notes on data limitations andcorrections made).�

That is what contractors were given to bid on! These seven �detailed descriptions of theservices to be performed� are, let�s say, sad. After the Agenda was published and before theLTC meeting day, I addressed a communication to the LTC in the expectation that they wouldtake a second look at what they were doing.

That February 23, 2012, SSI LTC meeting turned out to be remarkable!

My correspondence to the LTC had been intercepted by Hartley and withheld from theTrustees. This became evident when I spoke to the LTC at the meeting. I turned to Hartleywho was at the LTC table and asked her point blank if the Staff had tampered with the mail toTrustees. �This is correct� she answered, they had done that. The Trustees fell silent but ChairMalcolmson sought to protect Hartley by thanking her for protecting the LTC fromcorrespondence like my letter! I am not to guess whether Malcolmson realized that in protectingthe guilty from accountability she was trampling propriety, defaming a citizen whom Hartley hadvictimized and demeaned his contribution.

At the ensuing TownHall session several citizens made presentations against the waythe Staff were doing the RAR and especially against delivering to QEPs the determination of theextent of the market for their services, kind of delivering the lambs to the wolves.

Eventually, the then two local Trustees became visibly perturbed by what was revealed� they both expressed concern about the apparent conflict of interest aspect of it. TrusteeGrove told the Staff to make things right, even if it would necessitate paying a penalty to cancelthe ISSES contract. The Staff would not relent and went on to claim that contracting out theproject was Hartley�s domain and asking the Trustees to stay out of it. And they, the peoples�representatives, did as Hartley told them to do ...

Let�s look at the February 23, 2012, LTC Meeting Minutes and read the Trust�s renditionof what transpired. Here it is - enjoy!

�16.1 Riparian Areas Regulation � Update on Stream Mapping Pilot Project PlannerCermak presented a staff report dated February 14, 2012. The Trustees received aFebruary 21, 2012 written presentation called �A RARely Serious MisMap� by Dr. A.Varzeliotis. RPM Hartley explained that the terms of reference for the Invitation to Quotewas confined to what the Riparian Areas Regulations require. It was acknowledged thatthere are broader issues arising around the Riparian Areas Regulations project and staffis prepared to follow up on some of those issues raised at the Town Hall earlier in theday. Planner Cermak explained that five potential consultants were sent the Invitation toQuote. Two bids were received; one declined and two invitee did not respond.

The Trustees commented that the matter of perceived conflict is unfortunate, and that itis noting the interests of the LTC to engage advocacy groups as consultants. Staff wasasked to bring the question of procurement policies to a future meeting for furtherdiscussion.�

26

Let�s now read between the lines of that innocuous Minutes item.

The 2nd sentence, i.e. �The Trustees received a February 21, 2012 written presentationcalled �A RARely Serious MisMap� by Dr. A. Varzeliotis� is supposed to serve as an �absolution�for the Staff having tampered with the mail and the Chair having sought to cover up for the staffon that. Pertinent is that the Staff had admitted at the February 23rd meeting, publically, thatthey had withheld the Varzeliotis correspondence from the Trustees. The �logic� of mentioningit was to establish Staff innocence � if the Trustees had received it, how could the Staff havetampered with the Trustees mail?

The 3rd sentence reads: �RPM Hartley explained that the terms of reference for theInvitation to Quote was confined to what the Riparian Areas Regulations require�.

This is more a manifestation of the Staff lacking project tendering skills than the�explanation� they say it is. It is akin to calling bids for the �digging of a hole sufficient in size toaccommodate snugly a building within the sizes and shapes allowed by the City Hall�. Theyinserted it there to discredit the exposure of the Trust proceeding recklessly on the RAR.

The 4th sentence, to wit, �It was acknowledged that there are broader issues arisingaround the Riparian Areas Regulations project and staff is prepared to follow up on some ofthose issues raised at the Town Hall earlier in the day�, became the springboard of a disaster,as I will relate shortly.

�It was acknowledged� by whom? And what has the Staff who followed up on �some ofthose issues� done since? Overwhelming all other issues raised at the TownHall of thatmeeting was the conflict of interest issue of QEPs staking out their turf. How were our concernsabout it answered by the Trust? By giving more contracts to QEPs and by giving even morecontracts to QEPs to do �peer reviews� and �third person reviews� of what the other QEPs weredoing, the whole mess paid for from the public purse. For the glory of the Trust!

The 5th sentence is interesting, too. �Planner Cermak explained that five potentialconsultants were sent the Invitation to Quote. Two bids were received; one declined and two didnot respond� it informs. That only 2 of the 5 Trust handpicked contractors bid for the RAR pilotmay indicate potential contractors unwillingness to bid on a pig in a (specifications) poke. Thiscould land them in hot water...

The 6th sentence reads: �The Trustees commented that the matter of perceived conflictis unfortunate, and that it is noting the interests of the LTC to engage advocacy groups asconsultants.� The purpose of this is to hide that the Trustees wanted the contract cancelled,even if the Trust would have to pay a �cancellation penalty�. And that the newbie local Trusteeswere irked by the Staff �engaging advocacy groups as consultants.�

The 7th sentence reads: �Staff was asked to bring the question of procurement policies toa future meeting for further discussion.� The reader may never guess that it reflects RPMHartley telling the two local Trustees that it was not their business how the Staff had tenderedthe contract. She even refused to give them the �deliverables� from the ISSES contract untilsuch a day as she may decide to make the document public! The newbie Trustees kind ofbelieved her and asked her to bring the relevant Trust �Policy� to them for their review � to myknowledge she did not comply and the review did not happen...

27

What happened after that? Well, nothing good, but plenty of things one may lament. TheTrustees turned around to bless the Staff giving contracts to QEPs to map RAR and yet morecontract to other QEPs to do RAR maps and yet more to certify correct what the previous QEPcontractor had done and so on...

Premiering the new �Serious Censorship� Trust series

The February 23, 2012, LTC meeting was the second one to be officially videotapedsubsequent to the January 5 LTC decision to �pilot� videotape the LTC events. But, by thesecond time the camera rolled, the Staff found they could not endure it any longer and moved tohide what the camera was exposing. Perhaps the Staff figured that by demonstrating the�pitfalls of democratization�, they would convince the new Trustees to end the �pilot� videotapingand retreat to overt secrecy.

Staff, acting on its own or with the Trustees connivance, took the censor�s scissors andcut the videotape. They severed the exposure of the conflict of interest issue, concerns aboutthe Staff handling of the RAR Mapping Contract and the tampering with the Trustees mail. Then, the Staff took the censoring process all the way to the next level up to hide from thepublic the censoring they had done. It was a shocker...

After I exposed at the February 23, 2012, LTC meeting the censoring of the videotapeand the censoring of the information about the censoring event, the Trust annotated the tapewith the following message:

�SSI Local Trust Committee Regular Business Meetings, February 23, 2012. Part 2 ofthe video recording of the meeting has been abbreviated due to concerns that somecomments made during the Delegations/Town Hall session are potentiallydefamatory. The Islands Trust reserves the right to refrain from posting video of anyindividual who uses profanity, makes derogatory remarks about another individual,or makes comments that may be defamatory.� (Emphasis added)

To begin with, �abbreviated� is not a synonym for �eliminated�, �hidden�, or �censored� ...

Upon being caught censoring John Macpherson, Eric Booth and me for exposing it, theywent on to libel us, instead of expressing appreciation for our contribution to the affairs of oursociety.

They presented us as having �used profanity, made derogatory remarks about anotherindividual, or made comments that may be defamatory�. They implied that by censoring us, theyprotected society from exposure to �profanities, etc� of which they, protector angels, had foundus guilty. Thoroughly ugly stuff, wouldn�t you say?

March 15: The Devil Made Us Do It

At that meeting, I exposed the censoring of the February 23 LTC meeting videotape. Mycontribution to the LTC was recorded in the Meeting Minutes as follows:

28

�9. DELEGATIONS 9.1 Dr. A. Varzeliotis Dr. Varzeliotis spoke against the editing of the February 23, 2012 SSI Local TrustCommittee Regular Business Meeting video tape. He provided a paper copy of arevised presentation to the Local Trust Committee.� (Emphasis added)

Here we go again: �Editing� is not a synonym for �abbreviated�, �eliminated�, �hidden�, or�censored�...

Well, I had not talked about �editing�; I had spoken clearly, mincing no words, castigatingboth the censoring of the video record action and the Staff�s attempt to pass an ugly act ofcensorship as being mere �abbreviating� or �editing�, as if done to correct some small issue ofgrammar or a misspelt word!

I did not �provide a paper copy of a revised [from what? ] presentation to the Local TrustCommittee.� I had submitted a paper titled the �An Ugly Act Of Sabotage� by the Staff andspoke to that.

What they hid behind their irresponsible accusations is that they made me sidetrack thedelegation I had registered and which was on the subject of �Trust Policy B.6.2.2.2.13". I didsidetrack that so as to expose the unexpected and very serious matter of the Censorship. Thatis what it was about.

But there was a cryptic item of interest in those Minutes:

�During the FUAL review, it was acknowledged that several items from theFebruary 2012 meetings are now complete (as noted at this meeting) and maybe archived.�

I am not sure what they talk about here because they have wrapped it all in Trustmystique. It may be that Staff is attempting to put a lid on the censorship scandal and signalingthat discussion is closed. Perhaps... For sure no one outside the Trust�s collective craniumknows.

Freedom Of Information v Trust Disinformation

Most perplexing was the claim of the Trust Staff Brass that they have received and actedon legal advice to do the Censoring of the February 23 LTC videotape. They would not producethe �legal advise� and I decided to file a FOI access to information request. Like almost all Trustresponses to FOI applications that I have seen, the treatment accorded to this FOI application isa hilariously sad one. Do not miss it - read it in the FOIbles Section of this book.

Year 2012 � The Second Quarter

April 5: LTC meeting

The Staff would not relent on the �editing� of the February 23 videotape and wereworking to secure the support of the Trustees by scaremongering: ISSES would sue everyone

29

in sight they said, perhaps including the Trustees themselves. The Staff made the Trusteesparanoid and set them to fight the suing threat, a threat that all other governments, past andcurrent, local and distant, have ignored without any consequence. The LTC seized by thedesire to be avant garde, discerned and identified the danger which all other governments hadmissed; and moved on to nip it in the bud, to protect themselves and alarm all other naivepoliticians who have missed the risk and expose themselves to public input without prophylaxis.

The Trustees became so scared and desperate for shelter that they explored openly,publicly, the possibility of contracting the videotaping of the LTC meetings to the Driftwoodnewspaper so that the responsibility of censoring and the defamation lawsuits would beabsorbed by the newspaper, thereby leaving the Trust immaculate and them safe! Yes, theydid that, and to observe them discussing it was painful!

Incidentally, the LTC never managed to shed their fear of the people. Since thatFebruary 2012 event, they have been deploying censorship with abundance all along escalatingthe severity and the frequency of doing so.

At that April 5, 2012 meeting, I brought to the LTC a delegation titled �Flushing Out theAgitated Censors�. In it, I expounded on the evils of censorship and I appealed to the LTC tocease and desist the practice and mitigate the consequences of what they had done. This isrelated to RAR because the censorship they did was intended to cover up mishandling of theRAR file; and because it indicates their intention to push the RAR by illegitimate means and theplan to cover it all up by suppressing the expression of dissent.

My presentation of that delegation found its way into the minutes, spun less than usual,but enough to soften the message. Here is the pertinent Minutes:

�Minutes: 12.4 Dr. A. Varzeliotis � Flushing out the Agitated Censors Dr. Varzeliotis suggested the Islands Trust did not have legal advice regarding editing a video of the February 23, 2012 Local Trust Committee Meeting.�

They could not refrain from substituting �editing� for �censoring�! That was becausethere is nothing illegal, immoral or otherwise improper about �editing� � there is much angstabout �censoring�. Suppression of the freedom of expression is intolerable: the Churchill �Hitler disagreement and the ensuing melee boils down to the issue of free speech and so aremany other painful dispute resolution matches in the millennia since the battle of Marathon.

There was another interesting bit of information, worth lifting from the Minutes:

�15.2 Riparian Areas Regulation � Update on Stream Mapping Pilot Project Planner Cermak provided a verbal report regarding progress on stream mapping,explaining that the Salt Spring Island Stream Enhancement Society hascompleted its study and submitted its report to staff. This report will likely beavailable in about six weeks, given staff availability.�

The juicy aspect of it is not the heralding of the completion of the Pilot RAR Mappingcontract. The interesting part is saying that they �may make available the ISSES report toTrustees� in about six weeks, given staff availability.

30

Note that the Staff does not say what they will do with the ISSES Report while sitting onit for a period which turned out to be twice as long as the time it had taken to get the contractrunning and to perform the work, combined. Note also that the Trustees had demanded thePilot RAR mapping be completed by March 14, 2013 � had not Cermak and Hartley, heardabout that? It ain�t funny... As I will discuss shortly, it is much uglier than it appeared at thatmoment...

Sadly the Trustees expressed no aversion to waiting for what they has �rushed� harshly. And the Staff did not allow them access to the ISSES deliverables �in about six weeks� either!Instead, �they� worked on the Trustees and extracted a �peer review� from them so as to armour the Staff against being called to account for the RAR mapping boondoggle.

April 26: LTC Meeting

This was an eventful meeting. In a nutshell, the LTC worked with the Staff to protect theStaff against accounting for misleading the LTC and society about having done the censoring ofthe February 23, 2012, citizens� submissions on the pretext of following legal advice.

Because the events of that day and ancillary events to them are of great significance tounderstanding the conduct of the Trust in imposing the RAR on SSI, I discuss the events in achapter of its own titled �Censoring by Legal Advice�.

The Delegation I had brought to the LTC at that meeting is titled: �The CensorshipScandal�. It is a review of the censorship event that the LTC was fighting to suppress withouteven issuing an apology to any of their victims, or otherwise manifesting remorse. Please readthe delegation in the Submissions Part of this work. Here I will cite the record made of it in theminutes:

�10.2 Dr. Varzeliotis � Matters of Importance and Urgency Pending Resolution Dr. Varzeliotis provided an additional handout [i.e., Tom�s TownHall Placard] and spoke about microphones for the public during Local Trust Committee meetings andabout censorship.�

The Delegation was about the RAR; they hid it behind the Placard and focused on mydiscreet prompting to remove their ban on a microphone for presenters.

May 17: Peer Review? Yes, of course, a Peer Review would be lovely!

The Staff had received the Pilot RAR Mapping �receivables� from ISSES only two weekspast the deadline set by the Trust (due on March 15, 2012, was delivered by March 29), but theStaff would not release it, not even to the Trustees, as far as we know. This manifest that theyknew they had handled the Pilot RAR Mapping inappropriately and that there was widespreadpublic concern about them having assigned the determination of what would in effect be thedomain of the RAR to persons being in a conflict of interest.

Let me reiterate: It is indisputable that ISSES was put in a conflict of interest situationwhen invited by Trust Staff to do the Pilot Mapping. They put ISSES in a precarious positionwhen they gave them the task of making decisions that would determine, to some considerable

31

extent, their future income and �power� and those of their colleagues.

However, this does not mean that ISSES would succumb to temptation to dish out tothemselves and/or to their fellow QEPs any unwarranted benefits. But sterling character is notsufficient to disperse the conflict of interest cloud. Societies do not scrutinize a candidate for atask to determine whether he or she can resist temptation and perform a duty impartially, ifhe/she is not in a conflict of interest environment. Society acts to prevent citizens fromexposure to temptation and to spare the citizenry doubt on whether decisions are fairly made byindividuals in conflict of interest situations. Being in a conflict of interest situation does not makeanyone guilty of anything. It is to prevent biased decisions that may amount to indictableoffences that societies protect themselves against but also to protect people whom the societyentrusts with power against becoming corrupt.

In the RAR instance, there was a conflict of interest issue to be dealt with, but there wasno insinuation that the ISSES principals were of less than sterling character. That is to say, theTrust Staff was playing St. George to maiden ISSES not because there was a dragon in thevicinity, but because they were feeling the need to hide their own inept handling of the wholeRAR enterprise.

Deus ex Machina descended on the Trust with the idea of a �peer review� of the pilotRAR mapping project. And the LTC pushed for it, implying that while they were unshakablyconfident in their ability to design �a pilot� project and to manage its execution, they needed apeer of the contractor to tell them whether the contractor they had assigned the �pilot� hadproduced what he was paid to produce � confusing, ain�t? All that was recorded in the Minutesof the April 26, 2012 LTC meeting:

�SSI-97-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee directs staff to prepare a draft Terms of Reference and budget for a peerreview of the pilot stream mapping within St. Mary Lake Watershed and Cusheon LakeWatershed conducted by the Islands Stream and Salmon Enhancement Society and toreport back to the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee. CARRIED�

To begin with, calling for a contractor to, in effect, disperse the suspision of deficientperformance, is defaming the ISSES principals. It is not pleasant to have the Local Governmentdeclare your work being of questionable quality...

A �Peer Review� is done primarily in scientific work, mainly for testing newly acquiredknowledge. That is what scientific journals and symposia are all about, they are fora whereinnovators present their work to be critically examined and thrashed out so as to evolve andcrystalize, to be added to existing knowledge or be abandoned.

A �Peer Review� is not a means to discover if you bought what you were supposed tobuy in a transaction. A Peer review is not meant to help you learn whether the pig-in-a-pokeyou bought was worth your shilling, that is to say, that the thing in the poke you got is indeed apig and not a turkey.

What the Staff was after was to cover up their mishandling of the RAR mapping and topre-silence critics of their conduct. Who is to criticize their work after it has been reviewed andvetted by �professionals� and their �peers�?

32

Indeed, Planner Cermak let it out himself when he said that if citizens complain aboutbeing unduly affected by the RARmaps, they would receive �explanations� but to relief � �Themapping was done by Professionals,� Cermak said authoritatively and he was not going �tochange anything they have done� he Czarismatically declared. Yes, it all is in writing.

Specificity-void Specifications

There is another aspect ot the peer review nonsense. For argument�s sake, let us for aminute assume that the contractors did a splendid job and gave the Trust excellent value for thepublic dollar. So what? Is the peer review meant to make us conclude that all QEPs areinfallible? Or that they all are equally good to ISSES? Are the �peer� QEPs to certify that allQEPs are, and forever will be, proficient in their trade and ethically correct? Is the Trustexpecting the �peers� to make us, the people, cry out loud: �In QEPs we Trust�? Are we to trustthe QEPs to protect us from the Trust and the RAR, against its current and future employeesand servants? What is that �peer review� to teach us?

June 7:

The LTC posed to their Lawyers Young-Anderson of Vancouver a request for adviceabout censoring citizens; and also about whether the Trust should be allowed to keep the gainsfrom past censorship. All of which is sick in absolute terms, given that they did not publishverbatim the questions they posed to the lawyers, thereby handicapping the evaluation of thelegal advice and the Trust response to it. I discuss that and more on the chapter about�Censorship by Legal Advice�.

Here I will say that the LTC and the Staff discussed the legal advice behind closed doorsand upon rising, they reported the following:

�SI-114-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee releases the legal opinion from Young Anderson dated May 23, 2012regarding the broadcasting of Local Trust Committee meetings, noting that the adviceconfirms the verbal legal opinion on the same topic that had been provided to thepublic earlier. CARRIEDBy general consent, the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee directs staff to add theresolution to the legal opinion when it is posted online.�

�SSI-115-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee requests staff to add to the standard Terms of Reference for MeetingRecording a mechanism whereby the recording contractor is able to publish aletter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation regarding the allegedlydefamatory content, as required by the Libel and Slander Act.�

I discuss the Resolutions in the section �Censoring by Legal Advice� � it is an importantmatter � do not miss it.

Here I will comment briefly on the message I brought to the LTC via a Delegation titled�Fallow Follow-Ups�. It is about the failure of the Trustees to prevail upon the Staff. I aimed toimpress upon the LTC that almost a year had gone by since the LTC ordered the �Staff to

33

educate us on the RAR� and the staff had thoroughly ignored the order. Look at the Minutes:

�3.1 Dr. Varzeliotis - Fallow Follow Ups �Dr. Varzeliotis spoke about the implementation of decisions made by the Local TrustCommittee, legal advice, and the Riparian Areas Regulation. He provided an additionalwritten submission.�

There is no indication that the LTC understood that it was their mandate to control theStaff on behalf of the electorate...

In any event, I also brought to the LTC a message through the Placard prompted by the�news� the Trust had spread society-wide though the Driftwood that the �Pilot RAR Mapping�needs a Peer Review. I�ll quote a few lines from it:

�By definition �peers� of who may be perceived being in conflict of interest arethemselves similarly and equally suspect of conflict of interest. It is thereforeinconceivable that peers may disperse suspicions of partiality.�

Having said that, let�s give the Trust a last chance and ask: 1. Who needs the Peer Review?2. Why?3. To Review exactly What?� ...

Neither the Trustees nor the Staff answered any of my questions. The reason for theirevasion being transparent � if �they� would answer the questions they would have to scuttle the�peer review�. This would leave them accountable for the boondoggle, which is how it shouldbe and which is what they were anxious to evade.

Here is what the Minutes inform the world that I had done, precisely:

�13.1 Dr. Varzeliotis - Fallow Follow Ups ...He provided an additional written submission.�

What a splendid prioritization pen-work! They forget that by virtue of offering themselvesto be elected, they have committed themselves to listening to what the people say ...

By the way, the �additional written submission� in the Minutes, this and other , is howthe Trust encrypts the �Tom�s TownHall Placard�, so as to hide the stuff Tom conveys via thePlacard so as to hide their failure to discuss it and hide this their disrespect to public input intothe governance of our society. In a later escalation of the Trust Censorship, they banned�Varzeliotis� from the minutes and substituted �a member of the public� for it � in recognition ofthe potency of my submissions, my psychologist friend, says.

Year 2012 - The Third Quarter

July 5:

This was July 5th; This was 76 days after the Pilot Mapping had been completed onMarch 15. This was the period Staff had been seeking to extract from the LTC a �peer review�

34

of a project which was fast-tracked for completion within 45 days from decision, through callingof bids, performing the work and delivering the maps! The Staff had closeted the hastilyproduced �maps� since March 29, �negotiating� behind the scenes, one presumes the meansand ways to evade accountability for botching the project. They wanted to buy, at publicexpense of course, �absolution� for themselves, which they euphemistically called �peer review�.

They pretended they did not know what they were doing and they needed some peers ofthe contractor they had instructed to tell them what was what they had bought. Instead ofcoming out with remorse and apologies, they came on demanding their victims buy them�absolution papers�. They could not figure out whether the �pilot mapping� they had done hadsucceeded, failed, or somewhat else, so they pretended. They needed a �consultant� to tellthem whether they bought what they were supposed to buy with the public money they hadspent on the pilot project. It appears that is why they had hired Nichols to do the RAR in the firstplace.

What the Staff wants the Trustees give...

The LTC moved on to do the �peer review� the Staff requested. It is hard to say whetherthe Trustees played along to help the Staff cover up their handling of the �Pilot� RAR mappingor whether they feared been implicated themselves, as well, and thus felt having a stake inlaundering everything and everybody about the boondoggle. In any event, the LTC went on to�purify� those who had dunit. They passed the following two Resolutions:

�SSI-140-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee approves the general Terms of Reference and directs staff to issue acontract for a peer review of the pilot stream mapping within St. Mary Lake Watershedand Cusheon Lake Watershed. CARRIED

SSI-141-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee requests budget allocation from Local Planning Services of either the LocalPlanning Services Technical Services Fund or Salt Spring Island Riparian AreasRegulation budget.�

Peer Review ... by Specifications

In the Trust world, the Staff controls the Peer Review Contractor with the �GeneralTerms of Reference�. The Staff wrote the specs, brought them in and the LTC approved it asper Resolution SSI-140-12. The Trust does precision work ...

I will quote the �Objectives� and the �Scope� of that document � here they are:

�OBJECTIVESThe objective of the Peer Review is to supplement results of the pilot mappingby increasing certainty [sic] of stream identification methodology, especiallyrelated to tributaries, in order to meet, without exceeding, RAR requirements.The information will be of value in determining potential impacts to affected landowners when development triggers the need for a RAR assessment.

35

SCOPE OF PEER REVIEWThe scope of this contract is to provide the independent review of a QualifiedEnvironmental Professional into the methodology and findings of RARwatercourse mapping on Salt Spring Island. ...�

Documents speak for themselves and in this instance, I need not, I presume, go over thenonsense therein...

Nonetheless, I cannot resist �guessing� the Trust spelling out in the of the �QualifiedEnvironmental Professional� was, partly at least, to exclude me from seeking to do the �PeerReview� � After all, I have a lifetime in the Engineering, 15 years of which with Environment andFisheries Canada... I am one of the two Engineers who designed the pioneering Little QualicumRiver Salmon Enhancement Project, in 1961, I think it was...

Year 2012 - The Fourth Quarter

October 11:

In that meeting, the LTC finally unveiled the ISSES Pilot RAR Mapping Report togetherwith the Madrone Peer Review of it. As a reminder, the ISSES report had been authorized bythe LTC on January 30 and super-fast-tracked for completion by March 15, 2015 � thecontracted work was done, plotted and delivered to Trust Staff on March 30, 2012.

After the Staff released the ISSES and the �Peer Review� Report, the LTC went on topass six resolutions (SSI-207-12 to SSI-12- 12) accepting all of the Reports (ISSES, Madroneand Staff) and celebrating success of that Pilot-RAR mapping, never mentioning how theygauged success. Here is that bouquet of Resolutions:

�5. LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE PROJECTS5.1 Riparian Areas Regulation MappingPlanner Cermak reviewed the staff report dated October 3, 2012 regarding theresults of the Pilot Stream Mapping of St. Mary Lake and Cusheon LakeWatersheds, the Peer Review of the Pilot Stream Mapping, and next stepsconsiderations.

SSI-207-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee accept the �Fish Bearing Streams and Potential Fish HabitatMapping Report� submitted by Island Stream and Salmon Enhancement Society.CARRIED

SSI-208-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee accept the �Salt Spring Island Riparian Areas Regulations PeerReview � St. Mary Lake and Cusheon Lake Watersheds Report� datedSeptember 25, 2012 submitted by Madrone Environmental Services Ltd.CARRIED

SSI-209-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local

36

Trust Committee refer the Riparian Areas Regulation � Mapping Staff Reportdated October 3, 2012 to the Advisory Planning Commission, the AdvisoryEnvironment Committee and the Agriculture Advisory Committee. CARRIEDSSI-210-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee schedule a Special Business Meeting for November 21,2012 to invite feedback about stream mapping. CARRIED

SSI-211-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee approve budget allocation from the Official Community Plan,Land Use Bylaw of $1,400 for the Special Business Meeting inviting feedbackabout stream mapping. CARRIED�

To begin with, I will comment on Resolution SSI-209-12, by which the LTC sends theCermak Report du jour to the Advisory Planning Commission, the Advisory EnvironmentCommittee and the Agriculture Advisory Committee.

Before becoming a Reform Trustee, George Grams, published an article with the title: �Bylaw a �fundamental assault� on local rights and freedoms� (Driftwood, June 15 2011)referring to the RAR Bylaw, which was then in the works, as follows:

�The LTC attempted to conceal two advisory committees from the community. Who saton them, when they convened and what advice they offered the LTC was not, accordingto trustees, the public's right to know. Concealing those committees from public scrutinycontravenes the Community Charter. Only when a concerned islander threatened tolodge a formal complaint did the LTC back down.�

Neither the predecessor nor the Grams & Groove LTC have shown due respect for theAdvisory bodies. They expect them to support the �official� Trust line and if they dare deviate,the rescind the referral at issue or simply ignore recommendations they receive. This hasbecome the modus operandi for the LTC.

The Ehring & Torgrimson LTC, also under Chair Malcolmson, lined up against my workon Booth Canal two �secret scientists� whose �secret reports� the LTC said, refute my work onthe Canal � very scientific, very logical, very ethical, very legal, ain�t?

Three years later, in the end of 2014, Trustees Grams and Grove raised their handsupward to vote in the RAR Bylaw. Neither in the process of doing it, nor in the Trust RARscholarship manifest they posted on line after they did the RAR, is there any reference toadvisory committees and their advice.

Well not quite, for somehow I learned of the following inimitable counsel given the LTC:

�Based on scientific considerations, the Advisory Environment Committeerecommends to the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee that they proceedwith the watershed polygon approach to DPA area delineation, based on the2011 Ministry of Environment approved Riparian Areas Regulation mapping offish-bearing streams and watersheds.�

The Trust would not inform me on the identity of who the authors of this malarkey and, in

37

a sense I am pleased I was spared the information. The quotation reveals the reason for thesecrecy � who would be seen associated with such pronouncements?

Another gem is cleverly disguised in Resolution SSI-210-12. It is the setting of, byresolution to boot, the RAR Public Hearing for November 21, 2012.

Notable is that the resolution does not even contain the RAR word! They call it, instead,�a Special Business Meeting�. This indicates that purpose of that �Special Business Meeting� isto create fake optics of compliance with the statutory requirement that they proceed with publicinvolvement. It also indicates the determination to proceed with the RAR as surreptitiously asthey could get away with.

The LTC made also the following resolution:

�SSI-212-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee request staff advice regarding informing by letter propertyowners that have Riparian Areas Regulation identified streams within theirproperty boundaries. CARRIED�

The Trust have done away with identifying who made and who seconded and who votedfor items resolved by LTC vote. I will not go into that here, except to remark that the purpose ofthe crypto-voting is not to serve the cause of open governance.

In the SSI-212-12, please note the clever wording by which the LTC �request staff adviceregarding informing by letter property owners that have Riparian Areas Regulation identifiedstreams within their property boundaries�

To begin with, it makes the LTC appear too dumb to decide by themselves whether to�inform by letter property owners� about being hit with the RAR. Of more significance is theeasy-to-miss qualification that who will be advised by letter are those who �have Riparian AreasRegulation identified streams within their property boundaries.�

This is not a clever way to save postage by thinning out the distribution list � it is a wayto leave in the dark the numerous property owners who are RAR stricken although their properties �have no RAR identified streams within their properties�. This wording is dishonestfor it excuses failure to inform the majority (I would guess) of RARvictims, who are RARrifiedwithout their property having �within� it RAR �streams�. This has the effect of divide and rule. Itaims to turn RARvictims into RARapathetics, thereby thinning out the ranks of the resistance toRAR.

Needless to say that I receved no such letter myself.

November 8:

It took me some time to recover from the effect of been exposed to the three reports(ISSES, Madrone and Staff) and the LTC resolutions. When I finished rubbing my eyes, I wroteand submitted a delegation to the LTC presenting a comprehensive review of the three reportswhich I titled�: �We Need a New RAR Start�. It is an important document as evidenced by the

38

great length to which the Trust went to hide it from the public. Chair Sheila Malcolmson lead theLTC to respond to my delegation with silence. Clamming up was the best they could do andthat is what they did.

Needless to say that neither anyone from the Staff and the LTC had a word with meabout either the Delegation or the Placard. My contribution was �abbreviated� in the November8, 2012 LTC meeting Minutes to:

�10. DELEGATIONS 10.1 Dr. Varzeliotis - We Need a New RAR Start Dr. Varzeliotis spoke about the Riparian Areas Regulation, and suggested thatlawyers should be brought in to assist with its interpretation. He provided anadditional written submission titled �Tom�s Town Hall Placard� dated November8, 2012.�

Note the absence of a single word that my delegation was about the RAR pilot, the peerReview and the Staff Report!

The less said about it, the fewer people will know about it; the less word about it willspread, the fewer will come to the November 21 �information� event...

November 21: Popcorn and poppycock after dark at the Fritz

This was the night fantastic as the Trust took the RAR on stage at the Fritz and a fewpeople for a ride. The event deserves a chapter all by itself and this I have already written. Ihave titled it �The Fritz Fiasco�.

November 22: The LTC in the Morning after the Fritz

There was a regular business LTC meeting the day following the Fritz RAR fiasco. Iattended and I delivered through a Placard a paper titled �Invited to the Fritz to �Have YourSay� and be Promptly Censored�. It is about what had transpired the evening before thepresentation day at the Fritz. I spoke exposing the Trust machinations that had gone intospreading �RAR apathy� thus shrinking the number of RAR-concerned Islanders who wouldattend the Meeting in June 2011, the numbers of whom were beyond the capacity of the GISSGym, which down to some 30 in November 2012. And I asked for a decent organized RARmeeting to be held after the Trust publish the options open to the Trust in respect to the RAR.The Trustees went mute, as usual, ignoring both my Placard and my viva voce presentation. Here it is, how it appeared in the Minutes:

�TOWN HALLRiparian Areas Regulation � amount of public education, mapping, advertising ofcommunity information meetings, publication of written contributions from thepublic. Written submissions entitled �Invited to Fritz to �Have Your Say� andthen be Censored,� dated November 22, 2012 and �Special Edition [of thePlacard] for the Trusts RAR educational at the Fritz, After Dark dated November21, 2012 were received from Dr. Varzeliotis.�

39

The rendition is poor.

December 13:

This was the last LTC meeting of the year and I brought an exposition of the localTrustees becoming progressively embedded into the Trust. My emphasis was on the issue ofopen governance the Trustees had been elected to bring to us and their performance to thecontrary exemplified by their reaction to my presentation at the November 21st and 22nd LTCevents; I will quote the closing paragraph from it:

�Is it that le plus ça change, le plus ça reste la même or is that the change we voted for ayear ago is sabotaged by the Trust through the Chair who unmindful of the vox populi sits glued to that seat, determined to perpetuate the type of governance she haspresided over throughout the three years of her previous term?�

My delegation and the important message I brought through the Placard to the LTC atthat meeting were recorded in the Minutes as follows:

�13. DELEGATIONS 13.1 Dr. Varzeliotis � Restoring Respect for Civility and Rights Dr. Varzeliotis spoke to his delegation request and to his submission entitled�Trust Censorship: A Delegation to the December 13, 2012 SSI LTCmeeting�. He also referred to the December Trust Council meeting andAgricultural Land Commission presentation. He provided a second writtensubmission titled �Tom�s Town Hall Placard dated December 13, 2012.��

Please note the manifestation of the Trust addiction to obfuscating the issues I raisethrough the Placard by substituting the medium for the message, i.e., omitting the title of thearticle and writing, instead, a �written submission titled �Tom�s Town Hall Placard�� � it is likesaying �Peter Mansbridge Presented a report titled �the CBC National� or Sean McIntyre wrotean article titled �The Driftwood� � No, this cannot be attributed to Staff ineptitude ...

There is another item of high importance to the RAR that appeared at that LTC meeting It was made into a �Late Item, Addition to the Agenda Package� as follows:

�REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING LATE ITEMS, ADDITIONSThursday, December 13, 2012 � 9:30 AM SupplementalItem 9.1 Riparian Areas Regulation - Pilot Stream Mapping Feedback & FurtherStream Mapping Considerations - Correspondence from E. Booth datedDecember 11, 2012 � For Information.�

Former Trustee Eric Booth wrote a lengthy and reasoned document suggesting that theTrust was already in compliance with the RAR requirement and that therefore, there was noobligation left to revisit the issue and that the Trust should control its RAR madness. It appearsin the Minutes as follows:

�Correspondence from Eric Booth dated December 11, 2012. Thecorrespondence relating to the Riparian Areas Regulation was received.�

40

Thus ended the RAR year 2012.

The Year 2013: a RAR Quiet Year

January 10: LTC meeting

For that meeting I had registered the delegation �Booth Canal � Inlet in Decline� but,because of the Trust stonewalling on the matter of the Fritz RAR Censorship, I used the allottedtime to speak further on the issue of the Trust�s suppression of information on the RAR. Mymessage is encapsulated in the article �RAR Censorship at the Fritz�which I submitted at themeeting it through the Placard.

Upon me handing in that delegation substitute, the Chair stated that the LTC was notprepared for it and that they will study the matter, but not at that meeting. However, TrusteeGrove sought to defend the censorship by �explaining� that I had brought upon myself thecensorship by not speaking at the Fritz, despite the fact that I had �registered to speak�.

To begin with, his assertion that I had registered to speak at the Fritz event was not true� I had not registered, nor had I even indicated that I would speak. But I did address the LTC inwriting through a special issue of the Placard. Moreover, I had taken copies of the Placard tomake it available to attendees but Stefan Cermak resolutely prohibited that. And the Trusteeshad refused to intervene...

In any case, why should a citizen making his contribution in writing instead of orallyinvite censorship? It is more difficult and time consuming to make a written presentation than itis to walk into an event and speak. Why does �writing it down� invite censorship? Why had theyrecognized and published written submissions on the RAR brought to that meeting or forwardedotherwise by other attendees but they had excluded the submission I had made, the one andonly authored by a professional in the field of the subject matter?

The Trustees did not explain. There are no sensible answers to these questions; it isinconceivable that there would be legitimate answers, and this makes one wonder why aTrustee would voice such comments to justify the censoring of a citizen.

Overall one may say that the Trust censored my submission because they could not�damage control� it otherwise. And because they recognized that it would expose the serialized malfeasance in their handling of the RAR file.

The Meeting Minutes of the January 10, 2013, LTC record the event as follows:�10. DELEGATIONS10.1 Dr. Varzeliotis � Booth Canal � Inlet in Decline Dr. Varzeliotis provided a written submission titled �A delegation to the SSI LTC �January 10, 2013 � RAR Censorship at the Fritz� and spoke to this document inlieu of his previously submitted delegation material �Booth Canal � Inlet inDecline�.

Note the absence of any mention of any LTC reaction to charges of imposing ortolerating censorship. What could they possibly say?

41

February 26:

I raised again the issue of Staff insubordination to the LTC in refusing to un-censor myNovember 21, 2012, written submission on the RAR. The LTC was unwilling to hold the Staffaccountable � on the contrary, they gave Staff an out. Here is how it appears at the meetingMinutes:

�9. DELEGATIONS 9.1 Dr. Varzeliotis Dr. Varzeliotis spoke to his November 21, 2012 submission concerning theRiparian Areas Regulation and requested that it be posted to the Islands Trustwebsite. He also spoke to his delegation presentation concerning Booth Canal.� �4.2 Follow-Up Action List By general consent, the Trustees asked that the next staff report on RiparianArea Regulations include the material presented by Dr. A.N.T. Varzeliotis andhanded in by him on November 21, 2012 and secondly, that a letter be sent to Dr. Varzeliotis explaining why this materialis not posted to the Islands Trust website.� (Emphasis added).

Notice that the Minutes connect my presentation to my previous one at the Fritz, but donot mention that it was about the �Pilot Mapping Report�, the �Peer Review Report� and the StaffReport.

It records that I �requested it be posted to the Islands Trust Website� but they mentionnothing of the request to ameliorate the consequences of having unlawfully excluded it.

Note also that they ask Cermak to write me a letter �explaining why this material�, to witmy Review of the Three Reports, was censored. As if the LTC had satisfied itself that thecensoring was legitimate, inconsequential and explainable. This, the harming a citizen publiclyand having the Staff �explain� the harm to him/her privately, is a dirty trick, a staple in thearsenal of the Trust!

By their complacency, the LTC demonstrated their negative attitude to public input in thegoverning of the society. They demonstrated that they view public input as a nuisance theyhave to cope with in the course of moving their own agenda, which, in this instance, runcontrary to public will and, arguably, against the Law. It does not appear that they understandthe seriousness of their failure to deal resolutely with the issue of censorship and of controllingthe Trust Staff on behalf of the electorate.

Instead of expressing regrets and issuing apologies, they shyly suggested that the Staffpublish my submission jointly with the next Staff RAR report to the LTC. The matter had alreadybeen suppressed for three months, and now they were sending it further into the future, anunspecified time-length into future.

And they, the Trustees, offended common sense by decreeing that it, my analysis of thedoings of Stefan Cermak, be �included� in a Stefan Cermak�s report! It is very sad really...

The Staff moved suspiciously lethargically on posting my paper. As I relate elsewhere inthis book, they published my November 21, 2012, submission sometime in 2015! Yes, �2015" is

42

not a misspelling! My submission was not included in the �next Staff RAR report�, nor yet in thedozen or so next to it Staff reports ... Yes it was withheld for some 30 months, until the Staff hadmade the RAR a fait accompli and my paper could not serve the cause of democratic debateany longer.

A review of the Cermak �letter of explanation� and how the way Staff handled it are inthe next item, it being the March 21, 2013, LTC meeting.

March 21:

The normal Agenda and Agenda Package comes on line on Thursday or Friday of theweek before the LTC Meeting, or occasionally, on Monday of the week the meeting is held. Thistime around, there was another Agenda Package, a �Late Items, Additions�, posted after theweekend. The timing is significant because by the time this �A Late Items, Additions� wasposted, most of the people who read the Agenda on line had already done so. And becausehardly anyone would look for a RAR item in that �Additional� Agenda Package.

Cermak�s letter of explanation of the censoring of my submission to the LTC at theNovember 21, 2013, LTC meeting on the RAR was the only oddity in that Additional Package,which was dedicated to recording the �1,000 letters� submitted in support for, or against, the re-zoning of the Metal Recycling business site. At the very end of that impermeable �1,000 letters�wall, in page 207, Stefan Cermak �presented� to the society his letter �explaining� the censoringof my submission to the November 21 RAR event!

I have copied Cermak�s �explanation letter� in this book and my review of it because itdemonstrates how the Trust slammed their RAR on us.

Year 2013 � Second, Third and the Fourth Quarters

These were rather uneventful RAR times, not because the RARforces were idle, butbecause they were working inconspicuously. The Staff was moving along quietly, and the QEPswere doing their thing likewise. Nothing worth writing home about the RAR was happeningpublicly.

After proclaiming the �success� of the pilot RAR mapping at that Fritz in November 21,2012 show, the LTC had decided to �RARmap� the whole Island and green lit on it at the March21, 2013, LTC meeting. The cartography contract was awarded to Madrone, the company thathad done the �Peer Review� of the ISSES �Pilot RAR Mapping�.

Thereafter, Stefan Cermak would bring RAR reports routinely to the LTC at their regularmeetings. They were mostly viva voce presentations, which means that what he would say wasnot to be published in the Agenda package and could be easily obfuscated in the meetingMinutes so as to prevent public awareness and evade reaction. But, the serialized reportingwould allow the Trust to piously say with a straight face: we gave the public repeatedopportunities to comment on the RAR, but no one came out against what we were doing. Splendid, eh?

43

The Year 2014

May 08:

This was a rather RAR quiet year. The �contractors� mapping the �watercourses, wet ordry�, of the Island were staking out the domain for their industry and their QEP �peers�. TheStaff was busy reviewing the work of the contractors and hiring �Peers of the Contractors� to do�Peer Reviews� of every bit of RARmapping done. It is remarkable, however, that after the Staffwas laughed at for calling �peer review� for what is in effect �absolution (from accountability)papers�, they renamed the scheme �Third Person Review�, after Orson Welles�s classic �TheThird Man�, I presume! Of course, their �Third Persons� certified that the mapping contractorswere doing a fine RAR mapping job, which would pre-discredit public criticism and preventdissent from spreading to threaten the RAR.

During that period, Planner Cermak was reporting to the LTC regularly that satisfactoryprogress was being made, or something equally �specific� - the Trustees being pleased, eachtime.

But there was the statutory requirement for public consultation and they went on tocreate optics of compliance. To that end the Trust had two public involvement events in 2014 �one on May 8th and the official public hearing, or facsimile thereof, on November 4th.

I will only glance at these here and I will review them in detail in PART VI devoted�Trust Educational�.

May 08: The Trust in pursuit of �Two Way Dialogue�

This was staged to generate optics of public support for the RAR and compliance withthe Local Government Act, other law and the established political convention in our society.

I chose the title because it speaks to the dismal record of Trust interaction with thepeople it �governs�. The �Two Way Dialogue� I lifted from a Trust Staff Report produced at therequest of the then newly elected Trustees Grove and Grams who, then being politically young,were anxious to honour the mandate they had sought and received to crack the Trust cocoonof secrecy. The outcome of that effort was twisted and became the start of the substantialgrowth of Trust secrecy, which both Trustees pursued with remarkable fervour. Worst of all, the�Trustees for Change� worked with the Staff to obliterate the ways and means through which thecitizens could hold to account the people of the Trust, both elected and hired. This is more thanmerely sad.

Also pertinent to a discussion of the RAR is the credibility of those who saddled us withthat RAR. That they spared no effort to smokescreen their conduct measures the themalfeasance that went into doing the RAR we now suffer. The show they staged on May 8,2014, was a thoroughly propaganda event.

What happened on May 8th was an event geared to the pursuit of cosmetics andavoidance of substance. Because of its role in the imposition of the RAR, I am relating it insome detail in the next part of this book.

44

November 4: The Last RAR Hearing

This was the second major event of the RAR transit through 2014. This was to be thelast hurdle before the formality of the third hearing and the LTC rubber-stamping the SSI RARBylaw to make it ready for shipping to the Colonial Metropolis (Victorian Fort Street Trust Fort)for their high assent.

For that event the Trust, desirous as it is to communicate with the public, composed aNotice of Public Hearing and created a �Poster� to entice people to come to the hearing. TheNotice of Public Hearing was published in the Driftwood and meets the minimum requirementsfor such announcements.

As for the Poster, well... I do not know where they posted the poster, for I did not see itanywhere myself. Nor do I know of anyone having seen it anywhere. It is however traceable inthe RAR �Reference Documents� which they posted on the Trust website after they had madethe RAR a fait accompli.

It contains the RAR logo, an oversized stylized fish superimposed on an undersized�watercourse�, flanked by riparian zones � it is not very colorful. The poster announces thepublic hearing and also informs that two �Open Houses� were to be held, ostensibly for theenlightenment of the public, on matters RAR � the one at 2:00 pm at the Fulford CommunityHall and the other at 3:30 at the Lions Hall, in Ganges.

The Open Houses went on as planned, I presume. I do not know about attendance atthe Fulford and Ganges events because I did not attend myself, for I had no reason to believethat it was worth the effort. Indeed, I was aware that the sessions were staged to soften thetarget and to create the impression of propriety where there wasn�t any. After all, I had beenunambiguously forewarned that the dice had been cast about the RAR by the LTC and that theRAR, the Trust�s version of it, was a �done deal� meaning that the open house would notchange a thing.

The purpose of the two Open Houses was more to allow agitated citizens let off steamand, in general, to thin out the crowds for the coup de grace show orchestrated of that eveningat the Lions Hall. I attended the evening �formal� and found it was flat, by design. It was poorlyattended, relatively speaking, and those who raised issues addressed mostly low-significanceaspects of the RAR.

Minutes were kept, if I remember well, but they are not to be found anywhere. Certainlythey are not in the usual spot on the Trust Website. But I should copy here the whole Trust�record� relating what happened at the �public hearing�, which ostensibly added the final brush-strokes to the RAR the Trust saddled the people of SaltSpring with and which is:

�Title of meeting: Salt Spring Island Public HearingMeeting Type: Community Information Meeting and Public HearingDate: November 4, 2014Time: 6:00 PMLocation: Salt Spring Island � Hart Bradley Memorial Hall (Lion's Hall)Public hearing: Public Hearing Poster � Notice of Public Hearing�

45

Notice that the that the �record� of the meeting contains nothing about the subject of themeeting. There is no occurrence of the Word �RAR� either in words or acronym, no hintwhatsoever why the Trust held a public meeting � the advertisement in the Trust website isvirtually all that marks that Minutes-less meeting.

Clearly they are not proud of the event they staged and in all likelihood they would ratherhave omitted the whole thing. But they had to make an entry so as to justify paying the feesand disbursements to Trustees and the overtime to Trust employees. And to �fulfill� the irksomepublic hearing provision of the Local Government Act. And to refute the Island �activists� whoaccuse the Trust for practicing secret governance...

On November 6, 2014, that is to say, two days after that Public Hearing event, the LTCread for the third time Bylaw No. 480 and, to no one�s surprise, they unanimously approved thedarn thing. Then all that remained to do before deploying it against the people was get approvalby the Colonial Metropolis, through the Executive Committee, who was also chaired then, bySheila Malcolmson. Yes, of course the ExCom approved it!

The Year 2016

August 31:

After the RAR was �finalized�, nobody talked about it at the LTC meetings, at least Iheard nothing about it. The silence was broken on August 31, 2016, with an article in theDriftwood newspaper bylined Sean McIntyre.

It was titled titled �Riparian regs [regulations] surprise Channel Ridge propertyowners� and sub-titled �Development challenge stresses the importance of consultation�.It at afforded a perspective of the Trust and the RAR. I discuss the article in Part Five.

The RAR bylaw is a very draconian one, of serious consequences to all islanders andthe Trust people, elected and hired, were fully aware of the seriousness of �yoking� (TrusteeGrams wording) the society with the RAR. Anyone with a modicum of appreciation of this matterwould have expected the Trust to monitor the performance of this bylaw.

September 1:

There was an LTC Meeting on that day and I brought before the LTC the issue of theperformance of the RAR Bylaw 480, in the intervening one and a half years after its enactment.The Trustees and the Staff sought to evade the query. To that end they went as far to pretendlack of diligence (to put it mildly). Trustee Grams unabashedly declared ex cathedra that hewould leave to the Staff to decide whether to inform the public on the performance of the RAR�yoke�. Chairman Luckham closed the discussion by asking me whether I still want theinformation on the performance of the Bylaw. I answered ye, he promised publicly that I willreceive it, but it never happened!

October 13:

There was another LTC meeting. Again through the Placard, I revisited the issue of the

46

RAR Bylaw performance. This time I focused it the ways they hushed up my presentation at theSeptember 1 LTC Meeting. They fell silent...

As a matter of interest, I had submitted a delegation paper on it but they had censored itsummarily and they had lied in the Agenda by hiding my delegation and then hiding theircensoring...

47

The RAR, that with which the Trust �Yoked� Us

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out� Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out� Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out� Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me� and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller. Poet, Pastor, WWI Submarine Commander, WWII Concentration Camp Inmate

Introduction

In the Fall of 2009, the Trust took us, the people of SSI, for a bad RARide, lasting until the beginning of 2015 when they fastened the RAR �yoke to our neck�, which is as TrusteeGrams had spoken of the RAR before he pushed it on us. After tasting strong public outcryagainst it in the summer of 2011, the Trust went on to do the RAR by stealth, managing toprevent public awareness of what they were doing to society. At the end of 2014, the Trust �yoked� us with the RAR and the Trustees were re-elected before the people could realize whatthey had done to us.

Even now, some two years down the road, the Trust has managed to keep most peopleignorant about the RAR. This because, not unlike in overt oppressive regimes where those who�obey� are left alone, those of us who have not as yet had a need for a RAR licence are cosy inour ignorance of the RAR. We do not worry, we are happy and could remain so, the Trusthopes. That is to say, until we, individually, try to take a step on Island RARland we still think isour property. When this happens, those who experience it get a taste of the pain from the sharpRAR fangs. But, the Trust hits us with RAR one a time, in isolation, by defying �applieddemocracy�, to wit, by preventing �association�, which South of the border is exulted as �EPluribus Unum�.

Because contact with the Trust is not a universal and everyday occurrence in the life ofislanders the Trust has managed to prevent the spread of awareness about the RAR. Islanderswho have not as yet had a need to make contact with the enRARaged tRust bureaucracy noticeno change to their everyday living traceable to the RAR. It is when people have to do somethingwith their land that the Trust hits then with the RARbat. RARvictims suffer the pain passivelyand carry on quietly, feeling hapless and fearing the vindictiveness of the Trust. As for us, youand I, we will suffer too, when our time comes, like Niemöller observed.

But not even the Trust can suppress all the people, all the time. Eventually a family ofRAR victims went public on the Trust RAR. They became the first to give society a glimpse ofthe ugly face of the RAR and sent the Trust scurrying for cover. We owe gratitude to the peoplewho drew attention to the lurking RAR beast.

48

In this part of the book I discuss the RAR Bylaw No.480, as enacted and imposed uponus. As a part of that discussion I look over the �Affidavit of RAR Innocence and PerpetualPurity�, which is how I call it, or �Affidavit For Properties Not Subject to the ProvincialRiparian Areas Regulation�, as the Trust unabashedly has titled it. The Trust has hidden thisAffidavit so deeply, as they hid my analysis of the RAR �pilot mapping reports�.

Following the Bylaw review, I will tell the story of Scanlan and Clarke, the brave couplewho would fight back the RAR.

A Brief Review of the SSI RAR Bylaw

In this chapter I present my assessment of SSI Bylaw 480, the RAR Bylaw. I havefollowed closely the making of that bylaw since the beginning in late 2009 and I draw on skillsacquired in a lifetime of working with construction contracts, administering human-made lawsand, mainly, learning and applying the laws of nature. The latter are unforgiving and breachingthem results in inescapable consequences, sometimes of enormous significance anddimension.

Drafting legislation is not a simple matter � it requires extraordinary skills and is timeconsuming. I did not set out to draft a RAR bylaw to replace the one the Trust concocted � thatis not my task and I do not see myself as a Solon. I simply followed the development of Bylaw480 and became appalled by the way the Trust went about it. The outcome, the enacted Bylawdocument reminds us strongly that although the ways and means do not always justify the ends,they often shape it ...

This Bylaw is ill conceived and was made by stealth because its makers feared theywould not survive democracy if they would try to do it honestly. This is well reflected in theoutcome of their dismal enterprise as I demonstrate, conclusively I believe, in this book.

My review is a succinct presentation of my finds, the result of much time spentdissecting this �bylaw�. I am satisfied that I have done a good job and I am ready to defend myconclusion that Bylaw 480 �is an ass�, irrespective of the perspective one takes, and to justifymy recommendation that it should be tossed.

General remarks:

* Bylaw 480 is a document seriously �challenged�: a. Linguistically;

b. Ethically; c. Technically;

* This Bylaw is the work of zealot amateurs, and this is patent in each of its pages. Itcertainly lacks the attributes normally expected and found in laws of free societiesdetermined to govern themselves by the law. It is rife with ambiguities and void ofcommon sense which combine to invite the �ass� designation.

* The Bylaw lacks the essential �index� � to attempt to index this document would be adaunting task and its makers did not attempt it. The absence of an index is one only of

49

the problems of this Bylaw.

* Abundantly evident is a propensity of the author(s) of the bylaw to create an instrumentthat would facilitate the exercise of power by its administrators over the people. And toprotect the Trust officials from being held accountable for the consequences therefrom.

* Technically, Bylaw 480 would be a nightmare for the people to understand and complywith, while it will make it a cinch for Czarisks to frustrate the people and drive them tolump it rather than attempt to fight City Hall. When the people are made to believe thatthey cannot fight the City Hall, democracy wanes!

Incidentally, �Czarisks� are to �Czars� what �Asterisks� are to �Stars�.

* The RAR is purported to affect protection of the fish against un-identified perils. It isworse than �shooting at a moving target�, it is like �shooting at no target�, so to speak.The RAR Bylaw makers have not identified any peril �ordinary� people pose to fish thatwould justify the imposition of the RAR (other than being in the �food-chain�). Nor havethe Trust people done the essential �cost / benefit� analysis (inclusive of �non-monetary�values) that would conceivably justify the imposition of the RAR.

* To sustain the innuendo about citizens threatening the fish, �they� unabashedly bundled individual citizens with entities who have hurt the marine ecology in the past, and whoare still suspected of doing substantial and widely known damage to fish habitat. This istantamount to bundling garden hosepipe with the Kinder Morgan Bitumen Pipeline.

* Such bundling of a �self evident truth� (a counterfeit of one, to boot in this instance), withmotherhood-class notions may result in serious consequences. This is the signatureelement of �-isms�; and we know the immensity of the damage �-isms� do to humans. Inthis instance, the Czarisks aim to make friends with and to influence the animal-loversamong us to support them in doing the RAR. They are building a facility to demonizeanyone who dare object to them protecting the fish from us, you and me, by bundling uswith the big-bad �commercial and industrial� devils.

* The RAR Bylaw is a formidable Weapon of Mass Property Confiscation Without DueProcess and Without Compensation. It takes away large tracks of land from 1,500citizens (Trust�s count � likely double that number), turns it into RAR Land and gives theTrust hegemony over that land, making it a fiefdom for the TrustBrass and the QEPs toexploit forever.

* It expropriates, albeit partially, a part or the whole of peoples� properties and devaluesthem substantially to a fraction of what they were in the pre-RAR era. In manyinstances it grabs peoples� lifelong savings and mars their retirement dreams.

* While the purported objective of protecting fish is of benefit to the whole society, theburden is placed on the shoulders of some of the people, prima facia a minority. Thismisleads the majority or a portion of it, to feel unduly secure which, in turn, makes iteasier for the QEPs and the Trustistas to saddle society with the RAR.

* The RAR passes onto its victims the cost of their victimization. It makes the victims pay

50

for the expropriation of their property, a perpetual, ongoing expropriation, like death by a1,000 cuts. The RAR makes its victims pay forever a �tithe� in the form of �fees� to theTrust and the QEPs, due and collected each and every time property owners seeksome relief from the RAR burden, as if they had themselves lobbied the Trust to burdenthem with the RAR. But the RAR is imposed on the RARvictims, it was never solicited bythem. It is like making ato victim of a stabbing pay the muggers for the salt they spreadon the wounds.

* By forcing the people to buy �reports� from the QEPs and empowering the QEP to sell�licences and permits� in the form of �reports�, the Trust exercises power over the peopleand gets their money, while the QEPs make a living but take the blame and face the ireof the people.

* This RAR makes countless people feel as if they are on lifetime parole, having to�Report to Trust� and being watched by the QEPolice, in their own homes. It makes foran unpleasant environment.

* Bylaw 480 does not specify penalties nor identify who is to enforce this extremelydraconian Bylaw. It states that if you do not buy a QEP Report, the Trust will not issueyou a permit to do what you want or need to do on your property. And, �they� imply that ifyou go and do it without buying a permit, the Trust Police will intimidate you with thethreat of bringing the resources of the state to crush you in Court.

* Fish habitat is water. Protection of the fish habitat is, therefore, primarily albeit notsolely, in the purview of Applied Fluid Mechanics, a complex science. Yet, in Bylaw 480there is not a single mention of Engineers practicing in that field. Indeed, there is nomention of any scientists, not even of Marine Biologists.

But in that bylaw there are some 20 explicit and countless more implicit references toQEPs. This is a strong manifestation to the true objective of the RAR which is to create amarket for the services of these people. Such job-creation would be a praiseworthyendeavour if it was not to cause so much pain to so many innocent people.

* The RAR unduly empowers the QEPs. Neither they, nor the Bylaw, explains whether�professional� is meant to distinguish the QEP from the �amateurs� and the �technicians�,that is not a clever obfuscation of expression used and not to misrepresent them asbeing members of the learned professions. The insinuation is not unintentional...

* Bylaw 480 contains no provision for Dispute Resolution to meet the need for such whichis bound to arise. Other legislation directly affecting �ordinary� Canadians provides forsuch. Look, for example, at the BC Property Assessment Authority which has a robustappeal mechanism; and so does Revenue Canada. And this while RAR �decisions� canbe as consequential to the well-being of many citizens, both by comparison and inabsolute terms.

* A most dangerous aspect of Bylaw 480 is that it is silent on whether partial loss of aproperty to RAR imposes obligations on the property owner to buy a QEP report for workon his property outside the portion taken into the RAR.

51

* Bylaw 480 quantifies nothing, that is to say nothing other than the �StreamsideProtection and Enhancement Area�, the �SPEA� as they call it. It sets the SPEA at 5 to30 meters (15 to 100 ft) on either side of rivers and ditches - which distance being up toQEPs to pronounce. It also leaves it to them to relieve citizens from the pains of theRAR, it leaves it all for QEPs to determine.

* There have been no studies done, no data collected, no analyses of the issues, nodeductions made, to determine width of riparian zones. Indeed such cannot be done forthe general case, because of the individuality of water bodies and the variation of the�banks� at different reaches of one and the same waterbody can be enormous in respectto parameters professed to be material to the purpose of the RAR.

* It reflects no evaluation of pivotal parameters to its professed scope. Such as thequantity of fish the RAR will �save� yearly, monthly or daily.

* Map 28, appended to Bylaw 480, is meant to be the �Plan� showing the RAR boundarylines. But it shows nothing of the sort.

* How many thousands of miles of ditch-side riparian ribbon of residential property wouldcause damage to fish habitat equal to that done by a munitions plant, or a copper mineoperating inland, outside the RAR? They did not inform us on that, either.

* Bylaw 480 quantifies nothing. Neither the fish nor the level of protection it is to provide.It quantifies neither the aggregate revenue it will accrue to QEPs from the selling of RARReports nor the anticipated revenue to the Trust from re-packaging and re-selling as RAR permits and licences the stuff the QEPs produce.

* Bylaw 480 provides no protection to a property owner whose neighbor decides to dig aditch or a fish pond by the property boundary thereby RARifying the property of theneighbor to whatever extent it may.

* It provides no parameters, does not set limits of tolerance, does not give the QEP anysolid criteria to apply. It leaves it to them to determine what is good or bad for the fish, to arbitrate conflicts between the fish and people. In a sense it gives them the powersPriests had in Europe during the Dark Ages.

* How can the Trust do the RAR while aiding and abetting the destruction of BoothCanal? This is, arguably, the biggest environmental crime and destruction of aquatic wildlife the Trust is ever likely to face!

I listed the above concerns at random. I recognize that the list is not exhaustive and Iam aware that the concerns I present are of varying significance, but I dread the prospect oftrying to grade them. Arguably, many of these concerns, each on its own, justify scuttling Bylaw 480 and sending the matter back to zero-base-evaluation, or better yet, tossing it tooblivion.

52

Confessing Innocence �Swearing an Affidavit, that is all it will take...

In the RAR Bylaw 480 there is no reference whatsoever either to an �Affidavit�requirement, or to an �Affidavit Form�; what an �oversight� this is! I reviewed the Bylaw andobserved the lack of coverage of issues such as citizens being forced to hire a QEP even if theyare RAR-innocent, even if their properties lay on mountain tops, but I did not encounter in it theword �Affidavit�.

I discovered the Affidavit �thing� in the Reference Documents, published after the fact,and I became stunned by the size of the Trust�s capacity for inappropriate conduct. The story isthat they would �allow� owners of properties located far from waterbodies to go to a Lawyer toswear an Affidavit of RARinnocence, if they are not thrilled by the prospect of going to the QEP� everything has its price, to escape a QEP one has to pay lawyer fees! I will comment on ithere so as to alert the citizens who are left unaware of the existence of the great �Affidavit�facility, just as I was.

For easy reference I will copy the Affidavit Form at the end of my comments.

Comments on the RAR Affidavit:

* It is not an inadvertent error that the Bylaw authors did not mention the �Affidavit� in thebody of Bylaw 480 � it is inconceivable that this was an oversight! The silence is entirelyintentional, its purpose being to deceive the people!

* And so is the omission of mention of �MAP 28" in the Affidavit Form.

* Based on my years of studying the Trust, I will confidently diagnose that the creation ofthe �Affidavit Form� was driven by the Staff�s obsession with fending off accountability. Itis the LTC, it is the RAR, it is the Affidavit , it is �etc� to blame, never the immaculate andforever infallible Trust staff!

* Hiding the Affidavit conforms to the �Move Surreptitiously� corporate philosophy, orrather �corporate sophistry� of the Trust. They confirmed this corporate credo whencalled to account for messing up the Pilot RAR mapping and responded by closeting ituntil they could wrestle from the LTC a �peer review� certifying it �correct�, therebydiscouraging criticism for the Staff botching that job.

Then, with a straight face, they mislead society by claiming to have relieved half of thepotential RARvictims through their dexterous mapping scheme! Then they went furtherin their mad pursuit of irresponsibility; they sought shelter from having to decidethemselves who is in and who is out of the RAR by devising that secret silly �affidavit� toprotect themselves against misdiagnosing RAR-culpability!

In a sense, with the Affidavit, the Trust claws into the RAR all the people of SaltSpring bystealth and excludes any Trust people ever being held accountable for the way theyadminister their silly RAR Bylaw.

53

* Look at the title of the Affidavit, for it is eloquent, and truthful, albeit inadvertently so, onepresumes:

�Affidavit For Properties Not Subject To the Provincial Riparian AreasRegulation�.

Then try to get the Trust to answer some questions:

Why should owners of properties �Not Subject to the Provincial� RAR shouldhave to go to Lawyer to swear an Affidavit?

Why should the Trust serve or pretend to serve as agent of the ProvincialGovernment and not leave it to the Province to take the initiative to subject theislanders to swear Affidavits? Why does the Trust not mind its own business andleave it to the Province to administer its own �Provincial Riparian AreaRegulation�?

Why does the Trust connect the Affidavit to the �Provincial Regulation�? Andwhy is it nonchalant about its own Bylaw 480? Could it be intended to misleadthose who swear the Affidavits to vault past the Trust and to swear at theProvincial Government instead?

What does �passing the blame� to the Provincial Government say for the ethicalstance of the Trust? The credibility of the Trust in doing the RAR? The generalcredibility of the Trust?

Is there any property owner on the Island left free from both the Affidavit ANDthe QEP Report? And if so, who are they? And if so how do these lucky peopleget to know that their properties are �Not subject to that Provincial� RAR? Andhow do future Trust planners learn that there are some people exempt from theQEP and the Affidavit?

How come the Trust does not know and cannot determine whether a property isin the RAR, but citizens are expected to know what the Trust is incapable oflearning?

* The Affidavit the Trust has drafted or crafted, whatever the case may be, requires theInnocent to swear as follows:

�I (we) solemnly affirm that the development proposed for the subject propertywill not be located within a riparian assessment area as defined by the ProvincialRiparian Areas Regulations ("Regulations")�;

The explanation of this is simple, my friend: Because the �Provincial RiparianAreas Regulations� may easily be interpreted as covering ALL the�waterstreams� including all ditches, whether wet or dry, including the overgrownroadside ditches and leave out no puddle. And because the �Regulation� sets the width of the RAR strip (�SPEA�) at 30m (100 feet) from all ditches, wet or dry,that is why!

54

By sending the citizens to comply with the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulations insteadof SSI Bylaw 480, they force all the islanders , except those whose property has not asmuch as a ditch within its boundaries or within 100 feet (30m) outside the boundarylines to hire a QEP.

Basing the Affidavit on the �Provincial Riparian Areas Regulations� in effectclaws back the relief the Trust says it bought for us with that �peer� and �thirdperson� reviewed and certified correct RAR Map 28!

* This Affidavit is to be sworn by citizens whose properties are outside RARland. Theaffidavit goes as far as to compel RAR innocent citizens to study the RARholy book so they should swear to God that they have done so and have become versed in the finepoints of it. Please read the wretched thing:

�I (we) understand that under the Regulations �development� means any of thefollowing associated with or resulting from the local government regulation orapproval or residential, commercial or industrial activities to the extent that theyare subject to local government powers under the Local Government Act�

What an admixture this is! What does the Trust mean by �under the Regulations�development means any of the following associated with or resulting from the localgovernment regulation blah, blah, blah?

Why is one forced to swear familiarity with what would be required to abide by in theevent he/she was in the RAR after swearing that he/she is not in the RAR? If this is nottorturing for the fun of it, then what is it? It sounds inept but is sinister, as well.

* Then, bona fide RARinnocent citizens are made to swear as follows:

�I (we) understand that a �riparian assessment area� is defined under theRegulations as follows:�

What happened to MAP 28? It is supposed to have reduced the width of the RiparianArea from the 30 meters specified in the Provincial �Regulations� to as low as 5 meters for dryditches in Bylaw 480! Remember Map 28 was made by QEPs, was QEP �Peer Reviewed� andQEP �Third Party Reviewed� and Trust Staff designed and reviewed. The LTC blessed it andso on, at great cost to taxpayers. And on the Trust assurances, Map 28 relieves half ofpreviously RARsuspects and makes them RARfree people! Are we back to 30 meters SPEAs?Are the Trust Staff ushering those under the 30m SPEA surreptitiously through the back door?What is going on?

The Trust spends lots of public money on lawyers, but they refuse to tell us what theygot for it. And I for one am perplexed why the Lawyers did not stop the Trust from writing thisRAR Affidavit, the Bylaw and the other �Reference Documents� � the �full catastrophe� that thisindeed is.

I suggested to Cermak they get legal advice and he assured me that they had �legaladvice� and that it was that Bylaw 480 is marvelous. I do have problems with Cermak�sassurances that lawyers have consented to the bouquet of nonsense that the bylaw and it�s

55

hidden tentacles are.

Enough said, methinks. This Affidavit is a mess. Look it over, here it is laid out for youramusement:

�AFFIDAVIT FOR PROPERTIES NOT SUBJECT TO THEPROVINCIAL RIPARIAN AREAS REGULATION

Property Subject to Development:

Legal Description: ________________________________

Property Address: ________________________________

Registered Owner(s) of the Above Property.

As the Registered Owner(s) of the above described property, I (we) solemnly affirm that thedevelopment proposed for the subject property will not be located within a �riparian assessmentarea� as defined by the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulations ("Regulations"); and

I (we) understand that under the Regulations �development� means any of the followingassociated with or resulting from the local government regulation or approval or residential,commercial or industrial activities to the extent that they are subject to local government powersunder the Local Government Act:

a) removal, alteration, disruption or destruction of vegetation;b) disturbance of soils;c) construction or erection of buildings and structures;d) creation of non-structural impervious or semi-impervious surfaces;e) flood protection works;f) construction of roads, trails, docks, wharves, and bridges;f) provision and maintenance of sewer and water services;g) development of drainage systems;I) development of utility corridors;h) subdivision as defined in Section 872 of the Local Government Act; and

I (we) understand that a �riparian assessment area� is defined under the Regulations as follows:a) for a stream, the 30 meter strip on both sides of the stream, measured from the

high water mark, b) for a ravine less than 60 meters wide, a strip on both sides of the stream

measured from the high water mark to a point that is 30 meters beyond the top of the ravine bank; and for a ravine 60 meters wide or greater, a strip on both sidesof the stream measured from the high water mark to a point that is 10 metersbeyond the top of the ravine bank; and

I (we) understand that a �stream� is defined under the Regulations as any of the following thatprovides fish habitat:

c) a watercourse, whether it usually contains water or not;

56

d) a pond, lake, river, creek or brook; e) a ditch, spring or wetland that is connected by surface flow to something referred to in paragraph a) or b); and

I (we) understand that a �ravine� is defined under the Regulations as a narrow, steep sidedvalley that is commonly eroded by running water and has a slope grade greater than 3:1.

Signature(s):__________________________________________________

Print Name(s): ________________________________________________

Mailing Address:________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Postal Code: ______________ Phone:______________

Date: _________________________________

Certified By: ___________________________________________

Commissioner for Taking Affidavits in the Province of British Columbia

Dated at ________________________British Columbia�

END OF AFFIDAVIT FORM � THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT... Ain�t Lovely?

Is this Trust breaking new ground in Czarisk governance? Are we witnessing aresurrection of governance a-la Maurice Duplessis? What is it?

Serious masochists would thoroughly enjoy swearing this lovely Affidavit � the rest of us,the ordinary lads and lasses, will relieve ourselves swearing at the Trust...

Scanlan & Clarke, a brave couple

Andria Scanlan and Richard Clarke sought CRD permits to build their home in ChannelRidge. The CRD referred the Application to the I.Trust to check it out about RAR compliance.The Trust Planners immediately diagnosed the �project� RAR-positive because to connect thehome to the public watermain running in front of their home, means the laying of supply line,(likely less than an inch in size), to wit a �pipeline�. And as if �pipelines � are not bad enough nomatter which no matter where, this one would cross a ditch!

The Trust immediately froze the building project and ordered Scanlan & Clarke to go buya QEP report and bring it to the Trust so that its planners may consider the fate of the home-building application.

57

Scanlan & Clarke were surprised by that RARblow, because like most of the people ofthe island, they had been left by the Trust in the dark about the RAR. They found the blowhard to endure and went public with it. On August 29 the Driftwood published their woes, alongwith the �explanation� given by the tRusty bureaucrats.

The Trust Staff blamed it all on the delinquence of Clarke & Scanlan. They had failed todiscuss the matter with Trust Staff prior to buying their property and/or before deciding to build ahome on it. As if we must pray to Big Brother in Orwell�s world. This amounted to �the real mobshowed its hand�, like Trustee Grams referred to Trust in another RAR instance.

The exposure of the Scanlan & Clarke treatment in the hands of the Trust was anopportunity to disperse some of the cloud of secrecy the Trust has engulfed their RAR with, andI took it.

The Trust would not talk RAR

The August 31, 2016 issue of the Driftwood Salt Spring Community paper carries anarticle titled �Riparian regs [regulations] surprise Channel Ridge property owners� andsub-titled �Development challenge stresses the importance of consultation�. This articlewas godsend as it triggered a long overdue look at the implementation of the dire RAR. Itafforded the people a glimpse of the performance of the RAR which the Trust imposed on theIsland in December 2014, and of which nothing had been heard since.

Neighboring Saanich had a similar experience with a citizen exposing a bylaw enactedto protect some 2,000 �sensitive ecosystems�. Eventually a victim of that bylaw, Anita Bull�went public� and many others added their voice to hers. Their pleas for relief were heard butrelief was opposed by zealots within and without the municipal council, causing fears that theoutcome of the debate would be compromised to the class of �cosmetic reform�. This would bethe worst outcome as it usually takes the wind from the sails of reform for a long time to come. The people of Saanich keep their fingers crossed, I imagine ...

The same thing happened in Salt Spring, where the Trust hit Scanlan & Clark with theRARbook. They found this difficult to take and cried out for relief. They went public via theDriftwood article mentioned above. As it happened, the day after publication of the article therewas a SSI LTC meeting and I took up with them the issue through �Tom�s TownHall Placard�,the �newsletter� sheet I publish for such occasions. This drew out more ugly stuff from the Trust. I shall return to this soon, after I review briefly the Driftwood article.

This review is necessary because the article contains some inadvertent ambiguities,leading to wrong impressions about a matter of utmost importance to islanders. These, if leftunexamined, would result in a distorted portrait of the RAR which, in turn, may affect the causeof democratic governance.

NB: The Driftwood article is found in �PART IX -Testimonials� � here I will fill ininformation that the people need to understand the RAR.

58

Comments and Correction to the August 31 Driftwood Article

I will start with the title and the subtitle of the article, for they do need comment.

The Driftwood article states:

The title of the article informs that when hit with the RAR club, Scanlan & Clarke became�surprised�. This is noteworthy because the �surprise� was caused by the Trust having done the RAR surreptitiously which, in turn, was because this RAR could not be done in the light ofday. And because the Trust Brass could not control themselves to yield to the public interestand scrap the RAR.

Then, the subtitle �stresses the importance of consultation�. This is the position theTrust�s Stefan Cermak took when interviewed by the Driftwood, on the Scanlan & Clarke story.

With this assertion, Cermak seeks to reduce the issue to a mere failure of Scanlan &Clarke to �follow procedure�; blame it all on them; launder the RAR; and, of course protect theTrust planners against being seen as overzealous. Obey the Planners� RARorders and shut up� Czarisks love that.

Let�s take this a step further: Suppose Scanlan & Clarke had gone to the Trust for�consultation� at an earlier stage of planning their home: The only response the Trust officercould give is to go hire a QEP to certify that a domestic water connection is not a crime againstthe environment and would not affect the well-being of fish. Then take the QEP�s Report to theTrust and pray for a sympathetic planner to consider letting them access public water. But thatdoes not cut red tape; it relieves no one from the cost of a QEP Report; it does not spare onebeing RARtortured; in one word, it does not help at all... But could help the Trust bureaucratsin their efforts to keep hidden the harsh reality of the Trust RAR.

The Driftwood article states:

�Salt Spring's RAR bylaw is based on a provincially mandated requirement for local land-use agencies to protect fish-bearing water courses.�

That the SSI version of the RAR was imposed by the Big Bad Victoria Government is not the truth. In reality, the SSI RAR bylaw No. 480 was concocted locally and was enacted bythe Local Trust Committee (�LTC�) � and it reflects substantially their mindset.

The Driftwood article states:

�About 1,500 property owners on Salt Spring are directly affected by RAR-designatedwater courses.�

Not true, either! Indeed the LTC is claiming that of the 3,271 Properties that were initiallydeemed impacted by RAR, only 1,544 are now RAR-controlled, the rest having been rescued byclever RAR mapping. There are 5,761 properties in SSI (Trust count) and all of them are nowimpacted by the RAR, albeit to various degrees, but no one remains RAR-free.

59

The Driftwood article states:

�Whereas some homeowners faced with such a predicament have the option to bypasstheir RAR area altogether, building around the problem wasn't a choice for Scanlan andClarke.�

This reference may refer to that some owners of property lying far away from any watermay escape the RAR�s claws by swearing an Affidavit of RAR-innocence in lieu of a QEPreport.

The Driftwood article states:

�The Islands Trust's map shows a distinct RAR zone...�

The Trust RAR map does not show any �distinct RAR zone�. Simply said, there is no�Trust map� showing boundaries of the lands clawed into the RAR to make up the RARRepublic.

As a reminder, the size of the SSI RAR Republic was initially estimated at �60%� of theisland � the Trust disputed that but never came up with a figure of their own ...

The Driftwood article states:

�He [PRM Cermak] added that the property doesn't appear to fall within any of theexemptions listed in the RAR legislation. Trust staff continue to work alongside theproperty owners and CRD building inspectors to resolve the matter.�

Likely they will resolve the matter so as to shut the lid on the Driftwood article and this isgood for Scanlan & Clarke. But it does not eradicate the nonsense the Trust have built into thatRAR bylaw.

The Driftwood article states:

�Cermak said the situation highlights the need for all parties involved in the purchase, sale and development of land to thoroughly consult with all regulatory agencies.

��This occurs to me as being regular due diligence,� Cermak said.�

...Yavol Commandant!

The Driftwood article states:

�Information about areas affected by RAR and a comprehensive map of the island'sDPA7 zones is available at the Trust office.�

As for �information about areas affected by RAR being available from the Trust office�this is not true either. The Trust fought tooth and nail against former Trustee George Ehring�sthoughtful suggestion to have the Trust Staff determine whether a property is in the RAR or not,and then send only those who test positive to buy a report from a Qualified Environmental

60

Professional (QEP). The Staff fought against it and won that one, too � now the only advice theyhave to give to applicants is to go hire a QEP and buy a Report, for without it the Trust wouldnot let you grow the zucchini and garlic garden you dream of.

The Driftwood article is not exhaustive but suffices to warn us that the Trust has much tohide about the RAR. Please read the Article in PART IX � Testimonials of this work.

The LTC, The Day After

The August 31, 2016 Scanlan & Clarke Driftwood article was the first RAR applicationcase to surface. The deafening silence marking the intervening one and a half year period of lifeunder the RAR was creating the impression that the Scanlan & Clarke episode was the first tooccur, which is not true. To prompt awareness, the next day, September 1, I brought the issueto the LTC via the Placard, in the form of an open letter to the SSI LTC, as follows:

�Tom�s TownHall PlacardSeptember 1, 2016 LTC Town Hall and Questions session

A Question to the SSI LTC by Tom Varzeliotis

Dear Chairman Luckham, Re: Monitoring the Performance of the SSI RAR Bylaw #480

I would appreciate the answer to the following question:How many applications that could conceivably be or not be RAR affected has theTrust received and how many of these has the Trust accepted for processingbare of: either a �Report by a QEP�; or an Applicant-sworn �Affidavit of RAR-Innocence�; or for procession conditional to Applicant producing a QEP Report oran Affidavit?

Please, identify the Applications, if any.

I am referring to the 20 month period spanning January 1, 2015 to the date of this request.

Tom Varzeliotis,

Forever RARely Correct�

The LTC, both Trustees and Staff, responded that they should not be expected to havethe answer at their fingertips, which prima fascia appears sensible but it is not. But YES, they ought to have the answer at their fingertips! More than that, they ought to havepublished the �answer�; and they ought to have acted on it, if it had surprised them. Thisbecause it is their duty to monitor the performance of all bylaws and much more so in thisinstance given that the RAR Bylaw that had taken five years to concoct and that it had drawn�unprecedented public interest�, as the LTC had called the public objection to it; and because

61

entirely scandalously the Trust had spent a quarter of a million local tax Dollars, ostensibly tocomply with the wish of the Provincial Government. Yes it was their duty to monitor theperformance of the RAR Bylaw and was their duty to report the findings to society. But theywere delinquent on all counts. Evidently, they prefered to be seen derelict in their duty than tolevel with the people on the RAR.

I countered their �not having it in their fingerprint� contention by asking whether theyknew of any single case where one citizen who, in the past two years since the advent of theRAR, got past the Trust RAR watch something without a QEP�s Report or an Affidavit ofRARinocence � they pretended ignorance to this, too! I asked them point blank whether theyhad monitored the performance of the controversial RAR Bylaw. They would only mumble,because this question was �tough�, too!

The way this exchange appeared in the meeting minutes is:

�One member of the public requested data regarding applications that have been processed following the adoption of the Riparian Areas Regulations Bylawfor Salt Spring Island.�

This is less cryptic than usual, yet it deliberately disinforms whomever may seekenlightenment in the Meeting Minutes. To begin with, they seek to denigrate �Dr. VarzeliotisP.Eng (Ret�d), Civil Engineer, specialist in Fluid Mechanic - Hydraulics, a veteran ofEnvironment and Fisheries Canada, with hundreds of submissions to the Trust over the past six years� into an amorphous �One member of the public�.

This is not appreciative, it is uncivil, and discourages public input, it is unbecoming of apublic body in a free society. Contrast this recurring defamation attempt to the Trust havingnever taken me up on my challenges to �identify something, anything, I have ever bought tothem that it would have better been left unsaid�.

Next I will copy here the way Trustee Grams remarked on my presentation to the LTC atits �TownHall and Questions� period of that meeting. Here it is, transcribed from the audiorecording of the meeting:

Trustee Grams: �Well, the LTC does not have that information at their fingertips. I thinkStaff [pause]. If Staff are prepared to provide it, then [pause]. I will leave that to their discretionif the Planning Manager [pause]. I think that is all we can do!�

George ... please, be real:

�If Staff are prepared to provide it ?�

�I [Trustee Grams] will leave that to their [Staff ] discretion?�

�Is that all we [you, the elected LTC, the peoples� representatives] can do?�

Chairman Luckham rushed in to protect and preserve �face� for the Trustistas � heasked me whether I �still want an answer to my question.� To which, of course, I answered�Yes�. He said that I will get them... And closed the discussion.

62

Well, the Chairman frequently does not follow through on his promises, and this was notan exception. But, in effect I had already the answer, I got it right then and there, the moment Iposed the question, had I not?

The September 23, 2016 LTC

Chairman Luckham did not honour the promise he made at the September 1, 2016 LTCmeeting, i.e, to answer my query about the performance of the RAR bylaw. I knew they werehiding from the public but I was of the opposite persuasion, to wit, that the people have a rightto know and the Trust an obligation to tell ...

His negation prompted me to register a delegation about the handling by the Trust of theScanlan & Clarke case for presentation at its next meeting scheduled for September 23.Needless to report, the Trust double-censored my delegation (�double-censoring� is when theTrust censors an irreverent citizen and then censor themselves to evade being called to accountfor the censoring).

I submitted the document, although I was expecting them to censor it, because this is avery important subject and because I would not censor myself to spare the Trustees having todo the censoring.

I came to the next LTC meeting with a short but message through the Placard:

�Tom�s TownHall PlacardSeptember 23, 2016 LTC Town Hall and Questions session

Let the Truth about the RAR Triumph... No Remorse, Apologies, or Relief in Sight

Recently, the Trust hurled the RARbook at Adrian Scanlan and Richard Clarke to blockthem running a ½ inch water supply line by their driveway to connect their home to the publicwater system.

The LTC has claimed that only one in four island properties are RARified, the remaining 4,217 being RARfree � the claim is not true. To demonstrate that what happened to Scanlan &Clarke, was the �norm� under the Trust RAR, I challenged the Trust to tell us how many permitshave been issued without QEP reports or sworn Affidavits of RARpurity � You would not tell,because there aren�t any!

This silence constitutes continuation of the disinformation about the massive RARproperty confiscation, which disinformation the Trust spread to glide the RAR past us. Now I ask once again the Trust to level with us and scuttle the dreadful RAR � �Now�, for it isalready late.

In effect all I am asking is to give us back what you should not have taken from us.

63

Tom Varzeliotis, Thoroughly RARirked citizen�

The LTC reverted to Consent by Silence, second-nature to them by now.

RAR-IN-ACTION The December 1, 2016 LTC meeting

Torturing Real People to Save Phantom Fishes in Mostly Dry and Weed-ChokedDitches. A glimpse at the ugly face of the tRust RAR

The Agenda of the December 1, 2016 LTC meeting contained the following innocuousitem:

�15.6 SS-DP-2016.6 � A. Scanlan � 125 Mapleridge Place Development Permitfor Development Permit Area 7 - Riparian Areas - Staff Report�

This is unlikely to catch the eye of who may read the Agenda, and to ring an alarm thatthe item has to do with �Adrian Scanlan and Richard Clarke of Channel Ridge� , that is to say,to associate it with the August 31 Driftwood article. Moreover the item was set to be the last ofthe Applications, scheduled for the time of the meeting least attended by �members of thepublic�.

There was more smokescreening the Trust had done to evade detection of this Agendaitem. There were no copies of the Staff Report on the information table, usually placed there formembers of the public. There was not even the black 3-ring Binder on the table at that LTCmeeting � this, I believe, is the first time it has gone AWOL in the seven years I have attendedTrust meetings.

In any event, the information can be found hidden behind the cryptic titles in the Trustposted Agenda Package. It comprises 25 pages; It is made up by a three page Staff Report,signed by Planner Shelley Miller and co-signed by Stefan Cermak. Their Report and its threeAttachments, are listed in the Agenda as follows:

�15.6 SS - DP - 2016.6 Staff Report� by Shelley Miller & Stefan Cermak15.6 A1 - SS - DP - 2016.6 � Site Context 15.6 A2 - SS - DP - 2016.6 � Checklist 15.6 A3 - SS - DP - 2016.6 � Proposed Permit�

The subject of these four items was left to the imagination of the curious and the hopewas that the wording would not trigger curiosity...

Hidden deeper was the QEP Report. This was incorporated into item �15.6 A3 - SS - DP- 2016.6 � Proposed Permit�. It is a 15-page report by QEP David Gooding. It is �FORM 1 �Assessment Report Professional Opinion�, filled to the plimsoll line with a load of RARcrap, withapologies for the irresistible colloquial.

The first Attachment is the 3-page long Staff Report and describes the lot on which

64

Scanlan & Clarke want to build their home.

The second is a 3-page long �Policy Checklist� which, in effect, is a search of Trustpolicies available to Trust officers to torture applicants with.

The third appendix is labeled �Proposed Development Permit� which hides the fact that itis essentially a 15-page long report by a QEP, laced with the approval of the Trust Staff!

The whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare, as I will discuss next.

Sledghammering a flea, for fun and fees

It has been a long time since I stayed at an LTC meeting beyond the �TownHall sessionand Trust and staff were expecting me to leave the December 1 meeting long before the timescheduled for discussing agenda 4-pronged item �15.6 SS DP2016.6 etc�. But I did stay to seeLTC pondering the Scanlan & Clarke �pipeline� connecting the watermain with the ice-cube trayin the fridge of the Scanlan & Clarke. You see, the pipeline would cross the �waterstream�(ditch), which could imperil the RAR decreed duty to protect and preserve the unique natural amenities of the ditch.

I have done �pipeline crossing waterstreams� a few times in my career, including issuingpermits for such while serving with Environment Canada. For example, once I considered anApplication from a major BC company wishing to cross a waterstream: The company was wellknown by it unique home in Vancouver, it being the architecturally notable �hanging building�, as much as for its service. The �waterstream� was then and is still called �Fraser River�, namedafter some Scottish fella who did something or other in its riparian area. As for the pipeline thatwas to cross the waterstream, if I remember well, was somewhat larger than the ½ inch Scanlan& Clarke kitchen and toilet flushing water supply line.

I knew the Fraser River very well, beacuse of my role in the Federal-provincial floodpretection works. I examined the applicant�s drawings and annotated them with severalchanges. To do that, I was drawing from my specialist engineer�s knowledge of the laws ofnature and applicable technology. I approved the project subject to these changes and issuedapproval.

I was surprised with a call from the Applicant asking for a on-site meeting. We met onthe �waterstream� bank (Riparia Area) - three engineers one of whom was the �field engineer�for the project for the Applicant and myself, for Environment Canada. I answered the questionsthey had, and instructed them how the crossing was to be built. When the field engineer told methat he �had got it�, we shook hands and that was it. Later on, I did inspect the work inprogress, and as far as I know it has performed well in the decades since and to this day. The Trust did a laborious assessment for the Scanlan & Clarke garden hose-size �pipeline�,crossing a ditch, mostly overgrown with brambles (�berry plants� are these cited in the QEPreport, for clarity, I presume). As I mentioned above the agenda entry is 25 pages ofbureaucratic nonsense, all for a nothing, really.

To further size the nonsense, consider the following: Their RAR Bylaw, empowers theLTC to request from Applicants a performance deposit of 150% of the Trust Planners� estimate

65

of the restorative work. In this instance they set the �bond� at $75, which means that the Trustestimated the project at $50, it being enough to buy a fair size Xmas turkey (free range). For that they wrote all this paper and I, I guess, they all feel proud of their thoroughness. Theyeven specify that the Applicant must plant �indigenous� grass and weeds on the backfilledtrench � Remarkable!

Now look at this: The three of the LTC and the Staff stipulated that the Applicant mustbring another report from a QEP certifying the satisfactory completion of the work in order toretrieve the security deposit. �Merde� the Rt. Hon. Trudeau (The Father) would belch loud in theHouse if he was still around.

This, among its other implications, is insulting, once again, to the intelligence of the TrustStaff by implying they are not as adept as it would take to protect the Island against theApplicant cheating by planting ordinary grass instead of the specified indigenous varieties. Ipresume that to avoid the expense and the dispute, the RARvictims will likely forfeit to the Trustthe $75 security deposit � unless, of course, the QEP sold them �Two Reports for the price ofone�, like grocery stores often do.

For the Record

For those who missed the late afternon LTC skit, and for the cause of �common law, theTrust recorded the above in the Meeting Minutes, as follows:

Draft Minutes of the December 1, 2016 LTC meeting �15.6 SS-DP-2016.6 � A. Scanlan � 125 Mapleridge Place Planner Miller presented a staff report dated November 21, 2016 regarding aDevelopment Permit for water line installation within Development Permit Area 7� Riparian Areas.

Applicant Andria Scanlan was present.

SS-2016-225 It was MOVED and SECONDED,

That the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee approve issuance ofDevelopment Permit SS-DP-2016.6. CARRIED�

It does not take much to silence the Trust

Citizens are not entitled to know the fee Scanlan & Clarke paid to the QEP, wecan only guess the amount. But citizens have a right to know how much the Trustcharges for considering a QEP�s report and issuing a licences to RARvictims. As I amabout to show, the Trust denies the peoples� entitlement to that.

After witnessing the LTC �licencing� the domestic water connection of theScanlan & Clarke �pipeline�, the next day, December 2, 2016, I emailed the Trust asfollows:

66

�Dear Stefan [Cermak], GoodMorning, I need the following information: 1. The total fees (including applicable taxes) the Trustcharged Andria Scanlan and Richard Clarke in respect to theirprocurement of the permit approved by the LTC at its meetingyesterday � Item �15.6 SS - DP - 2016.6" � in the LTC Agenda �December 1, 2016. 2. I also need the Resolution made by the LTC in respect to thismatter, including the stipulation of $75 performance securitydeposit.

I will appreciate your response �by return email�, so to say. Regards, Tom V�

Well... Yes, I never heard from Stefan.

What does a Trust RAR-licence looks like?

Most of us have not as yet seen one and, I presume, those who have wish theynever had seen it and I wish them good luck in that. This because such a pertmit isunpleasant to look at and painful to the mind. But information is power and we need allwe can possibly master if we are to ever get rid of the RAR. Hence, I will reproducehere the one the Staff brought to the LTC for issue to Scanlan & Clarke. I cannot recallwhether it was altered by the Trustees before ruberrstamping it but and I paid duediligence to the matter, asking Cermak for the information, as I related above � heanswered with silence, meaning that the facts are toxic to the image of the Trust.All I can do for you is to parade the �permit� brought to the LTC for its approval andassumption of �responsibiliy� for it. Here it is:

�SALT SPRING ISLAND LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SS-DP-2016.6

To: Andria Scanlan and Richard Clarke

1. This Development Permit (the "Permit") applies to lands described below and all buildings,structures and other developments therein:

PID: 008-392-811 Lot 3, Section 10, Range 2 West, North Salt Spring Island, CowichanDistrict, Plan 45544

2. This Permit is authorized [by the Trustees] as follows: 2.1 Siting of trench and water supply piping must be in accordance with Schedule 1.

3. This Permit is subject to the following conditions: 3.1 All development must be in accordance with the recommendations contained in theRiparian Areas Regulation Assessment Report for the subject property submitted by D.Gooding, P.Eng, dated 2016-10-09, and attached to this permit as Schedule 2.

67

3.2 The Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (�SPEA�) must be revegetated inaccordance with the recommendations contained in Section 5 of the Riparian AreasRegulation Assessment [QEP] Report for the subject property submitted by D. Gooding,P.Eng, dated 2016-10-09, and attached to this permit as Schedule 2.

3.3 A Qualified Environmental Professional must submit written confirmation to IslandsTrust that the development has occurred in accordance with the recommendationscontained in the Riparian Areas Regulation Assessment Report which form part of thispermit.

4. Development and revegetation authorized by this permit is to be concluded within 2 years ofthe issuance of the permit.

5. This Permit is authorized in accordance with Schedules 1 and 2, attached to and formingpart of this permit as signed and dated by the Deputy Secretary of Islands Trust.

6. Any further development, redevelopment or changes to this permit including the siting ofbuildings, structures, and landscaping in Development Permit Area 7 � Riparian Areas mayrequire a new Development Permit or a Development Permit Amendment.

7. This is not a Building Permit, nor does it remove any obligation on the Permittee to obtain allother necessary approvals for the lawful completion of the proposed development.

8. The land described herein shall be developed in accordance with the terms, conditions andprovisions of this Permit, and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit, which shallform a part thereof.

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PERMITPASSED BY THE SALT SPRING ISLAND LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE THIS DAY OF ________________ , 201__ .

PROPOSED

Deputy Secretary, Islands Trust ________________________

Date of Issuance ___________________________

IF THE DEVELOPMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS NOT COMMENCED BY THE DAY OF______________, 201___ , THIS PERMIT AUTOMATICALLY LAPSES.�

What a beautiful Permit this is, how becoming the matter of a �pipeline� crossing a ditchchock-a-block with �berry bearing plant� ( brambles)!

Now you know what it looks like. It tastes worse than it looks. We have to get rid of thisprocess, before our names appear in the Trust�s rolls of the RARhit.

�Fuddle Duddle� the Rt. Hon. Trudeau (The Father) would cry out in the House if he wasstill around.

The Trust would not abolish the RAR � it us, the people who must do it, or force

68

them do it.

This because we are fortunate enough to live in a democracy. And because we ought itto those who gained for us, the people the facility to preserve and protect our freedom.

Hold the Presses!

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity Hanlon's razor

It is hard to fathom the faculty of the �mob�, which is how Trustee George Grams labeledthe Trust, before himself becoming embedded in it. The Trust took the characterization quietly, likely because it recognized that Grams pronouncement was not libelous, due to it being notfalce.

Up to about the end of 2016 the Trust had managed to suppress information about theRAR �Affidavit�, as they had done with other significant �evidence� about the RAR. Even peoplewho keep a close watch on the Trust were ignorant of the existence of that stupid Affidavit.Evidently the Trust had plenty of reasons to keep the thing hidden, all being entirely illicit.

But after they secured the RAR for themselves, they realized that they could not use it,without having made it �public�. To that end they hid the Affidavit in a list labeled �RARReference Documents � [Group #7:] Other Reference Documents�, which the Trust publishedsometime in early 2015, after making the SSI RAR a fait accompli. It is the list I discussindividually, in all its glory elsewhere in this book. Thereafter they could tell bothersome folk thatthe �Affidavit� was �published� and, therefore, if they did not know about it, it was the citizens�fault ...

Prompted by the August 31, 2016 exposure of the Scanlan & Clarke saga, I posed some simple questions to the Trust through Tom�s TownHall Placard for information on theperformance of the RAR Bylaw, including the use of the �Affidavit�, as I have already noted.They would not answer my queries � the furthest they went was when Chairman Luckhampromised at the September 23 LTC that they will provide me the information privately, which, ofcourse, they did not.

But after they realized that the cat was out of the bag, the Trust people �worked�atcontaining the spill of awareness about the RAR Affidavit. The Trust �plumbers�, moving cat-quietly, erased the �RAR Reference Documents� from the Trust Website, stock, lock and barrel! Yes they did, they lifted out the whole thing ... I just could not believe my eyes, when I saw thevacuum where �RAR Reference Documents� were previously posted.

As far as I know, there is no evidence left, at least none is left outside the vaults of theTrust that the �Affidavit for Properties Not Subject to Riparian Area Regulation� alias�Affidavit of RAR Celibacy and Perpetual Purity� is nowhere to be found without �Trustsecurity clearance�.

But the stench from it lingers and will be for as long as the Trust RAR exists.

69

Making a Mountain out of a molehill

Expecting something good from those who plotted the trajectory of the RAR to our islandis like a captain of a ship looking forward to crossing paths with a lurking submarine. The Trustdid not go to all the trouble it went to do the RAR for our pleasure and enjoyment. And whenthey got their RAR, to no ones� surprise they moved with the zeal of a child having a new toy.The Trust went out to maximize the return to the �investment� they had made in the RAR.

The Scanlan & Clarke incident manifests the determination of the Trust to maximize thereturn on resources they expanded over the four years that it took them to impose the RAR onus. Look how the Trust Protects and preserves us with the RAR:

1. They have the CRD Buiding Permits service have been asked to spy for fish-terrorists. They spotted Scanlan & Clark and suspected them being �persons ofinterest� to the Trust RAR planners and alerted the Trust.

2. The Trust Planners descended upon Scanlan & Clarke to apprise them that werecaught attempting a RAR offence; and told them to go confess to a QEP, to seewhether there is mercy for them. No much unlike the Police informs those whomthey detain about the freedom to retain a lawyer.

3. Scanlan & Clarke resisted compliance and became unruly. They were so upsetas to go public thereby posing a threat to the RAR. The Trust defended the RARand blamed Scanlan and Clark for the �trouble�. To generate an impression ofmagnanimity, they said publicly they would have Trust Staff work with theRARvictims, ostensibly to smooth the waters.

4. We do not know how they worked together, but we know that Scanlan and Clarkewere �persuaded� to do what they had revolted against. They retained a QEP. Hewent on to study the matter profoundly and discovered, exactly as expected, thatthere was salvation to be had through repentance and due obedience.

5. Scanlan & Clark purchased an �absolution paper�, alias a �QEP report�, took it tothe Trust, shelled out more dough for �fee� and, I presume, went to a place ofworship to pray for a Planner to have mercy.

6. The Trust went at it with vengeance. They had Planners Miller go througheverything with a fine tooth comb and Cermak double check it, lest there was anyoversight. They laboured hard to ensure that no conceivable consequences fromthe Scanlan & Clarke domestic water supply line interferes with the Trust�s callingto protect and preserve fish and that none of the Trust�s Policies, Bylaws, Rules,Regulations etc was offended.

7. Unwilling to shoulder the responsibility from making such a decision bythemselves, the Trust Planners lugged the File to the �disposable� peoples�representatives. They called upon them to shoulder the accountability for theconsequences from the ½ inch �pipeline� crossing the ditch with the �berryplants�. The two locally elected Trustees lead by their imported Chairman

70

Luckham, were not quite sure that the fish would be adequately protected, butthey rose to their calling to make decisions.

However, the Trustees would not place society at the risk from Scanlan & Clarkefailing to �revert� the site to what would have been in times past, by planting�native grasses�, as the QEP had determined they must do. To prevent such acatastrophe, the Trustees demanded a $75 compliance bonus.

8. Finally, to show their doubt in the ability of the Trust staff to assess whether the�construction� project had been done �properly�, the Trustees stipulated that aQEP must do another report and file it with the Trust so that the Staff will besecure against called to account if the job if was not properly completed (the�peer review� syndrome!)

Trust intransigence or How they did it

The Trust had a chance to pretend having a heart � they could say that since theScanlan & Clarke �water connection box� was not �NEW construction� (Caps, as in the TrustPropaganda literature), the RAR does not apply to this case. This would have also been fair.But they did not do that, instead went on to demonstrate how harsh they can be, as I relatedabove. But there is more to be told.

One facet of the case is the financial burden they imposed on Scalan & Clarke. To obtain this information I filed a request with the Trust for the fee they charged the Applicant forthe permit. They would not tell that, as if it is a secret, which it is not. But the Trust does not postthe fee schedule � searching the Trust Website returned the suggestion that I inquire at theTrust office. But I had already done that and the Trust would not tell me. Let me then guestimatewhat the RAR permit:

Application fee to the Trust $1,000QEP Report (original)QEP Report $1,500QEP Report (Certification of completion) $ 500�Interest during construction� delay $3,000

----------------------------- Total: $6,000

I do not know how close to the real cost my figures are, but I will guess that the $6,000 isno far from what the RAR cost to Scanlan and Clarke.

To this, one should factor in the pain from the RAR. If the Trust had not done the RARScanlan & Clark would have been spared contact with the Trust and, conceivably, could have been in their home for Christmas...

Incidentally, the �peoples� representatives� who are the LTC did not appear perturbed bythe Staff bringing to them the supermundane issue of a ½" water supply line. The LTCTriumvirate cost us the best part of a $Million p.a. in taxes. Do we elect them to have themdecide issues like that, making decisions that the well-paid staff is scared to make?

71

For the Record

As a reminder, the Scanlan & Clarke matter was processed at the December1, 2016LTC meeting.

Time to look at the meeting Minutes... well, here they are, more amusing thaninformative:

�SS-2016-21: It was MOVED and SECONDED, that the Salt Spring Island LocalTrust Committee approve issuance of Development Variance Permit SS-DVP-2016.3. CARRIED�

Now, how many citizens reading this would imagine that this Resolution packs the sadstory of a couple seeking to connect their home to the watermain? How Now, how many citizens reading this would fear that the Trust does not really know what�Open Governance means?

Recently, Trudeau (The Son) exclaimed: �Because it is 2017" � is the Trust ever going tolisten?

72

PART FOUR � RARMARKABLE RAR EPISODES� All sad, Some highly amusing...

The Fritz Fiasco

In late 2010, the Trust hired consultant Kris Nichols to usher the RAR upon us, theislanders of SSI. He started on it in early January 2011 and by mid-year, he had raised enoughopposition to the RAR that the people made the Trust relieve him of his command and declare alull in the RAR war. Nonetheless, the Trust remained determined to do the RAR.

Not surprisingly, the RAR found its way into the November 2011 electoral campaign,cleverly reduced to the issue of �mapping the RAR�. The many other ugly aspects of it vanished� aspects such as the number of islanders who would be victimized by the RAR and howsevere the pain would be did not seem to matter as long as the RAR was mapped, the peoplewere goaded to think!

Producing Maps that would depict the majority of islanders left �untouched� by the RARwould shrink the active opposition to a size that the RAR promoters could manage. This is theapproach they pursued with the newly elected Trustees. But the Trust, still fearing the public, went further astray and instructed the �cartographer� contractors that RAR mapping was tomean other than defining and depicting the boundaries of the land that would be clawed awayfrom the people to make up the Republic of the RAR.

Dividing the society between those within the RAR and those without it is essentially adeployment of the �divide and rule� technique of oppressors. The reality that hardly anyislanders would be left untouched by the RAR was skillfully camouflaged out of the public eyeby the Trust.

After the November 2011 elections, the new Trustees, anxiously moved on to do theRAR but they let themselves be lead the wrong way by the Staff. They did not start at thebeginning as they ought to do. This would mean assessing the RAR on a Zero Base methodbut, instead, they plunged headlong into where their predecessor had sunk, rushing to do theRAR mapping. Their failure to �start at the beginning� proved highly consequential to the futureof the Island.

The way the Trust went about it was clumsy and people who were looking at it closelydiscerned what was happening and cried �foul�. The Trust reacted by hiding the �pilot maps�from the people and buying for themselves a blanket �Absolution Paper� with which to shieldthemselves against being called to account for what they were doing. They called thatAbsolution Paper a �peer review� (sic) to hide the nature of it and to make it saleable to theinnocent people.

After the �peers� did what they were paid to do, the Trust declared the �pilot� a �certifiedsuccess� and proceeded to create the impression of presenting it to the public. This was moreof an attempt to fool the people than anything else, as I discuss following.

73

They begun the �sale� of the RARmaps with an advertisement posted on the Trustwebsite:

�Trust News Release � 2012-21� November 06, 2012-IT Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee to host special meeting to reviewstream maps Salt Spring Island � The Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee has beenworking since 2010 to comply with BC legislation aimed at protecting andrestoring BC�s fish habitat, improving riparian protection and enhancement, andproviding stronger local government powers in environmental planning. Withinthis legislation is the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) under which localgovernments are required to protect the features, functions, and conditions thatare vital in the natural maintenance of stream health and productivity for fishhabitat, potential fish habitat, and streams that carry water to them. In short,compliance with the RAR is contingent upon the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee amending their bylaws to include riparian area protection provisions.

The implementation of the RAR in the Trust Area had been delayed principally due toissues with identifying watercourses that are subject to the RAR and in accurately mappingthose watercourses. The Islands Trust had previously obtained watershed mapping derivedfrom 2-metre contour Digital Elevation Mapping (DEM) for most of the Trust Area. Based ontheir records and knowledge, the Ministry of Environment regional staff identified 26watersheds within the Salt Spring Island Trust Area that would be subject to the RAR. The SaltSpring Local Trust Committee has delayed further consideration of bylaws until the feasibilityof mapping the precise locations and attributes of the watercourses in these 26watersheds can be assessed, starting with a pilot project to map the streams of the St. MaryLake and Cusheon Lake watersheds.

On October 3, 2012, the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee received the resultsof the peer-reviewed mapping project (accurate within 1-5m) that shows the location of fish-bearing streams or potentially fish bearing streams within the St. Mary Lake and CusheonLake watersheds. The maps include tributaries and ditches that flow into these streams andlakes. The maps show that approximately 27 % and 35% of lots within the St. Mary Lakewatershed and Cusheon Lake watershed respectively are either lakefront or they have astream on or adjacent to the lot. The maps, reports, staff reports and other backgroundinformation are available online in the Projects section of the Salt Spring Island Local TrustArea webpage: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/ltc/ss/edparpl2010.cfm

Mapping provides the evidence upon which future drafts of bylaws may be based.The local trust committee wants to hear your feedback during this research stage before anypolicies or bylaws are drafted. Stream mapping will be the subject of a Special BusinessMeeting on the evening of November 21st at Central Hall. Doors open at 5:30 pm, the meetingstarts at 6:00 pm. The meeting will include information about the maps, issues arising from themapping and the prospect of having more mapping done on other parts of the island.�

This is the News Release with some of the questionable wording emphasized. Let�slook again at the �invitation to participation� part in the News Release, found in the lastparagraph of it.

74

Note that the event is billed as a �Special Business Meeting�, the title being clean andfree of the word �RAR�; and that �The meeting will include information about the maps� � thisbeing information that they had struggled to keep hidden from the public since January.

Note the reference to �The maps, reports, staff reports� been presented to the publicthrough the Trust�s website. Absent is any mention of the public input, among which is mycontributions, including my Review of these �The maps, reports, staff reports�, which theStaff hid from the public throughout their RAR implementation course.

A week before the Map presentation event show, the Trust RAR-force advertised themeeting again, this time in the Driftwood newspaper. The ad was about half the size of theday�s horoscope; the logo of the Trust was half-tone, overwhelmed by a pompous �Have YourSay!� heading; the dreaded RAR acronym was neither on the title, nor in the substantial subtitle,nor yet anywhere in the text; �Riparian Area Regulation� was spelled out once, lyinginconspicuously in the body of the ad, in the middle of nowhere, to be unnoticed by all but therare reader who delves beyond the headlines of ads.

Having learned from the July 2011 attempt to go through the �formality� of publicconsultation, this time around the Trust people had worked hard at eroding public interest andspreading apathy � they had substantially succeeded, mainly by exploiting the credibilitybrought in by the new Trustees.

At the time of the Fritz meeting, the Trustees were completing their first year at the helmand by then the Staff had nicely taken them into the �system�. The omens were worrisome andthe Trustees support for the Trust Staff�s RAR was patent, even scandalous when contrastedwith the mandate society had given them to take command of the Trust bureaucracy.

Perplexing?

Most telling of the taming of the Trustees is the following colourless, odourless andtasteless, or so it appears being, resolution which the Trustees ostensibly rubber-stamped atthe November 8, 2012, LTC meeting, at the request of the Staff:

�SSI-216-12 It was MOVED and SECONDED that wherever possible staff consideralternate locations that may be appropriate. CARRIED�

It sounds silly but it is sinister as well. It is in need of explanation for it isincomprehensible to people who have found no time or felt no desire to study the mannerism ofthe Trust. Let me explain.

As I mentioned earlier, after the �unprecedented public interest� in the RAR, whichcaused the Midsummer 2011 RAR pow-pow to be thrice aborted, the Trust diligently worked tospread apathy so as to reduce the number of RAR-irate citizens to a number they �couldhandle�. No, they did not try to emulate that biblical episode of feeding 5,000 with five loavesand two fish; nothing of the sort, indeed they went the opposite way � they decreased the crowdto such a small number of people, that they could feed with a kettle of popcorn! They minimizedthe crowds the Halls could not contain to a size that would fit, loosely to boot, into a Hole, i.e,the Fritz, and be fed with a kettle of popcorn, literally!

75

The optics of it all were hard to hide and ugly to look at � the Staff feared public reactionand sought to cover themselves against accountability, if the �scheme� was noticed. Hence theorigin of the silly little LTC resolution cited above.

There is no hint of who authored it, no identification of who moved it, who seconded it,who voted for it! No apparent reason for making it, no explanation given, no apparent link to theFritz is shown. But, if the scheme would �bomb out�, the Staff would claim with a straight facethat choosing the Fritz was due to instructions issued them by the LTC via that resolution! Perhaps I should explain the reasons for the above perplexing resolution. After getting windabout the meeting at the Fritz I asked questions about it. The Staff promptly informed me thatthe School Gym, the ArtSpring and the Hotel were all booked for the evening, and the only Holeavailable was the Friz! This prompted me to ask a supplementary one: Given that the Mapproduced in March had to be presented to the public on November 21, precisely, why they couldnot shift the Map Unvrilling ceremony a few days until one of the normal venues was available?They realized that they were caught and expected more �noise�. The Staff moved to shift theculpability to expendable peoples� elected representatives - you elected them, it is your fault, hitthem at the polls when election time comes!

To that end, they inserted the Stupid Resolution SSI-216-12, to enable the Staff to claimthe in choosing the Fritz they were following orders! ...

Now you know...

A cosy cuddly evening at the Fritz

After I learned about the meeting at the Fritz, I raised the issue privately with TrusteeGrove who went to length to persuade me on the advantages of a �cosy� meeting. I am not surethat they recognize that democracy has become irresistible to sane humans over the eonsexactly because of it bringing the decision-making process out of the despots� cosy court intothe light of day, making it unfold in the open.

The event unfolded as planned by the RAR promoters. Only two and a half dozen bravesouls showed up at the Fritz, leaving room to spare. Planner Cermak was in charge, Mr. LessBrost was MC, and the stage was set with what they claimed were �RAR Maps�. The LTC wasthere.

In the Fritz �foyer�, comers were met by a Trust greeter who handed them a �feedbacksheet� channeling the discussion to manageable and away from the substantial and theembarrassing. The theme of the event was the rhetorical question: �What do the maps andreports tell us?�

There was not the usual table set up with �information material� for the participants to�take one�. There was a cardboard box for people to throw in written submissions. I had broughta written submission; I put it in the collection box and I sought to place beside it copies of it forthe attendees to take � Cermak would not allow that! I raised the issue with Chair Malcolmsonand the Trustees � they would not intervene to allow copies of my submission made available topublic.

76

Moderator Les Brost offered me the chance to address the people. I declined becausemy written submission was extensive and technical and, therefore was not suited for delivery inthe �5 minutes� or so allowed. And because I had respect for the people who had come to asksingle questions. I explained to Mr. Brost that is why I had brought my concerns in writing; heassured me that my written submission is published on line �as it must�.

There was only one more written submission brought in by Mr. John Macpherson, but more were made in the preceding and following days, for a total of nine, two of which the Trustcensored and seven acknowledged.

The Trust published a list of the submissions and guess what? Mine and Macpherson�swere omitted from the list! As it happened, the Trust had also gloriously censored submissionsmade by both of us, some nine months earlier in February 2012, on the same topic, i.e. RAR!Following is a tabulation of the presenters, with Macpherson�s and mine added by me andmarked �Censored�:

No Presenter Fate of Contribution Dated: (2012)

1 Diana Robson Acknowledged November 9

2 Jack Webster Acknowledged November 9

3 Shelley Nitikman Acknowledged November 22

4 Sorbet Schlenker Acknowledged November 23

5 Ross King Acknowledged November 23

6 Elizabeth Nickson Acknowledged November 24

7 Maxine Leichter Acknowledged December 1

x John Macpherson CENSORED November 21

y Tom Varzeliotis CENSORED November 21

I found the list of written submissions in the Agenda Package for the December 13,2012, LTC meeting. It was made into �Appendix 1: Public Written Feedback� to Cermak�s StaffReport, relating the November 21 Fritz RAR meeting. It contained the tabulated submissions, MINUS Macpherson�s and mine!

The Submission they censoredMy Review of the three Reports is included in Part VI � Submissions.

77

Explaining the Play at the FRITZ

Senseless, Remorseless, Incorrigible, Amusing, the I. TrustIt took much effort and time but I persevered and finally broke the Trust resistance and

got the LTC to consider the censoring of my submission at the November 21, 2012, RAR eventat the Fritz. They had to do something to stop me exposing what they wanted to hide and to thatend the sequence they scripted a clever skit. On February 23, 2013, some three months downthe road of time, the LTC to put a lid on it.

No, they did not discuss the substance; doing that would endanger the RAR they werepushing. No heads went rolling, not even an admonition for who had done the censoring; noapologies, no remorse and, of course, no concern for denying society the potential benefit ofpublic input; no building safeguards to prevent recurrence of suppression of public input. Nothing of that sort, just a coverup for the Trust Staff and some �cosmetic gestures� to make mediscontinue raising the issue for it was hurting the imposition of the Trust RAR.

Let�s read the record of that �plan� from the February 23 LTC Meeting Minutes:

�By general consent, the Trustees asked that the next staff report on RiparianArea Regulations include the material presented by Dr. A.N.T. Varzeliotis andhanded in by him on November 21, 2012 and

secondly, that a letter be sent to Dr. Varzeliotis explaining why this materialis not posted to the Islands Trust website.� (Emphasis added).

I will discuss these in the order they were �executed� by the Staff which is the reverse ofthe order they were issued. That is to say, I will discuss first the implementation of the part ofthe LTC order to the Staff, which reads: �... secondly, that a letter be sent to Dr. Varzeliotisexplaining why this material is not posted to the Islands Trust website.�

Incidentally, in this instance the word �executed� satisfies both the notion �carried out�and �done in� (Eliza Doolittle idiom).

The outcome of this charade came in uglier than one could ever imagine!

The Stefan Cermak Explanation LetterWhat could conceivably necessitate the LTC �asking� Staff to explain in a letter to me

�why [my] materials was not posted�? Why would the LTC �ask� for that in response to myrequest for accounting for the prohibition of distribution of my leaflet at the November 21 LTCmeeting and the subsequent failure to post it on line, and the subsequent discrimination vis a visthe treatment they gave the other written submissions on the subject matter?

Why they would ask the alleged perpetrator of the offence to explain things to his victim,me, in private? Why did they send the message to the public that they, the LTC, had determinedthat this matter was a mere misunderstanding to be ameliorated by the perpetrator �explaining�things to his victim, privately? Why did they not ask Cermak to explain things to me right thereand then, publically?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind...

Cermak, who personally enforced the banning of my written submission at the RAR Fritzevent, did not try to explain the occurrence � he said nothing about the brutal blocking of the

78

flow of information � he jumped over it to �explain� what happened after the event. His�explanation� letter is about the extension of the censoring beyond the Fritz, to �explain� whywhat was suppressed at the Fritz was also excluded from the Trust website.

The LTC dumping of the hot-potato issue to Cermak and his performance are all as perthe dirty trick the Trust has developed and deploys to defame citizens with impunity. This worksas follows: A Trust official �defames� a bothersome citizens now, publically, andsimultaneously instructs a Staff to explain the attack to the victim privately, later. I haveexposed this trick previously and publically � the Trust has not disputed my exposure, yet, theyhave not refraining from deploying it against �enemies� of the Trust!

Cermak showed remarkable creativity in applying it � he emailed me the �explanation�and went all the way to post it in the Trust website, albeit secretly, for no one to see, as I willrelate next.

Cermak�s letter of explanation was dated March 5th, i.e., some 10 days earlier than theposting of the original Agenda and Agenda Package for that meeting � it was therefore,available for inclusion in the Agenda proper. Clearly this was not �a late item� but the cleverTrust elves turned it into such.

Cermak�s letter figures on page 207 (Yes, page two hundred and seven!) of that �LateItems, Addition�! It is the last item, the only odd item, at the bottom in that paper pile comprising the �1,000 letters� mailbag about the rezoning of the Metal Recycling Company site. But there itwas, the Cermak �explanation�, in all its glory, a cairn to Trust�s dedication to governance fromthe dungeon!

The Cermak �explanation� is of significance only because it manifests the overallchurlish attitude of the Trust and gauges the extent of the malfeasance they engaged in to pushthe RAR through, it speaks to their disposition to fool as many people as it would take to dowhat they want to do and to ensure their frenzy prevails.

Time now to peruse the �explanation�. Here it is, the Cermak �explanatory� letter, citedfor your amusement:

�LATE ITEMS, ADDITIONS Supplemental Item [page 207]

March 5, 2013

Dear Dr. Varzeliotis;

Re: Written Statement titled [sic] �Tom�s Town Hall Placard� submitted at theNovember 21, 2013 [sic] Special Business Meeting [sic] of the SSI Local TrustCommittee.

I am writing to you as requested by the Local Trust Committee to clarify [sic] why yourwritten submission titled �Tom�s Town Hall Placard� [sic] submitted at the November21, 2013 [sic] Special Business Meeting [sic] of the SSI Local Trust Committee wasnot posted to the Islands Trust website.

Your submission was included in our office record of the material received at theNovember 21st, 2013 [sic] meeting; however, due to an oversight, it was not initiallyreferred to in the minutes of that same meeting. The minute [sic] were subsequently[sic] amended. As you are aware, agendas are posted online before the meetings; however, items received at the meeting are not added to the online agenda after the

79

meeting.

Your submission did not make it [sic] in a staff report as staff consulted the minutes butoverlooked the amended agenda. We confirm that your submission will be attachedto the next staff report concerning the implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation(RAR) and we anticipate that this will be included in either the April or May regularbusiness meeting agenda package that will be posted on our website at:http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/ltc/ss/agendas.cfm.

We would like to thank you [sic] for bringing this matter to our attention.

As always, you are welcome to acquaint yourself with the information binder on thissubject which is available for viewing at our office and which includes all publicinformation received to date.

Best Regards, Stefan Cermak�.

(Emphasis and, of course, square brackets, added).

A few remarks are in order:

* To begin with, Cermak is in a strong personal conflict of interest, for he personally, �acting on instructions�, or on his own initiative, prevented thedistribution of my submission at the Fritz event. This also explains that the LTCand Cermak have mention nothing about the suppression of my submission atthe Fritz...

* He is more in conflict of interest because my submission was critical of his ownwork.

* The LTC was fully aware that Cermak was in conflict of interest in the matter ofthe task they assigned him. The Trustees ought to have been concerned aboutthe charges, and if innocent themselves and fair minded would have heldCermak accountable right there and then, in front of the public eye.

* Cermak�s letter in �Late Items, Additions� is dated �March 5" � the �original� letter which was mailed to me was dated �March 14" (likely posted later than that). This�date discrepancy�, resulted in hiding the letter from the public, as well as makingit impossible for me to answer it through a delegation to the March 21, 2013 LTC meeting.

* Cermak and whoever may have �assisted� him in composing the letter and hidingit under that �1,000 letter� pile, began the misinforming right at the beginning , inthe stating of the subject of the explanation letter: Re: Written Statement titled�Tom�s Town Hall Placard� �.

�Titled �Tom�s Town Hall Placard�� is another dirty trick the Trust has concoctedspecifically to deploy against me and has done that ad nauseam to hide issues Iraise via �Tom�s Town Hall Placard� which is a sheet I publish to record mypresentations at �Town Hall� events. In this trick we see the Trust playing stupidto explain wrong doings. It is like saying Reporter Sean McIntyre wrote an article�titled the Driftwood�.

80

As in the numerous other deployments of this dirty trick, Cermak uses �Titled�Tom�s Town Hall Placard�� and �material� to evade disclosing the title of thedocument I conveyed via the Placard and which was titled: �After Dark, onNovember 21, 2012 � The Three RAR Reports�. The �three� were the ISSES�pilot� RAR Mapping, the �Peer Review� of the ISSES work and the Staff Reporton the two former Reports. The Staff Report was of course, authored by Cermakand consented to by Leah Hartley.

* There is no mention of the word �RAR� in the �explanation� letter! As if it was nota RAR meeting, as if it was a �special meeting� about something or other, Godknows what! Moreover, what they had censored was not a submission to theRAR by a Professional Engineer, it was merely some �material�, Cermak�explains�...

* Cermak�s �explanation� of the censorship event consists of: one �oversight�; one:(the document) �did not make it�; and one �overlooking�, suggesting that theletter �clarifies� it all, expecting it to satisfy the requirements of OpenGovernance, and to end the matter, none of which is so. It explains it as �Whata �coincidence� this was! And, of course, as you may have noticed, the wholeseries of errors happened anonymously, no one to blame!

* Cermak�s reference to the �Minutes� and �record� of the November 21, 2012 LTC Meeting at the Fritz, is bogus too! There are no such Minutes to be found wherethey ought to be published. The whole record for that meeting reads:

�Title of meeting: SSI LTC Special Meeting

Meeting Type: Special Meeting

Date: November 21, 2012

Time: 6:00 PM

Location: Salt Spring Island Central Hall, 901 North End Road, Salt Spring Island�

That is the entire �record�. Even the �Minutes� heading on the reporting form ismissing along with everything that would indicate the meeting being a RARmeeting.

* Cermak�s thanking me for bringing this matter to their attention, is meant to givethe impression that he and the LTC are desirous to process the RAR Bylawhonestly, which was not at all the case. Yet, it was he, Stefan Cermak, and theLTC who barred me from making available to the public copies of my report atthe November 21, 2012 Fritz RAR event.

* Note the vacuum of an apology to me and to the people of Salt Spring who areentitled to the benefits from the contribution of their fellow citizens. And theabsence of any gesture to mitigate the consequences from their little �errors�.

* Cermak �confirms� that he would comply with the LTC order, and will publish mysubmission along with his RAR report �in either the April or May� 2013, to wit, half a year after the �oversight and the overlooking� happened. Incidentally, it has

81

been fully �confirmed� by now, that Cermak�s �confirmation� was insincere ... yes, �insincere�!

Please read on...

The Nichols Era and its End

RAR for the MassesUnwilling to be seen doing the RAR themselves, in late 2010 the Trust got a �hired gun�

to do it for them. At the first LTC meeting of 2011, Consultant Kris Nichols fired the first shot andmoved on to do the RAR. Among his duties was managing the interface between the Trust andthe public in respect to RAR, which was a big problem due to the RAR they had in mind beingbad. But they had to interface with the people on the RAR because the Local Government Actimposes such a hurdle on the Trust.

The February 16 and 23, 2011 issues of the Driftwood carried a 6 x 7 inch Trustadvertisement inviting the denizens to attend the �Community Public Forums - Riparian AreaRegulation� scheduled for February 23 and 24. It sound good but reads bad, as I will discuss.

Here is the Advertisement:

�You�re invitedCommunity Public Forums � Environmental Development Permit Area Review�

�Come to the Community public forum to find out about the Environmental Development PermitArea Review. This is part of the next phase for reviewing the Salt Spring Island OfficialCommunity Plan. [OCP]. The focus will be on the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) and itsimplementation.

Staff will be available to discuss the review process and receive comments.

A Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) will be making a presentation at 5:00 pm, at bothlocations.

What is the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR)?

The Riparian Area Regulation (RAR), enacted under Section 12 of the Fish Protection Act inJuly 2004, requires local governments to protect riparian areas during residential, commercialand industrial development by ensuring that proposed activities adjacent to fish bearingstreams are subject to a science based assessment conducted by a QualifiedEnvironmental Professional (QEP). The Islands Trust Committee is currently reviewing howbest to implement RAR into through its development permits areas� (Emphasis added)

This was the ad and it was worrisome, because it is grossly misleading. Please note thePRopaganda language they have wrapped the message in. What it is all about, they say, is itonly an innocent review of something that is already in place, that is all there is to it they wantus to perceive the RAR as being!

82

Why should any one get worked up by a mere review of an existing �EnvironmentalPermit Area?� Relax and carry on...

�Staff will be available to discuss the review process and receive comments�. Callingthe imposition of the RAR they were pursuing a mere �review process of the Official CommunityPlan� was a calculated misrepresentation, an attempt to deceive the people.

The RAR �review process� was not the object of the peoples� concerns, it was not the�ways and means to the end� that concerned the people, these were merely suspect � whatwas scary was the �end�. The object of the public endangerment was the RAR.

Or so it was before the Trust published that ad. On reading the advertisement anyonewith an interest in PRopaganda would become seriously alarmed. It was obvious that the Trustwas seeking to divert attention away from the RAR and determined to funnel the discussion on�how best to implement� the RAR.

At 5:00 pm, after the Planners have warmed up the crowd, a QEP would come to center-stage to do the crescendo, the Trust informs. That a QEP would be, by definition, in conflict ofinterest on the RAR issue, he/she would be in effect peddling the wares of the QEP trade. Ineffect the Trust was delivering us to someone who is partial to the RAR, so we can hear the oneside of the story, only.

Look at the description of the RAR the Trust gives us in the ad as an answer to therhetorical question: �What is the Riparian Area Regulation?� Their �answer� is a compendium ofdisinformation, both by omission and commission. Let�s go over it, because this cleverly-craftedPRopaganda mantra, became a boiler-plate that would be projected through the entire push andpull of the RAR period, chanted ad nauseam, till it deceived enough people to let the Trojanhorse carry the RAR through.

The RAR does not affect only �proposed activities� as the lyrics of the mantra read, farfrom that � it takes control over existing and past activities, all and sundry; the RAR does notregulate �during development� � it takes control forever; it is not about �scientific assessment� � the RAR is about �scientific assessment by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP)� � thetwo being at substantival variance; the bundling of �residential [with] commercial and industrial�is a serious lie, it is an attempt to create the impression that the RAR is not directed againsthomeowners, but against big bad �commercial and industrial developers�; and so on ...

At issue was not the �reviewing how best to implement RAR through its developmentpermits areas� � at issue was the information the people were entitled to be charged with andthe Trust was duty bound to provide to facilitate the democratic process. Information such asan analysis of the RAR, its consequences and the bandwidth of options available to the Trust tocustomize it. The last aspect is a serious matter, for if there is no leeway for the LocalGovernments to maneuver in, as the Trust said, the RAR would have been imposed directly bythe Provincial Government.

The wording of this advertisement manifests the Trust�s intention to fool the people. This �come to the forum and we will educate you� method is a well established PRopagandadissemination tool. The trained communicators of the organizers set the agenda and thencontrol the discussion. I have seen the Trust do it at Public Hearings. They would skillfullyfunnel the discussion to the inconsequential, and pursue such matters ad nauseam, therebypreventing the discussion of the consequential.

But there is more to it. How many citizens would have the time and whatever else it

83

takes to go to such a forum? How many people would relish the prospect of standing in linepatiently waiting their turn at the microphone to be allowed as much as one minute to pose ashort question to the forum organizers only to be answered with some platitude by the trainedpersuaders? Or, to be told the usual meaningless: �your concern is noted�.

How many people would �waste� their time to address the Trust who have been fightingtooth and nail against people trying to make the Trust do as little as to record those meetings? How can the people hold the Trust accountable, for killing good ideas and otherwise deprivingsociety from the benefit of the contribution from those may have ideas and solutions to theproblems the society faces, when the Trust refuses to record what is being said?

Then why did the Trust do these �Forums� on the RAR? The answer is simple: to letsome people let off steam, under tightly controlled and managed circumstances; and createfake impressions of compliance with their statutory obligation to listen to vox populi.

Soliciting Public Input, Trust styleThe February 23 & 24, 2011 RAR �Public Forums� were topped with a �Comment

Sheet�. They handed sheets to attendees at the meeting and published it on line for others tocomment, too. But they did not advertise it in the media.

The �Comment Sheet� probe was more of a Public Opinion Poll than a solicitation ofguidance for the LTC. It was done with the Survey Monkey software, the freebie �Basic� versionof it. By using the freebie �Basic�, the Trust saved taxpayers $19.99, (yes �almost $20�!),because the next version of that software, �Select� it is called, costs that much, twenty Dollars! Evidently all the Trust wanted from the survey exercise, was to show fake sensitivity to publicopinion and to learn how to package the vile RAR they were seeking to impose on the island, soas to deceive the people.

As it turned out the POP survey was a flop. The Comment Sheet returned 35 responses, too few to be even minutely meaningful. Even so, the Trust did what they habitually do, they puta lid on the �public opinion� they had solicited and received. There is some value in that for itmanifests the ways the Trust operates.

I will review the �Comment Sheet�, for it is telling about the objectives of the Trust, aswell as about its corporate philosophy.

The first and second questions are intended to inform the Trust on the type of peoplewho are paying attention to the RAR. Incidentally, these are not numbered in the form but I willidentify them as �I� and �ii� for convenience.

Q-i: �Does your property contain or is it adjacent to a watercourse?�

Comment : But what is a �watercourse�? How many people would imagine that thedry-ditches on the road sides of their property are �watercourses� in RAR parlance?

Then what about the countless properties which were scheduled to be clawed into theRAR but neither �contain� nor are �adjacent to a watercourse�?

This question is a dandy, for it reveals the deliberate obfuscation of the issue. Theyposed the question to induce false security in the minds of the people whose propertiesare not near creeks, brooks, etc. How many people would imagine that a �watercourse�that may not be �immediately adjacent� (Trust linguistics) to their property may RAMIFY their land?

84

Q -ii. �You think the Riparian Area Regulations would apply to it [your property]?�

Comment: What kind of question is this? As the Trust�s RAR was standing at that time,it included all ditches, be they wet, dry, chock-a-block with weeds and cottonwoodseedlings, or whatever. And, of course in a rural area like SaltSpring, virtually allproperties have ditches, exceptions being too few to mention.

Next are the Arabic-numbered questions posed by the Form-maker:

Q-1. Development Permits: The Salt Spring Official Community Plan contains six (6)development permit areas. Have you had to apply for a development permit or adevelopment permit exemption?

Comment: Whether a citizen has or has not experienced the thrill from applying to theTrust for something, anything, no matter what, is in itself immaterial to the Trust makinga good RAR. Could it be that the Trust wants people to think that since they did not haveto apply for permits in the past, under any of the �six (6)� Development Permit Areas,they should not fear having to apply for such after the Trust sneak in the RAR?

Could they seek to ease people into believing that if there are no fish swimming in theirproperty, they are entitled to �development permit exemption?

They try to tell the people: Look, we already have a collection of �six (6)� lovelyDevelopment Permit Areas and you never noticed! �Therefore� you have nothing to fearfrom us doing some upgrading to one of those Development Permit Areas!

Q-2. �Riparian Areas Regulation: Do you support the intent of this legislation toprotect riparian areas? The intent being to protect the features, functions and conditionsthat are vital in the natural maintenance of stream health and productivity.�

Comment: Even a seasoned Kangaroo Court judge would disallow this question. Yes,of course, we all stand for motherhood, look at the spike in the sale of cards on mothers�day!

Q-3: �Implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation: Given thatimplementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation on Salt Spring Island will occur. Doyou have any suggestions on how it should be implemented?

Comment: It is telling us, the people: Look, we are going to screw you anyway, youcannot escape that, just tell us whether you want us to use �right or left threaded screw�!The Trust is out to make us �apathetic� by impressing on us that would be futile to fightthe RAR; after all, have you not heard that �you can�t fight city hall�?

They pretend unawareness of the fact that in a democracy the people can amend orabolish a law that is an ass. This is a free society and the local government has thefacility to petition the senior governments for relief from an unduly imposed onerouslegislation, if and when such happen.

Moreover, how could any �lay person� be expected to make �suggestions�, given that theTrust had obfuscated the subject matter?

Q - 4. �Additional Information Regarding Implementation of Riparian Areas Regulation. Is there additional information that you would like to have provided thatcould assist you as an owner?�

85

Comment: �Additional� to what information? What about the �unknown unknowns�Donald Rumsfeld warned us about?

It is the duty of governments to charge the citizenry with the information they need tofunction as free people, as members of a society democratically governed. The Trustcompels citizens to include plans and other information on their application forpermission to build as little as a single-hole outhouse, such construction normally beingof no interest except for immediate neighbors located downwind ; they seek to imposethe RAR, a matter of serious and universal impact on all islanders without havingpublished anything other than scraps of poppycock about it.

Q-5. �Assistance from [Trust] Staff

How would you like to see [Trust] staff work with landowners regarding developmentpermit areas? And in particular those related to Riparian Areas Regulation. Pleaseexplain.�

Comment: What a question this is! Landowners and everybody else, I would guess,would love to help the Staff develop more and more lovely �Development Permit Areas�,wouldn�t we? Of course we are all anxious to help the Trust Staff do DPAs to us � feelsso good! You see, the more DPAs the Trust makes, the lovelier our island looks! Themore the DPAs the Trust has, the more enjoyable life on our island becomes! The moreDPAs they identify and exploit, the more we will enjoy living with the pain of having theStaff on our back. You, the Trust would have figured out that much all by yourselves,without a POP, wouldn�t you?

Q-6. �Drinking Water Watersheds:

Do you live in a drinking water watershed?�

Comment: No, I live in a single malt drinking watershed! Most of the time it tastesbetter than water.

This appears to be a clumsy attempt to alarm citizens who live and drink in �DrinkingWater Watersheds� and bring them out to fight the opponents of the RAR, so that RARwould be imposed and would protect and preserve their water supply. Kind of a mildcase of divide-and-rule, given that many islanders draw water from lakes and creeks. The Trust may have succeeded in that, because at the April 7, 2011- SSI LTC meetingthere were seven delegations from �drinking water watersheds� paraded in rapidsuccession, firing in all directions in support of the RAR, turning the LTC meeting into areal love-in, one John Lennon would envy. The spectacle crescendoed in a love songsung by a Trust true afficionado soprano.

Incidentally, I had registered to present a delegation that was not in sync with the RARtheme of the day, but RPM Hartley appealed to me to forfeit it and I did � little did I knowthat her request was to preserve the purity of the Love-in!

Anyway, how could any answer to this survey question be constructive to producing abetter RAR? Pray tell!

Q-7: �How did you hear about the open house? �

Was the information presented clear and informative?

Do you have any suggestions about how to improve the way information is

86

presented in future?

Do you use the Salt Spring Island website to obtaining information? If�yes� what information?�

Comment: One is at a loss to guess how any of the four questions bundled under the umbrella �Question #7 would help the Trust construct, or �implement�, a better RAR.This said, I shall comment on the questions:

On the first question I say: If I tell you that I �heard� about it from your ad in theDriftwood, will you discontinue advertising or convolute the massage more than younormally do?

On the second question I say: Which �information�? Come and show me one instancethat the Trust provided �information [that was] clear and informative�! Just come andshow one example (in a general interest case, as distinct from documents relating tospecific citizen applications). Please do and I will show you countless murky ones!

On the third question I say: This is a thinly veiled attempt to create the false impressionthat the Trust is desirous to communicate with the people. This is a false pretense, it iswrapping the wolf in a lamb skin, given that renowned Trust devotion to secrecy.

And, on the forth question I say: The answer to the question could affect the impositionof the RAR either by improving or reducing the flow of information. Given that the Trustwas trying to sneak the RAR by us. The likelihood is that the response will help thedissemination of disinformation.

Q-8: Other Comments�

Comment: Well, this question is a �filler�! It appears the Trust �surveyors� ran out of�clever� questions, and passed the mantle on to us, the people. It explains why the

Trust use the freebie Basic Monkey �Comment Sheet� which limits questions to only 10!

POP constipationNot without much difficulty, on June 4, 2011, some three months after the survey, I

managed to get the Trust to �publish� some of the information it received from the 35respondents. They posted it at http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/ltc/ss/edparpl2010.cfm - you maywish to search for it!

If you find it, you will learn that 35 citizens responded to the survey. The responses to�Yes, No, I don�t know� type questions have been counted; comments to other questions havebeen heavily �interpreted� by the Staff.

There are no conclusions shown, there is no interpretation or extrapolation of the 35responses done to inform the Trust how this island of 10,000 people would like them to proceedon the RAR. If any conclusions were drawn from the �survey�, they have all been kept underwraps, private to the Trust.

The April 28, 2011 RAR Information MeetingOn April 28, 2011, the Trust held a second RAR �Information Meeting� at the Harbour

House Hotel, in Ganges. The purpose of it, as advertised, was: �To give residents anopportunity to learn about the proposed bylaw and associated implementation measures.�

87

I attended the early part of the event, but could not stay long and I missed thepresentation by a QEP who was to address the assembled audience. But I had the opportunityto ask questions, and this I attempted, but the answers I got were along the line of �We areaware of the problem and we are working at it�.

This raises the question why the Trust wanted to do the RAR before getting their acttogether and why they would bring the people to the HHH promising answers they could notprovide. It appears that the Trust organized that gathering to relieve public anger at the RARwhich was building up quickly. They would give the irate citizens a chance to let off steam in aone-to-one conversation with a member of the Trust staff, who would absorb and dissipate thecitizens wrath, and, possibly, proselytize the citizen to the RAR faith.

The method of organizing public meetings to answer questions on a one-on-one basis ispotent - it is akin to religious confessionals the effectiveness of which religious entities havedemonstrated. The trained professionals on the floor control the exchange with the laypersonquestioner and produce the �correct� outcome. In the event that the layperson �wins�, not muchharm is done to the cause of the organization, given that the encounter is not publicized. Ineither instance, the organizers� cause is advanced by the publicity given to the overall meetingmanifesting to �transparency� of the process. It also allows the organizers to claim that they�listened to the public� and that they �took into consideration all they heard�, but doing as theyhad all along planned to do.

An Unsolicited Submission Booth Canal is a micro-estuary, an estuary of a creek, if you will. It is not a Canal, except

in name. Because it is in the tidal range, it does not come into the purview of the RAR. These notwithstanding l saw an opportunity to get some publicity for the Canal which is dying due tothe Trust, determination to deny its obligations to protect and preserve the Canal.

Specifically, at that RAR event I questioned the credibility of the Trust seeking to do theDryDitches of SaltSpring, while neglecting Booth Canal for three dozen years and steadfastlydeflecting for half a dozen years my efforts to make them move on to preserve and protect thisjewel of an estuary and restore it to the substantial source of seafood that in the near past itwas. Needless to say, I never heard back from the Trust...

It is a bit of a diversion from the RAR line but I thought a word about it would beworthwhile. Please read it in the Submissions PART of this work.

June 21, 22 &23, 2011: A Public Hearing, thrice abortedEventually, the Trust RAR task force decided they were ready to do the RAR in SSI. All

that remained for them to do was to go through the rigamarole of a public hearing. This itappears, they saw as a formality to be endured � it turned out differently.

They set the Public Hearing for June 21, 2011, to be staged at the Harbour HouseHotel, but it was not to happen. �They� ended up aborting it due to �unprecedented publicinterest� which is how they explained that remarkable occurrence. As it happened, the meetingturned out to be very popular, with hundreds of people attending, causing concern to firedepartment and the police. The meeting was aborted and �they�, rescheduled for the next dayin the 375-seat ArtsSpring theater.

The next day, more members of the public showed up for the meeting, overflowing theArtsSpring auditorium and spilling into the corridors and beyond. �They� cancelled the meeting

88

again and rescheduled it for a third try, at the gymnasium of Gulf Island Secondary School, forthe next day, June 23, a Saturday, in the afternoon. Well... �they� became flabbergasted at thesize of the �crowd� and cancelled the meeting again, for the same reason, and sorrow to theTrust for the severe shortage of �public apathy� on which �they� had been counting to ram their RAR through.

After that large demonstration of public interest in the RAR, the Trust retracted andabandoned the intercourse. The LTC got the message, to cut and run.

A New ApproachOn July 15, 2011 the Trust published a News Release regarding the SSI RAR flop and

the future of the matter. It releases the information about the Five Resolutions and gives out awhiff of what burns inside the mind of the Trust. It is worth reproducing the News Release heremethinks:

�New Approach as Salt Spring Local Trust Committee Continues with ProvincialRAR Implementation

On July 7, 2011 the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee (LTC) passed fiveresolutions regarding the Provincial requirement to implement the Riparian AreasRegulation (RAR). Given the unprecedented interest shown at last month�sattempted Public Hearings and the related correspondence around Bylaw No. 449,the LTC wants to ensure that the community is fully aware and engaged in thedevelopment of a development permit area bylaw to implement RAR. The LTC believesthat the community needs to be involved to a greater degree and that feedback andeducation are key components. There was a great deal of input received leading upto the Public Hearings and as a result the LTC has directed staff to improvecommunication with the community through a variety of methods such as meetingwith specific community organizations.

The LTC directed staff to proceed no further with Bylaw No. 449 � Lakes,

Streams, Wetlands and Riparian Areas. What this means is that the focus for staff will nolonger be on that bylaw, but on a community consultation and communicationprocess to improve understanding of the Provincial RAR and to find a communitysupported means to implement it. The LTC also directed staff look at ways to addressconcerns about the lack of detailed stream mapping. Because this will take time andmay have to be done in phases, staff was directed to consult with the Ministry ofEnvironment to seek their support for a possible incremental approach to implementingRAR on Salt Spring Island. With regards to the mapping, staff will identify options andcosts associated with additional stream mapping for the Island. Over the next number ofmonths staff will be working with the community and various organizations to improveunderstanding of the Riparian Areas Regulation, to understand community concerns,and to gain input into the development of a bylaw. Staff will provide progress updates atthe LTC meetings. Residents are encouraged to continue to contact staff as thiscommunication and engagement process unfolds. Following this consultative process,staff will bring back a report and recommendations on RAR implementation for theconsideration of the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee. This report will includeoptions and recommendations for stream mapping and options and recommendationsfor implementing the Riparian Areas Regulation.

89

Please continue to look at the website

http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/ltc/ss/edparpl2010.cfm as staff will continue to update thissite with information regarding communication and opportunities to be involved.�(Emphasis added )

These documents, the Five Resolutions and the News Release, at first glance appearbenevolent and impressive but they are wanting in logic � they range between nonsense andsinistri. Here is a quick review:

a) If the Fish Protection Act would leave it to the Local governments to designthemselves RAR Bylaws for their jurisdiction, it would either define band ofoptions available to Local Governments to pick and chose in composing theirown, local area, RAR bylaws; or the Provincial Government would writethemselves a Bylaw and order the Local governments to vote it in and belaughed at out of office.

The Trust had been unwilling to the very end of the process to apprise thepeople of such a band of options open to society. And this may be an omen ofdeliberate misinformation that the government of BC would fine, or otherwisepunish, the Trust if they would not enact a RAR bylaw.

b) In a democratically governed society, a Local Government may apply for�exemptions� or �relief� from aspects of an Act which may be unreasonable, orinapplicable to their particular area and constituency. The Trust soughtassistance in �selling� the Trust version of a RAR, instead of working on aversion of it that would be optimum; and, if necessary, pursue relief from harshaspects of the RAR.

c) A local government dedicated to the interests of its constituents may venture inmaking a reasonable interpretation of the RAR and leave it up to the governmentwhich enacted the RAR to deny that interpretation. This would send the ball tothe Provincial Government�s court, who would have to state and explain thing.This process is amply powered by the requirement of transparency ingovernance.

d) All along the course of pushing the RAR, the Trust kept on disinforming thesociety about alternatives to the RAR. Many citizens raised the issue, amongthem being George Grams, prior to, as well as shortly after becoming a Trusteehimself, but before he was tamed into the system. Indeed both Trustees, Gramsand Grove, showed some understanding of the matter, but they quickly �forgot�about it, not necessarily without being aided by injection of mnemonicsuppression.

That starving the citizenry of awareness and the machinations deployed by the Trustspeak conclusively about the Trust RAR being of no merit.

November 4, 2014: The Last RAR Hearing This was the last hurdle before the formality of the third reading and the LTC rubber-

stamping the SSI RAR Bylaw to make it ready for shipping to Colonial Metropolis (Victorian FortStreet Trust Fort) for high assent.

90

For that event the Trust, desirous as it is to communicate with the public of theRepublic, created a �poster� to entice people to come to the hearing. I understand they postedit on their website and used it in an ad in the Driftwood newspaper; but I did not see itelsewhere affixed on walls or hydro poles and Canada post Mailboxes, where posters are seemin SaltSpring. It is however traceable in the �Reference Documents�, posted post-RARely on theTrust website and I will reproduce it here.

By the way, if you saw the �poster� prior to that meeting, in any place other than theTrust Website or the Driftwood, please raise your hand. If you saw it and noticed that it wasabout the RAR, please say so and you will be eligible to win a �Free Gift� (a copy of the poster ,in colour, suitable for framing).

The �Open Houses� went on as planned. I do not know about attendance at the Fulfordand Ganges, warm up events, because I did not attend either, for I had reason to believe that itwas not worth the effort. Indeed, I was aware that the sessions were staged to soften the targetand to create the impression of propriety where wasn�t any. I had been unambiguouslyforewarned by the LTC that the dice had been cast about the RAR, that the RAR, Trust version,was a done deal and the events of that day would change nothing.

Doing the Ganges and Fulford �open Houses� immediately before the evening sessionindicates the purpose of the Open Houses was to let agitated citizens let off steam and, ingeneral, to thin out the spectators who would converge at the evening event to watch theclosing ceremony. I attended the evening �formal� and found it was flat, by design. It waspoorly attended, relatively speaking, and those who raised issues addressed mostly low-significance aspects of the RAR.

Speaking to the mentality of the Trust is the fact that no records of the questions posedand the answers given were kept. The LTC had jealously hidden the public input they hadreceived throughout the course of doing the RAR, and this they continued to the end: there wasno record made of this, the Last RAR hearing of November 4, 2015. Whatever transpired,evaporated and was blown away by the evening wind. All that remains on record about thatPublic Hearing is the following item in the Trust website:

�Title of meeting: Salt Spring Island Public Hearing

Meeting Type: Community Information Meeting and Public Hearing

Date: November 4, 2014

Time: 6:00 PM

Location: Salt Spring Island, Hart Bradley Memorial Hall (Lion's Hall)

Public hearing: Public Hearing Poster�

How could one imagine that this is about the dreaded RAR, how would the people learnwhom to curse when forced to buy RAR-Kosher certificates from the QEPs or swear am affidavitbefore a lawyer/notary public attesting RAR-innocence and pleas of RAR-purity, to take to theTrust in the hope that the planner in-charge of their file may allow a lettuce garden?

Clearly they are nor proud of the event they staged and that is not the only cause for thesecrecy. It is fear of the public that drives them into hiding. They would rather have omitted thepublic hearing, but they had to make an entry in the records so as to fulfill the Local

91

Government Act requirement for such a meeting and justify paying the rental of the Hall and theovertime to Trust employees.

Two days after this Public Hearing event the LTC read for the third time Bylaw No. 480and to no one�s surprise they approved it. Then all that remained to do before deploying itagainst the people was seek assent by the colonial Metropolis, through the ExecutiveCommittee (�Accom�), also chaired by Malcolm son. Yes, you guessed correctly, the Accom approved it.

For the Record, Bylaw No 480 was read by the LTC as follows:

First Reading: July 15, 2014;

Second Reading: October 7, 2014

Third Reading: November 6, 2014.

Oh, the informative Trust!

Sampling the Staff ReportsThe Medium is the message

Marshall Mcluhan

Throughout this work I refer to Trust Staff Reports often painting them in unflatteringcolours, sadly so I must say. One cannot base a law on information made up of loose wordsstrung together as in that delightful piece produced by the August Advisory Planning Committeeas its contribution of wisdom into making this RAR:

�Based on scientific considerations, the Advisory Environment Committeerecommends to the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee that they proceed withthe watershed polygon approach to DPA area delineation, based on the 2011Ministry of Environment approved Riparian Areas Regulation mapping of fish-bearingstreams and watersheds�.

No, this is not from the sample report about to discuss, it is from another piece of TrustRAR literature, that went into the making of the Trust RAR.

I tend to analyze things and I often find that the devil is in the detail � after all, the dismalart of PRopaganda has reached high levels of sophistication in the last few years enablingpractitioners to hide ever more and better the deception embedded in their message.

Group #5 in the �clever� Trust website posting �Reference Documents Riparian AreaRegulation (RAR)�, lists 25 �Staff Reports�, presented to the LTC in the course of doing the RARto us. The Reports in that list cover the period July 2011 to October 2014, during which theirauthor, Planner Stefan Cermak was in charge of the RAR file. This is a large pile of reports toreview in the whole, but I think looking at one of them would result in a fair understanding of thecaliber of the stuff that went into the making of the Trust RAR.

Using the dart-method of random selection I picked the 10th Staff Report from the List,�it is billed: �September 6, 2013: (Interim Report Community Feedback Considerations)�, theparentheses original, but this is a tad off the target � its subject is given on the document as: �Re: Implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation � Interim Report�.

92

The assertions I am about to make, are mostly of the �misinformation by commission�type, as distinct from �misinformation by omission�, plenty of which is done in that report. Thelatter are as potent as the former and in assessing the Report, one should bear in mind thatdeliberate �omissions� occur because the omitted stuff is rancid.

As a reminder, the eight Kris Nichols RAR reports, purchased at a cost to the people$12,000 per shot, are left out of the �Reference Documents� list, from which I picked the sampleI am discussing. The omission is not inadvertent, on the contrary it is entirely purposeful

Following is this randomly selected Staff Report adorned with my �[?]�. These markomissions of essential information, or commissions of false assertions.

�STAFF REPORT

August 29, 2013 File No.: 6500-20

To: Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee for meeting of September 6, 2013

From: Stefan Cermak, Planner 2, Salt Spring Island Planning Team

Re: Implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation � Interim Report

Purpose

The purpose of this interim report is for the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee(LTC) to consider feedback received thus far [?] from community engagement [?]regarding Riparian Areas Regulation implementation approaches, tools, and streammapping results and to advance the work to a Community Information Meeting [?] andto formal consultation [?].

Project Outcome [?]

The overall goal of the project is to amend [?] the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Areabylaws to include riparian area protection provisions as required [?] in the RiparianAreas Regulation.

Background

The Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee passed the following resolutions at theMay 2, 2013 Local Trust Committee meeting:

It was MOVED AND SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee approves the Implementation of the Riparian Areas RegulationProject Charter [?] last updated April 24, 2013. CARRIED

It was MOVED AND SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee direct staff to engage the community further [?] on theimplementation [?] of the Riparian Areas Regulations as noted in the staff reportdated April 24, 2013. CARRIED

It was MOVED AND SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee approves budget allocation of $8,500 [?] from the Salt Spring IslandProgram Budget to meet the public engagement [?] needs of the Implementationof the Riparian Areas Regulation work program as presented in the Staff Reportdated April 24, 2013. CARRIED

93

The Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee passed the following resolutions at theJune 20, 2013 Local Trust Committee meeting:

It was MOVED AND SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Local TrustCommittee refer consideration of Riparian Areas Regulation implementationapproaches and tools as presented in the staff report dated June 12, 2013 to theAdvisory Planning Commission. CARRIED

Engagement

Since May 2013, staff have met with the Advisory Planning Commission [?] andengaged with agencies [?], several constituent groups [?], and various members ofsociety [?] Staff mailed pre-referral letters [?] to First Nations groups and mailed over440 [?] letters [?] to property owners located within 30m [?] of recently mappedwatercourse. In slightly more [?] detail:

The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) met August 8, 2013 and carried the followingmotion:

It was MOVED AND SECONDED that the Salt Spring Island Advisory PlanningCommission support the approach and tools described by the planner withriparian assessment areas of 30 meters [?] around [?] major [?] streams and subject [?] to provision of additional information regarding implementation andenforcement. CARRIED

Staff continues to work closely with staff at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and NaturalResource Operations (MFLNRO) who are responsible provincially for the implementationand monitoring of the Riparian Areas Regulation. Recent communications indicate noobjections to the current proposed methods [?] of implementing the RAR.

Constituent groups have included [?] generally those groups concerned with riparianareas or water quality [?].These groups are largely receptive [?] to measures protectingwater quality for various reasons. However [?] , these sed concerns aboutcommunications [?] , exemptions [?] (especially for restorative work in riparian areas),and enforcement.

Pre-referral [?] letters have been sent to 12 First Nations including: Stzuminus FirstNation, Lyackson First Nation, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Halalt First Nation, MalahatFirst Nation, Tseycum First Nation, Pauquachin First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation,Tsawout First Nation, Tsawwassen First Nation, Peneladut Tribe, and the CowchanTribes [?] .

Finally, staff mailed over 440 [?] letters to property owners located [?] within 30m ofrecently mapped watercourses � those who may [?] be directly [?] affected by anyproposed bylaw changes. These mailouts are in addition to [?] mailouts to similarproperty owners in the Cusheon Lake and St. Mary Lake watersheds in 2012. The directmailout [?] outlined in brief the purpose of the mapping, supplied information [?] foraccess [?] to the Implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation work program, andinvited feedback. There have been numerous [?] responses to the mailed letters.

Conversations from people who visited the office or whom phoned have not been fully [?] logged when no issue for follow up arose; however, email correspondences [?] havebeen attached to this staff report (Appendix 2).

94

The majority of communications have been of the recipient asking �how will this affectme and my property?� Staff response has typically included:

* Regulations will only apply to new [?] proposed [?] residential, commercial [?],or industrial [?] development [?]

The Islands Trust is required to implement the [?] Provincial regulations

* The LTC is seeking the least onerous [?] methods for implementation including

Proposed 15m vegetative [?] leave strip [?] beside RARapplicable water bodies

Proposed 30m DPA for larger [?], more [?] significant waterbodies

Most constituents [?] have been satisfied [?] with details [?] from this general [?]response and with specific [?] responses about their own properties. Those that haveexpressed [?] error or concerns over mapping have been noted for possible review of athird party [?] as discussed in the last Staff Report dated August 8, 2013.

Overall key [?] points groups and individuals raised include:

* Stream mapping has significantly [?] reduced the number of potentially [?]affected property owners

* Many [?] property owners have been appreciative [?] of the direct contact

* Suggest exemptions [?] for restorative efforts in riparian areas

* Ensure clear [?] definitions especially for �stream� and �development�

* Ensure clear, [?] non-contradictory language in bylaws for better [?] ] certaintyand enforcement

* Ensure clear [?] communications regarding:

RAR is a provincial [?] requirement

RAR only applies to new [?] residential, commercial [?] or industrial [?]development

Explain the proposed dual implementation approach clearly [?]

Explain what uses or development activities [?] are exempt and what are the variance [?] procedures

* Consider costs [?]: small projects and Q.P. advised approaches [?] should notbe penalized [?]

There have been a few [?] communications indicating dissatisfaction with:

* the RAR in general

* the slow [?] pace of implementing the RAR

* the inclusion of specific drainage [?] or watercourses in stream mapping

* the inclusion [?] of ditches in mapping which may be subject to the RAR via [?]

95

new residential, Commercial [?] , and industrial [?] development but not [?]ditch clearing programs via [?] the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

In general [?], constituents, agencies [?], and the APC have expressed approval of theoverall Approach being pursued by the LTC with minor [?] exceptions to specificdrainage [?].

Bylaw Drafting

Staff proposed in the June 12, 2013 Staff Report, that a draft bylaw be based [?] on:

1) Establishing a Streamline [?] Protection and Enhancement Area (SEA) withinthe Land Use Bylaw through regulating the provision [?] of landscaping (leavinga vegetative strip [?] ) within [?] 15 m of mapped water bodies, and

2) Introducing a new [?] Riparian Areas Regulation Development Permit Area 30 minland [?] from the largest [?] stream banks within which a SEA [?] will bedefined [?] according to the Regulation assessment methods [?] .

The above proposed approaches and areas [?] are shown on the map in Appendix 1.

The benefits [?] of this approach include:

Less [?] burdensome on landowners:

A 15m vegetative leave strip [?] beside [?] mapped streams may beapplied [?] as a SEA as opposed to requiring [?] a RAR Assessmentwithin 30m of all mapped streams

Cheaper [?] :

An applicant would be able [?] to apply to have the 15m SEA reduced. Itis cheaper for an applicant to apply to vary a landscaped [?] regulationthan applying for a Development Permit.

More effective enforcement:

Enforcement Bylaw 446 may be amended to include new [?] regulations. Bylaw 446includes the Bylaw Adjudication [?] system which allows for a variety of enforcementmechanisms [?] and includes [?] the Regional Planning Manager as a screening [?]officer.

The weakness of this approach include:

Complicated [?] :

Trustees or [?] the public may consider using two bylaws to implementthe RAR as overly [?] complicated

Neighbor Impacts:

Before considering a variance of the Land Use Bylaw, LTC would requirenotice to neighbors and consideration of adverse impacts, some of whichmay be unrelated to RAR objectives.

An alternative approach may be to not implement new [?] regulations (the 15mSEA) but instead to create a Development Permit Area with varying applicable

96

widths [?] . The same map in Appendix 1 may be considered but with a different [?] legend indicating a Proposed 15m RAR DPA.

The bylaw would be based on the same evidence [?] received via Q.P. [?]reports but would results in a single bylaw versus a Land Use Bylaw amendmentand an Official Community Plan amendment [?] .

The LTC and general public may wish to consider balancing the loss [?] of cost benefits [?] and more effective enforcement for the benefit of a simpler approach. As the overallapproach toward implementing the RAR has received [?] general approval [?] , staffrecommend hosting a Community Information Meeting (CIM) in October 2013 to providemore [?] clarity on the preferred option which would form the basis of a RARimplementation bylaw.

Formal requirements [?] for consultation during [?] Official Community Plan could alsobegin leading up to and informing the CIM. As per Local Government Act section 879,during the amendment of an official community plan, the proposing local governmentmust provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation withpersons [?] , organizations and authorities it [?] considers will be affected (SeeAppendix 3 for a list of Agencies for early referral).

Next Steps

The project charter [?] anticipates hosting a Community Information Meeting where thepublic and LTC may review detailed [?] bylaw options for implementing [?] the RAR.With such direction staff may begin drafting significant elements of a RARimplementation bylaw along with supporting communication [?] materials. During thistime, assuming awarding of the service contract [?], stream mapping will be conductedfor the remaining �RAR Designated Watersheds.� The results of the stream mapping,when available, would be included in a draft bylaw . It would thus [?] be anticipated thata first reading of a draft RAR Implementation bylaw may be anticipated [?] early in 2014which is consistent with the Work Program approved by the LTC May 2, 2013.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee direct staff to ensure early [?]consultation is given to First Nations and the agencies [?] as listed in Appendix 3.

2. That the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee direct [?] staff to plan a CommunityInformation Meeting regarding bylaw options to implementing the Riparian AreasRegulation.

Prepared and Submitted by:

Stefan Cermak, Planner 2 Date

Concurred by:

Leah Hartley, Regional Planning Manager Date

97

Appendices

Appendix 1 Proposed Areas and Approaches for Implementation of the RAR on Salt SpringIsland

Appendix 2 Written Communications Received

Appendix 3 Agencies for Early Referral�

HERE ENDS the Cermak Report.

However, it has three appendices, which although I do not propose to reproduce here, Ishould at least comment on them.

Appendix 1: This is a 1:20,000 Map of SaltSpring Island titled �Proposed Areas andApproaches for Implementation of the RAR on Salt Spring Island�. It is unsigned andundated. It has a �legend� of sorts, not labeled as such, denoting the colours used in the Map,as follows:

�[Blue] Water Courses (ISSES, Madrone)

[Blue] Lakes Ponds Wetlands

[Brown] Proposed RAR DPA (30m. RAR perpendicular to watercourses)

[Yellow] Proposed 15m. Landscaping buffer as Streamside Protection andEnhancement Area or SPEA.

[Gray] DPA�

NB: the colours are as they appeared in my computer screen, which means that theymay be at variance with the intended heu.

The �legend� and, by extension the Map, is incomprehensible. For example, whatdistinguishes �Lakes Ponds Wetlands� from �watercourses�, �waterstreams�, or �streams wet ordry� as used in SSI Trust parlance?

What is a �30m. ... Area�?

What is the difference between �RAR DPA� (brown) and �Landscaping buffer� (yellow)?

There is another remarkable feature of this RAR Map. It shows the frontage of myproperty on Booth Canal RARified. This is no true, because the RAR does not apply to tidalwaters. This �error� was subsequently corrected.

Appendix 2: This is titled� �Public Participation for RAR�. It is an assembly of ninecitizens submissions to the Trust, notes of meetings and an excerpt from a WaterCouncil meeting Minutes, all referring to RAR.

This I find very interesting as it manifests the inappropriate ways and means by whichthe Trust ushered the RAR into our midst. It a partial assembly of submissions; it is isolatedfrom the rest; it is hidden as an �appendix� to a Trust Report.

There is no mention in the Report to the effect that other peoples� submissions havebeen stashed away and where the cache is hidden; there is no cumulative presentation of the

98

Trust RAR Scholarship � A Very Funny Thing...�By general consent, the Trustees asked that the next staff report on RiparianArea Regulations include the material presented by Dr. A.N.T. Varzeliotis andhanded in by him on November 21, 2012"

The SSI LTC at its February 23, Meeting

As a reminder, this is the first part of the order the LTC issued to the Staff at the February 23, 2013 LTC meeting. The �next staff report on Riparian Area Regulations� came onApril 24, 2013 � It did not, however, �include the material presented by Dr. A.N.T. Varzeliotisand handed in by him on November 21, 2012" as had been ordered by the LTC. There wereanother 15 Staff Reports on the RAR in the next two years but none of them included theVarzeliotis� �material�.

Eventually the Trust did the RAR at the end of 2014. After securing it, they went on tocover up the ways and means by which they had done it. In a fake show of �Openness inGovernance� done for the protection of the Trust Staff against accusations of arbitrary conduct,the Trust prepared a �proof� of RAR scholarship, dedication to due process and subordination tothe LTC. To that end they posted this compendium of documents in the Trust�s Website underthe title: �RAR Reference Documents�. They do not advertise the hideout, but if you somehowstumble on it, they inform you where you are, which is:

�You are here: Home > Islands > Local Trust Areas > Salt Spring > Projects & Initiatives> Previous Projects > Riparian Areas Regulation > Reference Documents�

To spare you the trip I will bring it all here:

�Reference Documents Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) [Group #1:] Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR)* Riparian Areas Legislation

* Riparian Areas Regulation Assessment Methods

* Riparian Areas Regulations Implementation Handbook

* Ministry of Environment - Riparian Areas Regulation Background Information

* Ministry of Environment �Do You Have a Stream, Lake, Wetland or Ditch?� Brochure

* MOE Implementation of the Riparian Areas Regulation Implications to the OCPLetter dated June 27, 2008

* MOE RAR Designated Watersheds

* MOE Islands Trust Area Watershed Mapping, July 26, 2011

[Group #2:] Current Riparian Area Protection Measures* Sensitive Streams Designation and Licensing Regulation (Fulford Creek)

* Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 434 Development Permit Area 4 Excerpt(existing bylaw)

99

* OCP Map 21, Development Permit Area 4 Lakes, Streams and Wetlands(existing bylaw)

* Soil Removal and Deposit Bylaw No. 418

* Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw No. 355, setbacks from water (existing bylaw)

[Group #3:] Stream Mapping Reports* Ganges Creek Watershed Summary Report

* Madrone Report September 18, 2014 - Third Party Review of Bullock, Maxwell,Fulford, Stowell, and Weston Watersheds Mapping

* Report dated May 2014 � Third Party Review of 19 Remaining WatershedsMapping

* Report dated March 31, 2014 � Mapping: Remaining 19 Watersheds

* Mainstream Biological Consulting Report February 2014 Mapping: Bullock,Maxwell, Fulford, Stowell, and Weston Watersheds

* Madrone Report May 29, 2013 � Peer Review of Pilot Mapping Project

* Madrone Report September 25, 2012 � Pilot Mapping Project: St. Mary Lake andCusheon Lake Watersheds

* ISSES Report March 29, 2012

[Group #4:] Maps * Stream Names and Topography

* Proposed Development Permit Area Widths

[Group #5:] Staff Reports* October 8, 2014 (Draft Bylaw 482 (Prevost Island) � First and Second Reading)

* October 7, 2014 (Proposed Bylaw 480 � Second Reading)

* August 28, 2014 (Resource Requirements)

* July 22, 2014 (Memo � Correct minor issues in Draft Bylaw 480 � First Reading)

* July 15, 2014 (Draft Bylaw 480 � First Reading)

* June 5, 2014 (Community Information Feedback)

* February 27, 2014 (Interim Report - Work Program Update and Receive MappingReport

* December 12, 2013 (Interim Report - Agency Communications)

* October 24, 2013 (Third Party Review Scope of Work)

* September 6, 2013 (Interim Report - Community Feedback Considerations)

100

* August 22, 2013 (Stream Mapping 19 Watersheds - Scope of Work)

* June 20, 2013 (Mapping Results and Implementation Approaches)

* May 2, 2013 (Work Program Update)

* April 24, 2013 (Work Program Update)

* December 4, 2012 (Feedback and further mapping considerations)

* October 3, 2012 (Mapping Results and Peer Review)

* September 11, 2012 (Preliminary Communications Plan)

* June 22, 2012 (Peer Review Terms of Reference)

* May 9, 2012 (Memo to consider Peer Review of mapping)

* February 14, 2012 (Interim Report on Mapping)

* January 3, 2012 (Considerations for Mapping St. Mary and Cusheon)

* November 3, 2011 (Mapping Options)

* October 6, 2011 (RAR Verbal Report: notes)

* August 24, 2011 (RAR Work Program Considerations)

* July 28, 2011 (Closure of Bylaw 449)

[Group #6:] Community Information Meeting Documents* Community Information Meeting handouts

* Community Information Meeting maps

* Community Information Meeting feedback forms

[Group #7:] Other Reference Documents* Local Government Act

* Islands Trust Policy Statement

* Official Community Plan .

* Green Bylaws Toolkit

* Affidavit for Properties Not Subject to Riparian Area Regulation* Dr. Varzeliotis Communications � November 21, 2012"

[HERE ENDS THE ORIGINAL �RAR Reference Documents� � THE REST ARE�LATE ADDITION�, so to speak!]

101

* DPA7 Brochure

[Group #8:] Media

* Salt Spring Island Riparian Areas Video�

[HERE ENDS THE �RAR Reference Documents� AS IT BECAME AFTER THE �LATE ADDITION� PATCH UP]

The �late addition� has a hilarious history: On discovering the �Reference Documents�,and find there my November 21, 2012 submission on the RAR I became ecstatic. It was longtime from overdue, since February 23, 2013, this being when the LTC had ordered Cermak topublish the paper they had censored. But there it was posted in 2015 � it had taken a long timebut no one would any longer say that the Trust had censored it! Or so they expected.

I was thrilled to bits and I bragged sardonically that the Trust had held the best for lastand that they had finally acknowledged the significance of my work on the RAR and honoured it!For, they had grouped my November 21, 2012 RAR submission at the Fritz with the �LocalGovernment Act�, the �Official Community Plan�, the �Trust Policy� and the �Green BylawsToolkit�. Fantastic company to be seen in!

After hearing me �bragging� about it, the Trust rushed to take back what they hadinadvertently let out, or as much of it as they could. This sent them scurrying for an antidote tocope with their faux pas without showing remorse, voice apologies and do restitutions. Cat-quietly, they plumbed into the �Reference Documents� another two �documents�, and anadditional �Group�, as follows:

To Group #7 they added another �reference document� to wit �DPA7 Brochure�,immediately after �Dr. Varzeliotis Communications � November 21, 2012". The thinly veiledrational of it was to deny me bragging that they had recognized the value of my submission byleaving the best for last!

Then, they topped it all by adding �Group #8 Media� so as to deny Group #7 the rank ofbeing the last � double whammy!

Presto: �Dr. Varzeliotis Communications � November 21, 2012" is no longer the lastdocument, in the last group!

I stand thoroughly enthralled !

Affidavit of current RARinnocence and perpetual RARpurityThere is another important RAR document, on the evil side of the line, which he Trust

has hidden in that clever �bibliography�, also in Group #7, immediately above �Dr. VarzeliotisCommunications - November 21, 2012". It is titled: �Affidavit for Properties Not Subject toRiparian Area Regulation�. This positioning of the �Affidavit� in the �Reference documents�and the total blackout of its existence over the entire course of processing the RAR testified howwell aware they were of the public ire it would raise if seen. They accorded it high secrecy,almost as high as they accorded my submission...

I have already discussed the Affidavit in PART III, along with the RAR Bylaw. In essence I brought the two together for exactly the opposite for which the Trust hid the �Affidavit�.

102

Kris Nichols gone AWOL from the RAR Reference DocumentsOf serious significance to the credibility of the Trust is that the list of �Reference

Documents� is thoroughly laundered clean of everything about, or from, Kris Nichols. Nicholscommanded the Trust RAR expedition force for some nine months, in 2010-11, attending theLTC meetings and submitting written reports all received ceremoniously with accolades to theirauthor pronounced uttered by the LTC. There were at least eight Nichols reports, the first datedJanuary 2011. Then, in June 2011, his work went down with his RAR, sunk by a wave of publicangst. Nichols� labours on the RAR cost the Trust, to wit us, some $100,000, the sum wastedon stuff the Trust deems now necessary to hide from us...

In the course of writing this book I requested access to Kris Nichol�s RAR reports, torefresh my memory on their content � the Trust fell silent. I do not know whether they have eliminated them from the Trust files, or whether they are only hiding them.

�Peer Review� under it and other names in the RAR ReferenceDocuments

Moving on the Documents Group #3, one sees some very interesting entries. Theyappear innocuous but they are pregnant with damning for the Trust. It is constructive to readthese items starting from the Groups bottom and moving upwards.

The bottom item is the �pilot� mapping which elicited strong averse public reaction mainlyon the way the Staff had handled it. To evade accounting for the boondoggle, the Staff came upwith the clever idea of commissioning a �peer review�, to wit, hire somebody to tell the world thatthe Trust handled it all properly. This would pre-discredit future critics of the way the Trust didthe RAR by enabling the Trust to point to �peers� having ascertained that it all was hanky dory �who are we to question the �peers�, eh?

I explained, on several occasions, the oxymoron of the Staff claiming having the skills todesign a �pilot� project and then hiring and paying someone to tell the world that whether whatthey bought in the poke was a pig and not a turkey!

Moving upward in the Group #3 we see the subsequent �pilot� two mapping contracts,neither of which was substantially different than the pilot in respect to what was to be surveyed.The Trust knew they had been purchasing the wrong �RARmapping�, expected public reactionand wanted to shelter themselves against it. But I had exposed their method of �peer review�and although lacking the courage to apologize for doing it, they did not dare play it again ofrefrain from the game.

The best they could come up with was to do again and again the �peer review� underanother name and pray that people do not notice! Admittedly the new name is not asimpressive as �peer review� but it would have to do because the Trust would not go on, without�protection�. They called it a �third party review�! Look at the two �third party reviews� figuringprominently as the fifth and sixth items, from the bottom, in that Group #3 of the �ReferenceDocuments� � look at them!

Maps of something or other... who cares what?Group #4 is titled simply �Maps� and contains two items, the one being:

�RAR Stream Maps of Salt Spring Island�

103

This map depicts SSI �in relief� and shows the �RARmapped streams with their names. Itis dated �02/04/2014". The purpose of this map is not professed.

The other map in Group #4, is a map of Salt Spring, showing the subdivision linesdefining individual parcels of land. The legend is less cryptic than that of the other map andreads as follows:

�Salt Spring Island - Official Community Plan

Development Permit Area 7� Riparian Areas

Map 28

Mapped RAR Streams

[Pink] ditches

[Blue] small streams

[Green] lakes, wetlands and large streams

RAR Development Permit Area 7

[Pink - Pale] 5 metre

[Blue - Pale] 15 metre

[Green - Pale] 30 metre�

This Map hides a lot, indeed more than it reveals. The main deficiency of it is that itdoes not show the RAR boundary lines. In other words, the title �Development Permit Area 7 �Riparian Areas� is a misnomer, because no �area� is not shown on the map. The map shows no�Riparian Areas� and this makes the title of the map not true � and this is deliberate!

The map shows not the position of peoples� properties relative to the boundaries of theRAR. Imagine for a moment, what would happen if people saw the RAR boundary cuttingthrough their kitchens, bedrooms and bathrooms, or even across their broccoli patch ... justimagine that. Just imagine the public reaction to that vile RAR and what it would bring to thepeople-phobic officers of the Trust... That is why the RAR maps, are not �RAR maps�, that iswhy the Trust fooled us about �RAR Maps�, that is why they paid �Peers� and �Third Persons� totell us that the Trust did not misspent our money on commissioning these �RAR Maps�!

They used the �maps� to quench the public ire against the RAR which had manifesteditself plainly in the �unprecedented public interest� which forced the Trust to scuttle the June2011 RAR events. They funneled public attention to �mapping� something or other but nothingthat would spare society the pain from paying RAR �fees� to the Trust and to QEPs. Arguably,they were out to maximize the RAR fee-yield.

By not mapping the boundaries of the RAR they left it to QEPs, to �read� these mapsand deploy measuring tapes to pronounce what people are allowed to do in their homes, yardsand on their land.

These are not oversights or glitches to be ironed out � these are deliberate doings, part of the drive to deliver the RAR Lands to QEPs. And to make them and the infamous Affidavit ofRAR purity into a formidable shield to protect the Trust Staff.

Before leaving the Maps group I will comment on a jewel of Trust Staff perceptiveness topublic input. It refers to Mapping but the attitude is universal and that is why I cite it here. I took

104

it from the June 5, 2014 Staff Report, on the public hearing the SSI LTC had done on May 8,2014.

�Proposed Bylaw Map

As mentioned earlier, the response to the RAR mapping and 30 - 15 - 5 approach hasbeen generally positive.

However, staff has received requests to edit the stream mapping. The requests, reasonssupporting them, and locations on a map are included in appendix 3. All requests willbe forwarded for LTC consideration.

However, since the mapping was done by qualified professionals, only mappingchanges supported by similarly qualified professionals will be recommended by staff.Below is a list of mapped streams in which staff note inconsistency with a QEP report:�(emphasis added)

Note the assertion of reliance on QEPs! Also note the assertion that �All requests willbe forwarded for LTC consideration. The latter is to catch any residues of decision-makingwith the associated accountability and shove it into the lap of the disposable �electedrepresentatives�. In this instance they seek to have the peoples� elected representatives rubber-stamp the denial of peoples� needs for correction of �errors� in the RARMaps.

�For clarity�, Staff uses �qualified professionals� to denote �QEPs�!

Incidentally, if you have not guessed it, �30 - 15 - 5" denote the width of the RAR corridor(SPEA) in meters on each side of a �waterstream�. Staff omit the information that the numbersare in meters and do not translate them to �feet�! This handicaps people from visualizing howmuch land the RAR grabs. The equivalent to the above meter numbers is 100 - 50 - 15 feet(roughly). This means that the corridor about a RAR ditch is as wide as a city house lot, whilethat for a larger Creek could be three times that up to the width of 3 or more city lots.

More than that really, for a meter is a linear measure � �area� being measured in�square meters�. As a reminder, the Trust disputed the claim that the RAR captures 60% of thearea of SaltSpring but never show us a figure of their own � this would be not Propaganda-correct!

The Trust had ordered the Staff to educate us...Next is Document Group #5 which comprises 25 Staff reports, all presented by Planner

Stefan Cermak who was charged with the RAR file, and consented to by Leah Hartley, then SSIRPM. These Reports were brought to the LTC from July 28, 2011 to October 8, 2014. As areminder, it was July 2011 that Kris Nichols was terminated and Stefan Cermak was elevatedto the bridge of the then distressed ship RAR. The Reports Nichols wrote are nowhere to beseen in the list or anywhere else...

I do not propose to review these items individually. However I scrutinize one of Cermak�sthem in a chapter of its own.

Group #6 is also interesting, as it ostensibly lists the �Community information meetingDocuments�. The list, however, is inexplicably restricted to the May 8, 2014 event at ArtSpring.If you have followed the process, you will recognize that the list is suspiciously silent on all theother �educational� events the Trust organized to sell the RAR to us. It omits mention of the spectacular �information meeting� designed by Chris Nichols for June 2011 and which wasaborted thrice due his failure to induce the public apathy needed to slide the RAR past the

105

public; and the November 21, 20 12 Fritz Fiasco as well as the final information and - publicinput event of November 4 2014. Evidently the Trust would rather pretend having held onlyone meeting on this �draconian� bylaw, than remind the people of the Nichols� organized, thriceaborted, meeting in mid 2011 or the Fritz RAR Fiasco.

�Groups #7 and #8�: I have already discussed these groups in which they hid my November 21 submission at the Fritz and the ingenious Affidavit of RAR Innocence andPerpetual RARpurity! I see no need for repetition. submission on the RAR; The Trust did notcall for public input, that is to say other than �answers� to the �clever� �feedback forms� issuedby the Trust. This arrangement, all but ensured the absence of the essential to the democraticprocess public debate!

Surely this was not inadvertent; it was deliberate, for, at least I had objected to the Trusthiding public input and had appealed for showcasing public submissions to facilitate thecommunication, debate, evolution and evaluation of ideas without which democracy does notwork. The Trust never responded, other than playing deaf.

Appendix 3. �Agencies for Early Referral� is the title of this Appendix. This is a list of 26�Agencies�. There is no explanation of what �Early Referral� is and of what it does, nor yet of thepurpose of appending it to this Staff Report.

106

RARlikes in the NeighbourhoodIn Saanich, they suffer the �Sensitive Ecosystem� epidemic � near asbad as the RAR...

Following is an editorial from the March 4, 2015 edition of The Times - Colonistnewspaper of Victoria BC. It is a plea for some relief from the pain inflicted upon haplesscitizens by �saviours�, in the precinct of Saanich. There, the prevalent �saviours� are truebelievers bent on protecting future generations against present day lettuce and onion eaterswho destroy current and potential ecosystems to grow zucchini and radicchio for their chewingpleasure thereby allegedly denying future generations the enjoyment of �ecosystems�...

Here is the editorial, well written, informative, meaningful...

�Saanich bylaw needs fixing

Saanich councillors got an earful last week about one of the district�s environmental-protection bylaws. They should pay attention because the bylaw needs to be fixed. Members of the district�s environment committee, expecting their usual sedate meeting,instead found a dozen residents and biologists who told them the EnvironmentalDevelopment Permit Area bylaw goes overboard.

The bylaw, which affects more than 2,000 properties, requires landowners to get permitsif they want to do work on property that is identified in an atlas of sensitive ecosystems.The work can include planting gardens, paving, changing vegetation, or removing ordepositing soil.

The district�s guidelines say: �The objectives of this Development Permit Area are to:Protect the areas of highest biodiversity within Saanich; require mitigation duringdevelopment; and require restoration to damaged or degraded ecosystems duringdevelopment.� Fine goals; poor execution.

Anita Bull, whose mother and uncle own properties on Christmas Hill, has started apetition to get the bylaw reformed. The properties have Garry oaks, but there are nonatural shrubs and saplings underneath. The area was turned to lawn decades ago.

As Bull notes, the oaks are already protected by the tree bylaw. The sensitiveecosystem beneath them was wiped out long ago. So what is Saanich protecting?

Amendments suggested by staff could expand the scope of the protected area, so thateven remnants such as Bull�s family�s are protected because of their potential forrecovery. One proposed change would allow staff to ignore the provincial definition of�sensitive� ecosystems.

Homeowners are already hemmed in by many bylaws and regulations about what theycan do with their properties � all in good causes. This one also has good intentions, butSaanich has left the work half-finished.

107

It was based on an aerial survey of the municipality, which identified areas such asstands of Garry oak. Beneath some of those oaks are sensitive, natural ecosystems thatneed protection.

The survey should have been followed by people on the ground checking what wasunder the trees. That was never done, so people such as Bull�s mother are assumed tohave sensitive plants in their yards, even though they don�t.

Instead of amending the inventory of ecosystems, the district leaves it to eachhomeowner to sort it out when they want to do something to their land. That costsmoney, and it shouldn�t happen.

The detailed atlas shows that protected areas are scattered throughout Saanich. Thelargest are in parks and along shorelines. But many blobs of orange and yellow sprawlacross residential areas as if someone spilled a drink on the map. One near MountDouglas Cross Road touches at least 16 properties.

Saanich residents Bev and Mark Insley say they have spent $2,500 on a biologicalassessment of their Cordova Bay property so they could rebuild steps down a bank.After a year of wrestling with the district, they are no closer to getting approval. Theyhave hired a lawyer because they have had no luck with officials, either elected orappointed.

Saanich officials say the aim is to catch potential destruction at times of redevelopmentor rezoning. That makes it sound as if we�re talking about developers bulldozing naturalplants to build new houses. But as Bull and the Insleys have found, it can catch ordinaryhomeowners in a costly tangle of rules without protecting any natural ecosystem.

At its meeting, the environment committee recommended an open house on the bylaw.Councillors and staff should use the opportunity to listen to what residents have to say.

Protecting fragile ecosystems is a valuable goal. But it�s up to the municipality to ensurethere is an ecosystem to protect. Dumping the burden of proof on homeowners isunreasonable.�

This is a Times-Colonist Newspaper Editorial - March 4, 2015.

Does it remind you of anything Salt Spring? Visualize �$2,500 QEP Report� in theplace of the �$2,500 biological assessment�; Insert �RAR Map� for �Ecosystem Atlas�;Insert �RAR� for �sensitive ecosystems�; and so on... Please, read on

In SSI, we suffer the RAR epidemic which the Trust fights to make itan endemic. It is a pain in the back as bad as the Sensitive Ecosystemof nearby Saanich...

Following is an article from the August 31, 2016 edition of The Driftwood newspaperBylined Sean McIntyre. It is a plea for some relief from the pain inflicted upon hapless citizens

108

by �saviours�, in the precinct of Salt Spring. Here, the prevalent �saviours� are true believers andclever businesspeople bent on protecting fictional fish and making money, respectively. Theyprofess protecting future generations of humans against present day lettuce and onion eaterswho destroy current and potential �fish habitat� by disturbing Riparian Areas soils to growzucchini and radicchio for their chewing pleasure thereby allegedly denying future generationsthe enjoyment of �fish�...

Following is Sean�s article, well written, informative, meaningful...

�Riparian regs surprise Channel Ridge property owners� Development challenge stresses importance of consultation

BY SEAN MCINTYRE � DRIFTWOOD STAFF

When Andria Scanlan and Richard Clarke set their minds to downsizing, the last thingthe couple anticipated was the massive headache associated with building their new home onChannel Ridge.

After closing the deal on their two-acre property through a local realtor in June, thecouple dutifully dotted the i's and crossed the t's to ensure all the right conditions had been met.They poured over building plans with contractors and got a team in place to begin constructionin late summer. Having sold their previous home at Maracaibo, they even signed a short-termlease to secure temporary shelter for themselves and their daughter until their new home wascomplete.

The plan appeared flawless, and the transition occurred seamlessly, until the localCapital Regional District building inspection department referred the file to Salt Spring's IslandsTrust office. That's where the couple got a brutal introduction to the Salt Spring Riparian AreasRegulation.

The couple had been relieved to discover the North Salt Spring Waterworks Districtcould supply water to the property in spite of the murky moratorium on new connections.

Satisfied their property could be served by the NSSWD, the couple imagined they werein the clear. Then they got a visit from Trust staff.

The planners told the couple a section of their 125 Maple Ridge Place property wasclearly subject to RAR conditions.

�We thought we were doing all the due diligence and were moving straight ahead,�Scanlan said. �We thought we were moving into an established subdivision here.�

Salt Spring's RAR bylaw is based on a provincially mandated requirement for local land-use agencies to protect fish-bearing water courses. Discussions about the new bylaw set off fiveyears of local debate about which water courses would be covered and implications for propertyowners. The bylaw's final incarnation requires any work within 15 or 30 metres of various watercourses be approved by a qualified environmental professional and receive a developmentpermit.

About 1,500 property owners on Salt Spring are directly affected by RAR-designatedwater courses.

109

Whereas some homeowners faced with such a predicament have the option to bypasstheir RAR area altogether, building around the problem wasn't a choice for Scanlan and Clarke.

The Islands Trust's map shows a distinct RAR zone that traces the length of MapleRidge Place. Near the cul-de-sac at the end of the short road, the zone enlarges beforecascading toward Duck Creek Park. That area around the turnaround is also where the NSSWDwater connection box for Scanlan and Clark�s property was installed when the subdivision wasbuilt nearly three decades ago, long before the RAR was even a thought.

The overlap means any work to link their as-of-yet unbuilt home to the community watersystem at the foot of their driveway must satisfy the RAR protocol. Scanlan and Clarke�s newhome is essentially cut off from the community water by a RAR wall that crosses part of theirland.

Surprised by the unanticipated snag in their downsizing dream, the couple soughtalternatives. None of the methods or routes they discussed were sufficient. The neighbours,whose water connection box is situated beside Scanlan and Clarke's, weren't subject to RARrules because they built long before regulations took effect in 2014. Even running their waterline under their right-of-way the couple shares with neighbouring property owners was out of thequestion since it too is subject to RAR provisions.

�It's a disaster,� Scanlan said during a tour of the property last week.

According to the regional planning manager at Salt Spring's Islands Trust office, Scanlanand Clarke face the same conditions as anyone who undertakes work within an area protectedby the island's MR development permit area.

�Any new residential development activities within a development permit area, in thiscircumstance DPA7, are subject to meet guidelines and approval through issuance of adevelopment permit,� Stefan Cermak wrote in an email.

He added that the property doesn't appear to fall within any of the exemptions listed inthe RAR legislation. Trust staff continue to work alongside the property owners and CRDbuilding inspectors to resolve the matter.

Cermak said the situation highlights the need for all parties involved in the purchase,sale and development of land to thoroughly consult with all regulatory agencies,

�This occurs to me as being regular due diligence,� Cermak said.

Information about areas affected by RAR and a comprehensive map of the island'sDPA7 zones is available at the Trust office.

But that advice is too late for Scanlan and Clarke, who will be forced to pay thousands ofdollars and wait several months to apply for their development permit. The couple has begun tolook into digging a well on the property or installing water catchment to supply their household'swater needs. Both options are anticipated to considerably increase their building budget dollarsand wait several months to apply for their development permit.

�None of it is good news,� Scanlan said.�

NB: I have commented on this Article in the PART III

110

END of the Article � but not of the TortureIn the past, the LTC decreed that Staff and I work together on an application I had filed.

The Planner and I met to �work together� and she told me to withdraw the application, whichmade me not appreciative of the collaboration � it was not solution, it was raw suppression.

In the Scanlan & Clarke instance, I had predicted that the Trust would find a way torelieve the Scanlan & Clarke from their RARpain, so as to end the bad press. But it wasn�t to be.

They could have taken advantage of the fact that the �waster connection box� for theScanlan & Clarke property had been built long before the advent of the RAR and therefore itwas not �NEW Construction� (the caps original to the Trust Propaganda literature), andtherefore was protected against RARification. But they had no mercy!

The Staff worked with the Applicant, awfully hard it seems to get their pound of flesh.Scanlan and Clarke bought a QEP report, 15 page long, and paid the Trust fees for a permit, aPlaner wrote a report and brought the file to the LTC, recommencing the applicant be allowed totap the watermain but that the permit be overloaded with a slough of conditions to protectimaginary fish against the pains accruing fro �pipeline crossing�. It is not surprising that theTrust worked hard to cover up the �grsanting of the permit� and succeeded to evade �follow ups�in the Driftwood.

As I relate in Part III, it was not pleasant watching the LTC doing that...

111

PART FIVE � Trust FOIbles

Preface � A Strong Propensity to Hide

In its forty years in existence, the Trust has elicited substantial public aversion. To theextent that this is justified, it is mainly due to it having evolved in the form of a �secret society�. Iwill say with certainty that among the Trust-o-philes are many who are unhappy with this aspectof the persona of the public body that the Trust is.

The Trust elicited the public disdain it commands by doing things they would never evenattempt to do in the light of day. �Proceed Surreptitiously� has become the unofficial logo in theTrust�s Coat of Arms, but this too, the Trust keeps under wraps...

The propensity of magistrates to secrecy was felt by the �Fathers of Democracy� andthey worked at it. Indeed, by definition, Democracy is open governance. But damnable humantraits such as theft, lying, bullying, despotism persist, and neither human laws or theologicalforces are likely to ever wipe them clean off the human scene. Regrettably the iTrust hasevolved oblivious to the Checks and Balances built onto the system � they behave as ifpotentates, confident in their ability to fool enough people, for long enough to saddle societywith �yokes�, the likes of the RAR.

Hardly any public body is pure, therefore we speak in terms of degree of culpability.Power is tempting and those whom we entrust to manage public affairs are, essentially, in aposition of conflict of interest. Many magistrates find irresistible the lure of power, forget thattheir calling is to �serve� and proceed to �govern� us. And they do �govern� us as much as theythink they can get away with. Since the possession of power is an anathema to democracythose who steal it feel the need to hide it. Of course, the more they can disguise the power theygrab, the more the grab.

To prevent the stealth of power, we build public galleries in the legislatures, keep thedoors of the courtrooms wide open and have made Open Governance laws. All these and morechecks and balances, have are rooted in the need of society to prevent magistrates yielding tothe temptation of power.

In this part of the book, I sample the ways and means by which he Trust seeks to evadethe Freedom Of Information law so as to do what they cannot not do in the open.

October 20, 2011 - Cermak and I talk RAR

The Trust declared officially a unilateral truce after the Nichols RAR expedition wasdefeated by the people in that three-day June 2011 �battle�. The LTC understood the messageand sought to save face and the RAR with the five resolutions it passed on July 7, 2011, and aNews Release �explaining� matters. The Trustees authoritatively informed us that the�unprecedented public interest�, as they called the peoples� distaste for the RAR, was due to thecommunity�s lack of understanding of the goodness of the RAR. They discontinued hired-gunKris Nichols and instructed the Trust Staff to do RAR PRopaganda using in-house talent. Butthe Staff went mute. There was no RAR enlightenment emanating from the Staff � I saw

112

nothing of the sort happening, focused as I was and anxiously awaiting to be �educated�.

I took it upon myself to trigger the process by visiting the Trust offices, as it had beenofficially recommended, to ask a few seed questions. The front desk informed me that only thePlanner on the file, Stefan Cermak, could answer RAR questions, but as it happened he was �ata meeting� that day. After a few futile visits to the Trust Offices finding Cermak always�unavailable�, I requested an appointment, and managed to get one. I took eight questions inwriting with me, gave him a copy and awaited his answers attentively.

That the Trust had shown such reluctance to �educating� us made each bit of RARinformation extracted from the Trust a valuable RARity. I kept notes of Cermak�s answers onmy copy of the question sheet. Now, I thought I will pass on the education I received at thatOctober 20, 2011 meeting with the Planner in his office.

The preface to my Question #1 was a gem I had stumbled upon, and brought to thediscussion to impress on Cermak the need for the Trust to come to terms with reality; and because it is amusing:

On the Question #1:

�1. Given that: It was MOVED and SECONDED based on scientific considerations, that the AdvisoryEnvironment Committee recommends to the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committeethat they proceed with the watershed polygon approach to DPA area delineation,based on the 2011 Ministry of Environment approved Riparian Areas Regulationmapping of fish-bearing streams and watersheds. CARRIED

Q-1: What is a �watershed polygon approach to DPA area delineation�?�

This had made me a tad concerned - having spent a lifetime of working in watersheds,some as big as the Columbia River watershed, I have never had encountered a �watershedpolygon approach to DPA area delineation�. Upon seeing it I became impressed and humbledand determined to learn all about this type of �approach�, and I had made it my first of my eightquestions to the Trust.

The Planner became visibly surprised and patently perplexed by the question but hequickly regained his composure and begun a discourse about �watersheds�. I managed toreturn the discussion to the issue I had raised and which was the meaning of the expression.

After I voiced a few hypotheses, Cermak picked one and consented that ��watershedpolygon� is meant to mean �watershed boundary��. But he could not say why the Trust AdvisoryEnvironment Committee would rename �boundary� to that, nor how a citizen could comprehendthe �scientific advice� spouted out by the Environmental Committee. Especially given thatWatershed boundaries are thee dimensional figures made of curves, while polygons,, are twodimensional figures made up of straight lines, according to Euclid who knew all about suchthings.

Incidentally, George Grams (prior to becoming Trustee) had damned the Trust practiceof relying on secret advisory committees for advice on governing us. It is too much to expect

113

someone with a modicum of understanding of science to be willingly associated with linguisticssuch as those of the �scientific advice� at issue, and it would very well be this that underlines thesecrecy of that Trust Committee. In any event, the Committee would benefit enormously fromreading Beatrix Potter�s elegant and precise �delineation of the organic horticultural intercourseof Lagomorpha Peter Rabbit with Anthropoid Mr. MacGregor�, me thinks.

Well, on further thought, I deem preferable to remain uninformed on who are theCommittee who authored this gem...

On the Question #2:

�2. Given that: �Map 21" is the only Map attached to the RAR and that this map lacks a proper legendand that without it cannot conceivably serve its professed purpose:

Q-2: Will you please reveal the legend of Map 21?�

Cermak pointed to a black rectangle on the map and the following words besides it:

�[Black rectangle] Development Permit Area 4Note: Fish habitat identified from Reimer 1996"

Cermak did not know how and why a 1996 Map found its way into the RAR bylaw in2011.

Later, I discovered that the Map in question had started life as �Map 12" and someonehad found it, reincarnated it, and transposed the digits (from 12 to 21), resulting in the Trustgetting themselves a new Map to deploy as the RAR map! This, they said, preempted the needfor doing RAR-specific mapping, thereby freeing up the money to hire Consultant Nichols to dothe RAR PR. No, they did not say that much, but they pretended to be saving public money byskipping the mapping while spending more that their own cost estimate for doing the mappingon Nichols.

During our discussion, Cermak asserted that Map 21 identifies all the natural waterbodies, stationary and moving, of SaltSpring, but so does any old topographic map of the island. But he also noted that Map 21 does not depict the ditches which are also made subject to theRAR. Cermak could not say whether fish live in all of the highlighted water venues; he wouldnot say whether all or some of them have fish or the potential to have fish.

I told him that MacAffee Creek, which runs through my property, has never had fish in itin living memory and cannot conceivably sustain fish unless it is enlarged, provided withfishladders and has water diverted from other sources into it.

On the Question #3:

�3. Given that: On August 18, subsequent to the July 7, 2011 five LTC resolutions, Iwrote the Trust expressing interest in bidding on the upcoming RAR mapping contract.

Q-3: When can I expect acknowledgment of my �expression of interest�?�

114

Cermak was surprised � he had never received my letter he said. He was unaware thatI had filed with the Trust an �expression of interest� to bid for the mapping contract. Evidentlymy letter was intercepted by the secret-aries of the Trust and withheld from the Planner incharge of the RAR file...

It was my turn to be unpleasantly surprised. I became concerned!

The reasons for which I had expressed such interest was to obtain the tenderdocuments, so as to see what they were after, and this because they were steadfastly hidingthe stuff. I had no intention of bidding for the contract, but the Trust became worried and whenin 2012 the time came to do a �pilot� RAR mapping (a �pilot�? Even they already had afterRARmap 21?). Soon thereafter, they opted to invite bids but only from Qualified EnvironmentalProfessionals, having a QEP certificate from the Vancouver Island University of Nanaimo.Clever, wasn�t?

On the Question #4:

�4. Given that: The Trust has challenged the widespread belief that the RAR wouldcover 60% of the island

Q-4: What is the Trust�s estimate of RAR coverage?�

Cermak replied that the extend of the land to be rolled over to RAR is as shown in MAP21, plus the riparian areas around ditches which were not marked on that Map! He could nottell how large the total RAR-land would be, but he was guessing that 60% of the total area ofthe island was incorrect.

On the Question #5:

�5. Given that: The Trust has not published any RAR-impact studies (as far as Iknow):

Q-5: Am I correct to assume that such do not exist?�

Cermak confirmed that there were no such studies. And he would not say that suchstudies were in the Trust�s minds. But he informed that a paper by a UBC graduated studentshows that �environmental measures result in increased land values�.

On the Question #6:

�6. Given that: �Fish habitat enhancement� work has been carried out in SSI in recentyears, it is reasonable to assume that the Trust has obtained a post-mortem report onthe work done and the outcome of the work:

Q-6: May I have a copy of it, please?�

Cermak confirmed, what I knew, to wit that the effectiveness of such work had not beenassessed. And that evaluating it to guide the process of doing the RAR was not in the plan. Awesome!

115

On the Question #7:

�7. Given that: I have reasoned that the �information meetings� as done by the Trustare utterly inadequate for the purpose of informing islanders; and I have suggestedthe Trust publish a call for written submissions, and post them ALL, old and new, on line as they arrive, the moment they arrive, so as to foster debate and ideas-development on this issue of utmost importance to islanders:

Q-7: Are you going to do it? When?�

Cermak: �To run a Website is hard work � would you [Tom Varzeliotis] volunteer to runthe website? We will not do that. But we will set up information tables in the grocery stores, thelibrary, etc to answer peoples� questions about the RAR.� He said.

In retrospect, we know that Cermak�s assertions turned out to be hollow � they did notdo even that. They did not set up information tables in the grocery stores, nor yet at the liquorstores. But they hid it all, most and did the thing surreptitiously.

On the Question #8:

�8. Given that: With the Five Big Resolutions of July 7, the last, the LTC heralded anew era of bilateral communications with us, the people, and decreed that Trust staffwill educate us on the RAR; and given that more than half-a-year has gone past and Ihave seen naught of that.

Q-8: When is the �dialogue� between the Trust and us to start?�

Cermak: �I have already talked to some organizations...�

I Asked a supplementary question:

How many Islanders you expect to reach by talking to organizations?Cermak did not know �how many islanders are represented by organizations�.

Those are the answers I got on my drive for enlightenment on the RAR. I jotted themdown because the exchange manifests to the Trust not doing their essential homework on RAR.I had suspected that I would not learn anything but I had expected that the intercourse wouldtrigger some of the necessary work on the RAR � my hope was unjustified.

Censoring by Fake Legal advice

When, on February 23, 2012, the Trust faced the outcry against censoring the videotapeof the first time the LTC meeting was videorecorded, the Trust staff, all the way up to the thenCEO Linda Adams, came out guns blazing, or rather with mouths blaring, to suppress the publicire. CAO Linda Adams and RPM Leah Hartley claimed that the Lawyers made them do it.

I could see this was not true because no lawyer in his right mind would have advised apublic body to censor the record of citizens� submissions made at a public meeting. Especially

116

so given that the censored tape at issue contained nothing prohibited by any law (obscenities,state secrets, etc); that videorecording contained citizens� submissions damning the Trust Staffwho ignored conflict of interest issues and other considerations in contracting out the �pilot RARMapping�, all of which is fair comment. And after the exposure of what they had done wrong,they sought to evade accountability by censoring the videotape.

The censored tape also contained the reaction of the then newly elected local Trusteesabout the Staff giving the RAR contract o people who were in conflict of Interest. The Trusteessought to have the Staff to cancel the Pilot RAR mapping contract �even if a cancellationpenalty had to be paid�, but the staff fought back and won. Then they censored the videotape.

The Staff insisted that they acted on legal advice in censoring the video. Worse yet wasthat the then newly elected Trustees appeared to believe the Trust Staff contention of havinglegal advice. The staff also scaremongered the Trustees about imminent legal action and theTrustees panicked Being one of the censored citizens, I had to act.

I filed a formal FOI access request with the Trust asking to see the legal advice they hadostensibly relied on to do the censoring. This I had to ask because if the magistrates get to suppress freedoms and rights under the pretext of secret legal advise, the citizenry loses controlof the government, nothing is safe and despotism sets in. Following is the FOI I filed:

�March 30, 2012 Re: FOI access request

It has been reported that the Trust was following legal advice on the issue ofwhether the Trust could censure records of a public meetings, namely a part ofthe Video record of the February 23, SSI LTC meeting.I hereby request access to that �legal advice�.Because the subject is current and active, there is no need for research andbecause the matter is urgent, I would appreciate a prompt response by email, orfax by April 4, 2012, the time being of the essence.

Sincerely, A. N. T. Varzeliotis�

My FOI access request was �answered� quickly, surprisingly by RPM Hartley instead ofthe Trust FOI-Designate officer. Here is her email:

�Subject: Video Record, Feb 23 2012Date: March 30, 2012 2:59 PM

Dr. Varzeliotis

I received your request today seeking Islands Trust response to the matter ofedits to Feb 23, 2012 LTC video. Chair Sheila Malcolmson gave a very briefexplanation about video edits at start of the afternoon session on March 15,2012, but perhaps you were not satisfied with the extent of explanation.

The most problematic part of the LTC video on Feb 23 were Eric Booth's andJohn Macpherson's references to Salmon Enhancement Society, Kathy Reimerand/or Philip Grange. The classic test for defamation is:

1.Untrue, but implied to be factual2.Said to other people (not just a personal conversation)

117

3.Having the effect of giving an individual (group, business, etc.) anegative image, particularly one that could affect their ability to earn aliving.

The conclusions reached after review of the remarks and discussion with the�potential injured� parties was that the Feb 23 remarks by Eric Booth and JohnMacPherson were not appropriate for video distribution.

Local governments are advised that posting remarks on public video serves toincrease any damage that is incurred by those subject to defamation. So herewe reached a difficult decision - and we deliberated for a day to look at severaloptions before posting the video. The tape had already been formatted and wasready for posting. It would take a considerable amount of time to edit veryspecific sections out of the video, accruing more time and costs other than whatwas budgeted for this pilot. The videographer offered a low cost solution beinga crude edit that removed a segment rather than just the offending remarks. There is a caption immediately below Part 2 of the videotape that indicatesthat there has been editing and why.

This being a pilot program, I was very interested to monitor the outcome of theedit and was somewhat curious that there was no reaction until it was raised atthe March 15 meeting.

Although I do not support your conclusions, I do appreciate your commentson March 15, those of your April 5 written delegation, and those that have arrivedthrough the subsequent newspaper and other coverage.

In the report to LTC on April 5, staff invite trustee comment on a range ofoptions and the associated risks and costs. Should the Chair interrupt andcaution speakers if we have concerns? Should we edit the tape? Shouldwe not tape the public discussions?

It is a real balance to protect the rights of citizens to voice their concerns (oftenin the local community where the person is known and comments are madeand taken in context of many factors) versus the emerging cautions offeredabout electronic dissemination of private or injurious information.

I hope that in considering these matters, you may prepare your comments andoffer constructive recommendations to the Local Trust Committee duringyour delegation time on April 5, 2012. Many thanks for your continuedinterest.

Sincerely, Leah Hartley, MCIP� (emphasis added)�

This is a hodge podge, pregnant with cryptic notions written in a desperate effort tojustify the unjustifiable. But it is a very interesting piece of Trust littleRature, for it reveals theTrustBrass mindset. I have emphasized (bold-faced) some interesting words and phases inHartley�s letter and I will remark on these and more:

118

* To begin with the subject of my letter was plainly stated as �FOI AccessRequest� . It was not �Video Record, Feb 23 2012" which is what Hartley wrote.�Changing the subject� instead clicking the �reply� button is a staple Trust dirtytrick deployed to divorce the Answer from the Question and to hide their barkingup the wrong tree.

* Hartley was not answering my FOI access request. My request was simple andplainly stated; I was seeking to see the �legal advice� on which the Trust claimedhaving relied on to do the censoring of the February 23rd videotape. Plain andsimple! ... Hartley could not answer the request because she could not possiblyput in writing a patent lie and because she was unwilling, or prohibited, to admitthat the Trust was lying to society.

* Next, I will comment on Hartley�s assertion that: �The classic test for defamation is: 1.Untrue, but implied to be factual2.Said to other people (not just a personal conversation)3.Having the effect of giving an individual (group, business, etc.) anegative image, particularly one that could affect their ability to earn aliving.�

In my books, criteria Nos 1 and 2 are correct but criterion No 3 is not! Reportingthat a butcher�s shop is infected with the ebola virus, or that the Commander of amilitary base fancies stealing women�s underwear etc, if true, must be reporteddespite the fact that it would affect the butcher�s or the Commander�s facility toearn a living.

However, badmouthing someone for no legitimate reason, even if the assertionsare true, can be defamation. For example, someone broadcasting a fact that aneighbor is cheating on his/her partner is inexcusable � but if he/she cheats withmy partner, I have a purpose to broadcast it, the reason being to apprise theneighborhood of the reasons for which I am dumping my partner, lest mychances to get a replacement are adversely affected! No?

In effect:

Hartley defames Messrs Macpherson, Booth and me, by erroneouslyaccusing us of slandering the Island Salmon and Stream EnhancementSociety (�ISSES�) principals

What had happened was that I had apprised the LTC in writing about themishandling of the RAR contract by the Staff in the mistaken belief thatthe Trustees would make appropriate corrections without much ado.

Hartley voiced platitudes such as �Local governments are advised� ��advised� by whom? Where is it written? This is a silly attempt to coverthe Trust�s posterior when called to account for importing censorship intoour midst.

119

Hartley writes: �There is a caption immediately below Part 2 of thevideotape that indicates that there has been editing and why.� What shehides is that they tacked the annotation to the recording after I raised theissue publically.

Hartley refers repeatedly to �we�. Who is �we�; that is to say, who are�they�? Are they, the Trust Brass, posing as the chaperones of thepeoples� elected representatives? This was not the first time Hartleyspoke as if the Trust Staff controls the LTC, it being an attitude forbiddento civil servants of a democratically governed society.

I was asking for that phantom �legal advice� because the likelihood of havinglegal advice to censor the public was virtually non-existent. I knew that withvirtual certainty because I know that no lawyer could conceivably advice theTrust to oppress the freedom of speech and expression.

Hartley skirts around the fact that she is answering a FOI AccessRequest. At the LTC meeting I raised this point, to which Hartleyanswered she did not interpret the �FOI access request�, bolded in myletter, to mean that my letter was a �FOI access request�!

Sadly, the Trustees appeared unfazed...

April 26, 2012, LTC Meeting: By April, the pressure had built to the point that the LTChad to act on the issue of the Staff�s fake claim to having censored because they had legaladvice to do so. The LTC took a shy step forward which the Staff recorded at the Minutes asfollows:

�The Trustees requested legal advice on whether previously edited Local Trust Committee meeting videos can be restored to the public and whether this legaladvice can also be available to the public.�

This sounds silly because it is. It exemplifies the routine manipulation of documentationand the spinning of notions that have become a second nature to the Trust. It illuminates thesecrecy-paranoia of the Trust which drives it to defy law and custom which dictate the Trustconducts its business in front of the public eye.

In this instance, the public quest was for the Staff to reveal the legal advice they claimedto have and on which they said they had based the censoring of the videotape of the February23rd LTC meeting, to which they refer as the �previously edited videos�.

Nobody had expressed doubts about whether illegally censored videos can be un-censored; that is an inanity... Wasting public money to pay lawyers to answer such a sillyquestion is unbecoming of a public body! And, as if that was not bad enough, they went furtherand sought �more� legal advice on whether such legal advice �can also be available to thepublic.�

What conceivably can anyone say to that? Behold the I.Trust!

120

Linda Adams attacks Eric Booth

In 2011, Mr. Eric Booth, a former Trustee, questioned publicly the fierce drive of theTrust establishment to impose the RAR on SSI. He argued his case well enough to enrage theTrust�s topBrass. CEO Linda Adams, descended upon us and used the media to pronouncewith the authority a CEO commands, Eric Booth wrong; and to �verify� that indeed theprovincial government demands that the Trust does the RAR, contrary to Booth�s claim.

To begin with, in a democracy civil servants are silent. They stay out of the politicalforum and are never seen taking sides on issues the politicians debate. They must also treatcitizens with respect. But Adams could not hold back, she came out in support of the RAR, ofcourse. She pronounced publicly Eric Booth, �wrong� stating that she was relying on a secret�careful review� of Booth�s thesis done by David Marlor, her subordinate. She did not evenelaborate on the �careful review� but topped it all by declaring publicly that �evidence�supporting her public defamation of Booth will be communicated privately to Mr. Booth. This�defame publically and explain privately� is a dirty trick the Trust uses in such circumstances.

This is a serious matter and it is not an isolated occurrence in the life of the Trust. Forthis reason, on May 24, I filed with the Trust a FOI access request for Marlor�s �careful review�of Booth�s �opinion�, as the Trust labeled the two positions.

Although both Adams and Marlor were operating at the I.Trust Victoria headquarters, myFOI was diverted for response to the SaltSpring Trust office. This diversion of the handling awayfrom where its subject matter was and the response I received from the surrogate FOIDesignate officer raises serious questions on the way the Trust conducts itself.

The SSI �branch plant� of the Trust sprang into action. Ms. Claire Olivier, was seizedwith the FOI file and she immediately became perplexed � she emailed me that she could notfigure out which article bylined by McIntyre I was referring to!

But I better let the documents speak for themselves and this I will do starting with theDriftwood edition of May 18, 2011 article reporting Adams discrediting Booth:

�Islands Trust dismisses Booth�s �RARguments�

The Islands Trust�s director of local planning services [David Marlor] has dismissed a former local Trust committee member�s [Eric Booth] argument that suggests no action toimplement the controversial Riparian Areas Regulation on Salt Spring is needed.

Former trustee Eric Booth argues that the island�s local Trust committee need notincorporate the Riparian Areas Regulation because he and fellow trustee KimberlyLineger formed an opinion, in 2005, that local bylaws met and exceeded the RARrequirements.

Booth�s view that no more work is required to comply with RAR is based on Section 12of the provincial Fish Protection Act.

�The Islands Trust�s director of local planning, David Marlor, has carefully reviewed Mr.

121

Booth�s opinion indicating that no further work is required to comply with the provincialRiparian Areas Regulation,� wrote Linda Adams, the Islands Trust�s chief administrativeofficer, in response to a question about the Trust�s position on Booth�s argument. �Mr.Marlor does not believe Salt Spring�s current bylaws comply with the Riparian AreasRegulation or that Mr. Booth�s arguments are supported by provincial legislation.�

Adams said the Trust would write a letter to Booth outlining the reasons behind itsopinion and may obtain a legal opinion on the matter.

During the town hall session at the May 5 Local Trust Committee meeting, Booth said nowritten record of the former trustees� position exists. He conceded the opinion wasbased on casual conversation about the effects of RAR.

�You individually and Kimberly individually are not the local government,� said currenttrustee George Ehring in response to Booth�s May 5 presentation. �If there�s nothing onthe record that suggests that the local government made that decision, I�m not sure thatfrankly carries water very much.�

Sheila Malcolmson, chair of the Salt Spring Local Trust Committee, said theinterpretation and implications of RAR were not fully understood at the time and have�changed completely� during the past seven years.

Meanwhile, Booth continues to seek an explanation to explain a possible breach inprocedure ahead of special Salt Spring LTC meetings held on Feb. 21 and April 20.

Booth said he has filed a Freedom of Information request to obtain greater clarity overalleged discrepancies �between stories and legislative requirements.�

He hopes to receive the information within the next 30 days.�

This is the whole Driftwood article.

Some remarks on the above article:

Adams should have had obtained legal advise before attacking Booth. Indeed, the Trustshe was commanding at the time, ought to have brought the lawyers in when they contemplateddoing the RAR, indeed, before hiring Kris Nichols. And this, only if the Provincial Governmenthad specifically requested the Trust to do the RAR and then only if the Provincial Governmenthad failed to support such a request to the satisfaction of the Trust.

What were Adams and Marlor to get Legal advice on? It defies imagination, and I have acurious mind. Eventually I asked the Trust, point blank, whether it was the ProvincialGovernemnt who fired the starting gun to set the Trust in that mad pursuit of the RAR � theTrust fell silent, it �invoked the fifth�, as they say South of the Border, down USA way! Whichtrnslates to that the Trust did stumble upon the RAR in its perpetual hunt for �areas to regulateby permit�, as they put it.

122

It was after been called to account for pushing the RAR on the island, that CAO Adamsinsinuated pursuing legal advice. Most likely, the legal advice that she would buy was how tocover up the impropriety of Adams having attacked Eric Booth. Indeed, reading �Marlor�s letterto Booth� left me with the impresion that it was ghost written by lawyers...

As for Booth consenting to that there was no record of his and his fellow Trustee Linegerabout pondering the RAR issue, I find it normal. It is normal for trustees to ponder things andelect to pursue sidetrack or dump, without recording what they thought about and abandoned �nothing abnormal about this.

May 24, 2011: I emailed to the Trust Victoria Headquarters, requesting a copy of DavidMarlor�s �careful review� of Eric Booth�s RAR �opinion�:

�GoodMorning,Sean McIntyre informs that David Merlor has composed an analysis of Eric Booth's�opinion� Re RAR.I tried to read it on line but I cannot find it - would you please help me find it, if it is online?If not, would please provide me a copy of it - I will gladly pick it up from your Salt Springoffice.Tom Varzeliotis�

Adams and Marlor, and the FOI-designated Trust Officer are all located in the Trusthead office in Victoria. For reasons one can easily contemplate but which the Trust wouldnever admit, my request for the Marlor �careful analysis� was forwarded to SSI Trust branchoffice to respond.

Their first maneuver was dilatory in intend and came as follows:

May 27, 2011: From Claire Olivier To Varzeliotis:�Subject: Your inquiry to our Victoria officeDear Dr. Varzeliotis,We have been forwarded your inquiry from our Victoria office. To help us can you please confirm what it is that Sean MacIntyre exactly said and when this was written?In our office we have copies of many articles written by Sean. It would help us if wecould pinpoint which one you are referring to.Thank you Claire�

This appears disingenuous. Olivier is an intelligent person and it is highly unlikely thatshe had not read Sean�s Linda Adam�s comments in the Driftwood.

May 30, 2011: To Olivier From Varzeliotis �Re: Marlor and Adams v. BoothDear Ms. Olivier:

My email request, was dated May 24, at 10:36 AM. At that time, the �current� albeit stale,issue of the Driftwood was the May 18th edition. In it is Sean McIntyres' article, boldlytitled �Islands Trust dismisses Booth's RARguments�. It is on page 5, starting halfway

123

down the page, on the left side, spanning four columns, about 10 cm (4" in imperialunits) in height. In the second column, starting on Line 6 and concluding at line 24,bottom of that column 2, is the news about the David Marlor �careful review� of EricBooth's �opinion�. Sean McIntyre was told about it by Linda Adams.

I mentioned Sean only parenthetically to indicate how I learned of the existence ofDavid's diatribe. I identified well the Report as being authored by David Marlor �carefully analyzing� the �opinion� of Eric Booth, about RAR in SSI. There is only onesuch document, as far as I know and therefore, my citation is precise.

What is certain is that, at least, David Marlor and Linda Adams, are well and living inVictoria and have knowledge of the document at issue. It is likely but not certain that a copy of the Merlor �careful analysis� is in the SSI I.Trust Office, but that hardlymatters. What matters is that the document is recent, time sensitive, exists in the VictoriaOffice and it is well known. And that if the I.Trust was not abusing the FIPPA as adilatory tool, they would have faxed me the document at issue on May 25, after receivingmy request. Better yet, they would have published the Marlor �careful analysis�, likeBooth has published his �opinion� for all of us to see it and consider them together.

Instead, the Victoria I.Trust office bounced my request to SSI in a silly pretense to akeen interest in tracing the ostensibly ill-identified document I requested so that theyappear to practice �open government�.

Would the I.Trust please fax or email me the Marlor analysis now?

To you and all, have a nice day.

Tom Varzeliotis�

As it turned out no such document existed either in Victoria, in Salt Spring or anywhereelse! Please read on. I just could not imagine the size of the �careful review� disinformation.

May 30, 2011: From Olivier To Varzeliotis:�Subject: RE: Marlor and Adams v. BoothHi Dr. Varzeliotis,Thank you for the additional information.I will look into this and will get back to you.Regards Claire�

June 01, 2011: From Varzeliotis To Olivier:�Subject: Re: Marlor and Adams v. BoothDear Ms. Olivier, GoodMorningI do appreciate that you, personally, are �looking into this�, but the I.Trust internal forcesof reaction are gaining on you, it seems. Please remind the secret-aries that the I.Trustis supposed to practice �open government�, because this is a free society.There is no conceivable reason for delay. Please provide me a copy of Mr. Marlor's�careful analysis� of Mr. Booth's �opinion�, NOW.

124

Please fax it or email it to me - or simply phone me to pick up a copy from your office. ASAP please, I will be waiting for your dispatch.Have a nice day, Tom V.�

June 01, 2011: From: Claire Olivier To: 'Tom V' �Subject: RE: Marlor and Adams v. BoothGood day Dr. Varzeliotis,I have been advised that David Marlor has reviewed Mr. Booth's submission but hisresponse has not been put in writing yet; therefore, at this point there is nothing I canprovide to you.RegardsClaire Olivier�

It surely blows the mind...

NB: Mr. Jack Giles, QC, wrote a concise �legal opinion� in the Driftwood, June 1, 2011,edition, supporting the Booth thesis and arguing against Adams, Merlor and the rest ofthe Trust. The Trust did not answer.

June 3, 2011: From Varzeliotis; To Olivier �Subject: Marlor and Adams v. BoothDear Ms. Olivier GoodMorning,

Thank you for your latest message.

A couple of weeks ago, Ms. Linda Adams informed us, through the Driftwood, that Mr.David Marlor had reviewed Mr. Eric Booth's thesis on RAR. Adams recognized theimportance of the matter, as shown by her promise to substantiate her assertions byreleasing the information she relied on to make this serious statement in respect to a citizen, Mr. Booth, who is a former trustee, to boot. On a matter of serious consequenceto all SaltSpring Islanders.

A reasonable person could not imagine the I.Trust CAO to be �non factual�. Nor wouldone conceive a Director of Local Planning to do �a careful review� of a matter, and/orreport to his superior, without notes. Nor would we expect a CAO to take in the reportingof such �a careful review� without making notes. In other words, were inferences to bemade that no records exist, that would be unbecoming to Adams and Marlor and byextension, to the I.Trust which she and he command.

But even if we would believe that neither of the two top officers would leave a paper trailof their actions, when the CAO goes public and claims having information, it being in anymedium, including �oral�, we, the people, expect her to be credible. Indeed, she claims tobe so, by virtue of expecting us to assume that the information she based her actionsand her interpretation of it, are sterling. This, in a democracy, is always subject to publicscrutiny.

125

The matter is very serious for the citizens of SSI. Would the Trust please release theinformation at issue, even if in a rendition of what Adams relied on to make herstatements against Eric Booth's thesis.

Have a nice day, Tom Varzeliotis�

Much later, I received a copy of a letter from Marlor, addressed to Booth written infulfilment of Adam�s statement that Marlor would explain privately the public defamation ofBooth, to him. As a reminder, Adams made the pronouncements earlier than May 20, whileMarlor�s letter was dated June 21, 2011. I guess they sent me a copy of Marlor�s letter becauseI had expressions disatisfaction with their �response� to my FOI. However, Marlor�s letter camewithout reference to my FOI, nor with any other explanation for that matter.

The Marlor letter is very interesting, not only because it took so long to produce it, butalso because the wording indicates that the Trust had some sharp lawyer write the �advice�Adams had received from Marlor, 20 days earlier -- It sounds like the Time Machine! No wonderthey had assigned Olivier to answer to my FOI request.

The likely Lawyer ghost written letter, cleverly written as it is, contains logic-voids, tooserious to be bridged by sophistry. Certainly it leads not to the author�s anticipated of goading people to conclude that the RAR is no crap (sorry for the colloquial word - but it is thoroughlylogically-correct and, moreover, it rhymes irresistibly with RAR - does it not?).

As Serious as these matters are, their discussion is only peripheral to the point I ammaking which is, if I may say it again, that the Trust smeared the name of a citizen whohappened holding views at variance with the Trust official line. And that the Trust did thatbecause it had nothing �less-bad� with which to protect their RAR.

The Kris Nichols RARe Saga

I have already mentioned Kris Nichols. Records show that in late 2010, the Trustheadquarters quietly retained Nichols at SSI Regional Planning Manager Leah Hartley�srequest. The contract was done hush-hush by giving Nichols a $12,000 contract, which theycould do without formalities, thereby ensuring secrecy. But they kept adding �amendments� tothe contract until mid-2011when they let him go; by that time, they had paid Nichols some$100,000!

The Trust wants us to forget Nichols and his involvement in the RAR project for theyknow it would be too much to ask society to forgive the Trust for what they sought to do with hishelp and the amount of public money they spent on him.

If there was ever any doubt of this Trust boondoggle, it has been blown away by the remarkable laundering of the name �Nichols� from the RAR files, the omission of his eightreports from the �RAR Reference Documents� and other Trust records and the untruthfulanswers the Trust has provided to Freedom of Information requests about him.

126

There is no record of the LTC decision to hire a PR consultant to push the RAR in SSI.The only document produced by the Trust in response to my FOI requests indicates that Nicholsretention was initiated by RPM Hartley. There is no mention of the selection process either,which, viewed on the background of Nichols association later with the Trust, raised furthersuspicions on the performance of the Trust in this respect.

Recent FOI Access requests for the �RAR Reports� Nichols had produced and deliveredto the LTC during his retention period (November 2010 - July 2011) have been answered withsilence by the Trust. It appears that they have shredded or incinerated them.

The exact total amount of public money wasted in staging the Nichols operation remainselusive and this is not for a lack of public curiosity. Several requests for the cost to taxpayers ofretaining Nichols produced a variety of answers supporting suspicions on the overall associationof Nichols with the Trust. The ways and means the Trust deployed to evade revealing thatinformation is remarkable and that they resorted to such calls for an investigation. Certain isthat the Trust has not leveled with the people on this matter and this is what I relate in thischapter.

I will dwell on the conduct of the Trust because it speaks loudly to the Trust�s readinessto deceive the society and knowing that would help us assess whether the Trust status quo isan option worth considering in our evaluation of the future governance of our island.

FOI may help...

Email #1: On June 9, 2011 I addressed an Email to the Trust requesting as follows:�Re: �RAR Consultant�s cost�I would appreciate the following: The total amount (including disbursements or other ancillary charges) of moniespaid, and/or owing to and or estimated to be paid up to the conclusion of hisassignment, by the I.Trust to Mr. Kris Nichols, directly or through �agent�, for hisservices in respect to SaltSpring RAR issues. Please fax or email the information - saves time and trees.Thanking you in advance, Sincerely,A.N.T. Varzeliotis�

This was responded 31 days later, after exhausting the statutory period for response, on August 10th, by Mr. Craig Elder, Director of Administrative Services. His response reads:

Email #2: From Craig Elder to Tom Varzeliotis�Dear Dr. Varzeliotis:Re: Your Request for InformationIn regard to your request for the total amount paid (including disbursements) toMr. Kris Nichols for services in respect to Salt Spring Riparian Area Regulations(RAR), please be advised that the total amount is $38, 046.76 to July 31,2011. His work on Salt Spring RAR issues is now concluded.�Yours trulyCraig Elder� (Emphasis added)

127

If this figure is correct, all the other versions of the Trust answers to the same questionare false � and there are several of those, all emanating from the same source - the Trust. Although one of the �answers� could conceivably be true, the omens suggest that none is true. All of this means that the Trust was and remains determined to hide the real cost of the Nichols RAR PRopaganda fiasco from the people, at any cost to its shaky credibility.

Incidentally, my FOI request and Elder�s response were circulated by Elder to then TrustCEO Linda Adams, SSI RPM Leah Hartley, Trust Director of Panning David Marlor, SSI DeputySecretary Pauline Brazier and the SSI LTC. The reason for the �circulation� is patent: This isthe �answer� we concocted; please do not contradict...

On June 21st, I received another figure on Nichols cost from Mr. Norbert Schlenker, aSalt Spring Islander � It reads:

�I have a partial answer to your question 21 �How much of our money has the Trustspent on consultant Kris Nichols, who is retained to help the Trust push the RAR?�This morning I was given the results of an FOI for Trust expenditures in the last threefiscal years. Through March 31, 2011, Mr. Nichols has been paid $44,240.00 and is billing at a rate of about $10-15k per month. A reasonable estimate of hischarges to date is probably north of $75k.The complete response to the FOI will be available as three scanned pdf's athttp://islandtagteam.com/ when we get them uploaded.Norbert�

Look at the figures: the one says Nichols was paid $44,240.00 for the three monthperiod between January 1 and March 31, 2011; the other informs that Nichols was paid$38,046.76 for the seven month period between January 1 to July 31, 2011! If Nichols was tobe paid for seven months at the rate Norbert provided, Nichols would have been paid just over$100,000 for the seven months he was pushing RAR. This is two and a half times what theTrust told me they had paid him! Evidently, we are witnessing some very creative accountingdone by the Trust! We are also looking at some Houdini-type, albeit clumsily done, tricks forescaping the Freedom of Information Law!

Nichols and the issue of the money the Trust wasted on that ill fated attempt to have himdo the RAR faded into the background until after the Staff and the newly elected Trustees,starting in January 2012, resumed the pursuit of the RAR.

Interestingly, stitching together the info on the subject I obtained later from the Trust, itappears that the $100,000 figure is close to the true figure, as I will discuss shortly.

Another Nichols Remuneration FOI

In early 2015, it came to my attention that Nichols, although he had been dismissed fromthe SSI RAR expedition, had surfaced again elsewhere in the Trust pool. He had become anofficer of the Trust, functioning in its colonial metropolis, the Trust�s Victoria headquarters. Ibecame mightily surprised by the Trust having taken Nichols into its bosom after hisperformance on the SSI RAR contract. Curiosity drove me to email Planner Cermak, who had

128

taken over the RAR file from Nichols, requesting enlightenment. Please read the thread ofnumbered emails:

Email #3: February 19, 2015: From Tom Varzeliotis to Stefan Cermak �Subject: Mr. NicholsDear Stefan, Good Morning,I will appreciate the following information at your earliest:Did the Trust employ or retain in any other form of association Mr. Kris Nichols todo any work in any part of the Trust Area, after the termination of his retention todo the RAR in SaltSpring? And if so, for what purpose and for how long?Thanks, Tom V.�

Email #4: February 19, 2015: From: Stefan Cermak To: Tom Varzeliotis�Subject: Mr. NicholsHello Tom,Thank you for your enquiry. I am forwarding your enquiry to our administrativestaff who are responsible for service contracts.Best Regards, Stefan Cermak�

Email #5: February 19, 2015: From: Nancy Roggers To: Tom Varzeliotis�Subject: FW: Mr. NicholsHello Tom,Kris Nichols is currently an employee of the Provincial Government with theIslands Trust.Thank you. Nancy Roggers�

Email #6: February 20, 2015: From: Tom Varzeliotis To: Nancy Roggers�Subject: Re: Mr. NicholsGood Morning Ms. Roggers,Thanks for the information that:�Kris Nichols is currently an employee of the Provincial Government with theIslands Trust�.I will appreciate the following supplementary information:1. Since when has Kris Nichols been an employee with the Trust?2. Is Kris Nichols �an employee of the Provincial Government with the Trust�

in a different way so than other �employees with the Trust�? If so, how so?3. What is Kris Nichols� position classification?4. Was Kris Nichols ever shown in the Trust� Organization Chart? Over what

period? With thanks, Tom Varzeliotis�

Email #7: February 20, 2015: From: Nancy Roggers To: Tom Varzeliotis �Subject: Re: Mr. NicholsMr. Varzeliotis,Please see the responses belowNancy Roggers�

129

[NB: Roggers inserted her �responses below� in bright red ink into the body of my FOIrequest. For single colour printing, I have bold-faced and italicized her responses, so as tomake them distinct from the questions.]

�Thanks for the information that: �Kris Nichols is currently an employee of theProvincial Government with the Islands Trust�.I will appreciate the following supplementary information:1. Since when has Kris Nichols been an employee with the Trust? � unable

to release this 2. Is Kris Nichols �an employee of the Provincial Government with the Trust�

in a different way so than other �employees with the Trust�? No If so, howso?

3. What is Kris Nichols� position classification? Grid 27 � Step 24. Was Kris Nichols ever shown in the Trust� Organization Chart ? Over

what period? Not on the current organization chart as he�s currentlyworking in another Ministry.

With thanks, Tom Varzeliotis�

That is what they sent me; my own letter annotated with their �answers in red�. Theircleverness and creative economy with the truth measure the size and the significance of whatthey appear determined to hide. I said �they� because, as revealed later, Roggers had labouredwith Carmen Thiel, the Trust�s designated FOI officer, to compose the above evasion whichthey knew would not eliciting ovation.

NB: Later on, I found a copy of a Trust Organization Chart (undated, of course!)showing Kris Nichols working at the Trust Headquarters in Victoria, designating hisposition classification as being �Island Planner � Southern�.

Email #8: February 23, 2015: From: Tom Varzeliotis To: Nancy Roggers�Subject: Re: Mr. NicholsDear Ms. Roggers Good MorningFurther to my previous queries on the subject matter and your responses, I wouldappreciate the following information1. It is known that Mr. Nichols was retained by the Trust to do the RAR on

SSI, sometime before the Christmas holidays of 2010 and relieved of hisduties in Mid-2011. I need the dates of his start and finish.

2. The Nichols contract with the Trust has not been made public andcertainly would help my work if you would provide me with a copy of it.

3. Equally unknown to the pubic is whether there was a terminating-of-retainer fee, at any name or description paid to Mr. Nichols upon beenterminated in Mid-2011. This irrespective of whether it was paid in Dollarsand/or in �other valuable considerations�.

4. Nor has the public seen the amount of billings submitted by Mr. Nicholsfor his RAR work. This is also of concern and the total figure is part of thisinformation request.

Sincerely, Tom Varzeliotis�

130

Email #9: February 25, 2015: From: Nancy Roggers To: Tom Varzeliotis �Hello Mr. Varzeliotis,This request requires the completion and submission of an Access to RecordsForm. You can find the form athttp://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/pdf/requestforaccestorecordsform.pdf and submit itby mail, fax or hand delivered to: Attention: FOI Coordinator Islands Trust 200 -1627 Fort Street Victoria, BC V8R 1H8Nancy Roggers"

NB: Heavens above!

Email #10: March 2, 2015: From: Tom V To: Nancy Roggers�Dear Ms. Roggers, Good Morning,Your refused my supplementary request for information on the termination of theNichols contract, for the reason that I had not made my request for it with an�Access to Records Form�. This was inappropriate for several reasons,including the following: 1. There is no apparent difference, in this respect, between the �info� you

already have provided me inFORMally on Mr. Nichols and to that Irequest supplementary to it. Accordingly, you had no reason to ask me to apply FORMally for the supplementary information. Changing horses inmidstream makes no horsesense.

2. To use that Form is not a FOIPPA requirement � on the contrary, yourequesting it offends the Act. Had you glanced at the Form you wouldhad found it containing the following instruction, to applicants:

�YOU MAY MAKE A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORDSWITHOUT USING THIS FORM, PROVIDED YOU DO SO INWRITING.� [CAPS original]

3. Similarly, if you had read the Trust�s own Policy about it, you would havefound the same instruction to FOI applicants expressed as follows:

�... complete the Request for Access to Records Form or write aletter�

4. Had you read the Trust Policy, you would have also learned that:�There are two ways to request information from the Islands Trust:The first is to make an informal request through your local trusteeor an office of the Islands Trust ...�

5. The FOI Commissioner frowns upon those who do not exhaust theinformal venues of obtaining/providing information before resorting toformal venues. The Commissioner exists to arbitrate obstructions to theflow of information, she is not to inhibit the flow of information by forcingpeople to file forms and providing excuses to public bodies for withholdinginformation.

6. The Trusts excludes e-mail from the list of acceptable FOI exchanges.However, this is a provision that is going the way of the telegram and theFAX. I will however, deliver a copy of this to the Trust office in myneighborhood, just to please you.

7. FOIPPA s.6 explicitly decrees that you assist me in obtaining informationand implicitly forbids you to throw monkey wrenches into the gearbox soas to frustrate the Law.

131

Enough said, I trust. Now, I shall await the expression of your appreciation forthis introduction to the rudiments of FOIPPA and Trust Policy and, of course, Ishall expect the information you withheld due to the Trust�s allergy to the light ofthe day.Tom V�

Email #11: March 2, 2014: From: Nancy Roggers To: Tom Varzeliotis�Hi,You have reached Nancy Roggers at Islands Trust. I am currently away from theoffice and do not have access to email. I will return on Monday, March 16, 2015.If you require urgent assistance during my absence please contact NicoleRanger at nranger@islandstrust.bc.ca�

Email #12: March 02, 2015: From: Tom V To: Nicole Ranger �Subject: Fwd: Mr NicholsDear Ms. Ranger, As per Ms. Roggers' instruction, I am forwarding you the subject correspondence I will appreciate a quick reply and for this I thank you in advance Tom Varzeliotis�

Email #13: March 02, 2015: From: Nicole Ranger To: Carmen Thiel �Subject: FW: Mr NicholsHi Carmen,This request was forwarded to me in Nancy�s absence can you help me withthis?Nicole�

Email #14: March 02, 2015: From: Nicole Ranger To: Tom V �Hello Mr. Varzeliotis,I have forwarded your request to our Legislative Services Manager, CarmenThiel, as she is the expert in this area. Please see her response below. Itappears the next step would be to request access to records.I hope this helps. Thank you, Nicole�

Email #15: March 02, 2015: From: Carmen Thiel To: Nicole Ranger (Carmen�s �responsebelow�)Forwarded: From: Nicole Ranger To: Tom Varzeliotis:

[NB: Thiel inserts into text her �response� colour-coded in red just the same as NancyRoggers did on the February 20 item, above). Note also that Thiel addressed herresponse to Nicole Ranger without even marking copy to me. In it, Thiel reveals that shehad worked at it with Nancy Roggers � notice �we� in the first line of Thiel�s �response� athand. Thiel is the FOI-designate officer of the Trust. No attempt is made to explain whyThiel �delegated� her duty to others]

�Subject: RE: Mr. Nichols�Nicole, the reason we advised Mr. Varzeliotis to make an FOI request was inresponse to points he raised in his previous email to Nancy (see below) and the

132

fact that a number of them seemed to be requests for �records� (for which an FOIrequest should be made) [sic] as opposed to requests for �information�. Ourassessment on the requests is shown in red below. 1. It is known that Mr. Nichols was retained by the Trust to do the RAR on

SSI, sometime before the Christmas holidays of 2010 and relieved of hisduties in Mid-2011. I need the dates of the start and finish. Thisinformation would be in �the contract�.

2. The Nichols contract with the Trust has not been made public andcertainly would help my work if you would provide me with a copy of it.This is a request for �the contract� � a record which would bereleased after being reviewed by FOI staff.

3. Equally unknown to the pubic is whether there was a terminating-of-retainer fee, at any name or description paid to Mr. Nichols upon beenterminated in Mid- 2011. This irrespective of whether it was paid inDollars and/or in �other valuable considerations�. If this circumstance orinformation even existed, it would likely be referenced in �thecontract�.

4. Nor has the public seen the amount of billings submitted by Mr. Nicholsfor his RAR work. This is also of concern and the total figure is part of thisinformation request. Copies - This is another request for �records�.For the reasons cited, the bulk of Mr. Varzeliotis� requests appear tobe for �records�, i.e. 1) a contract, which is not routinely released;and 2) Mr. Nichols� �billings�, which we feel should be requestedunder the FOIPP Act so that we can check the documents againstprovisions in the Act before releasing them.

Carmen ThielLegislative Services Manager & Corporate Secretary�

�Records�... �Information�... What the heck, eh? Red Tape is the name the game theTrust play...

NB: Ms. Carmen Thiel is the Trust Officer who Mid 2013, guided, aided and abettedTrustee Peter Grove and RPM Leah Hartley to do the Trust Censorship Bylaw meant to�to stop people like Dr. Varzeliotis asking questions like: Why should the Hartley Reporton Booth Canal be protected from being reviewed?�.

Email #16: March 3, 2015 Nicole Ranger forwards to Tom Varzeiotis the above �explanatory� letter she hadobtained from Carmen Thiel. Thiel�s deduction I found mind-boggling. My first reaction was to explain more tothe Trust about open governance and related matters, but I decided to play theirgame as per Thiel�s reply-via Nicole Ranger, weird interpretation of the FOI Act. Idownloaded the form at issue, wrote my name on it, and in the �INFORMATIONREQUESTED� field of it, stapled the request I had submitted on February 23,2014, and submitted it to the Trust.

133

Email #17: March 6, 2015: From: Carmen Thiel To: Tom Varzeliotis“Dear A. Varzeliotis: Attached is a letter acknowledging receipt of your FOI request.Regards,Carmen Thiel”

NB: Thiel’s “attached letter”, written on the Trust’s letterhead, was scanned and emailed tome; it reads as follows:

“File Number: FOI-08-2015March 6, 2015 Dear Dr. Varzeliotis:

Re: Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act (the ‘Act’) Request forAccess to Records Reference No. FOI-08-2015This letter acknowledges your request dated March 3, 2015 for copies of records relatedto:

1. It is known that Mr. Nichols was retained by the Trust to do the RAR onSSI, sometime before the Christmas holidays of 2010 and relieved of hisduties in Mid-201 1. I need the dates of the start and finish.

2. The Nichols contract with the Trust has not been made public andcertainly would help my work if you would provide me with a copy of it.

3. Equally unknown to the public is whether there was a terminating-of-retainer fee, at any name or description paid to Mr. Nichols upon beenterminated in Mid- 2011. This irrespective of whether it was paid inDollars and/or in ‘other valuable considerations’.

4. Nor has the public seen the amount of billings submitted by Mr. Nicholsfor his RAR work. This is also of concern and the total figure is part of thisinformation request.

The Act provides that we must respond to your request within 30 business days ofreceipt of your request, except in special circumstances where limited extensions maybe made. Since we received your request on March 3, 2015 we will respond no laterthan April 16, 2015. We will make every effort to make records available to you sooner ifpossible.Pursuant to the Act there may be a charge to process the request.Please contact me at (250) 405-5188 or for Toll Free Access, request a transfer viaEnquiry BC: In Vancouver 660-2421 and elsewhere in BC 1-800-663-7867 or emailcthiel@islandstrust.bc.ca if you have any questions during the processing of yourrequest.

Sincerely,(signed) Carmen Thiel Legislative Services Manager and Freedom of Information Head”

Email #18: March 19, 2015: From: Carmen Thiel “Dear. A Varzeliotis: attached is the response to your FOI request to IslandsTrust dated March 3, 2015.Regards,Carmen Thiel”

134

Attached to Thiel’s email is an image of a letter written on the Trust’s letterhead, signedby Thiel, conveying the following message:

“Dear A. Varzeliotis Re: Freedom of Information and protection of privacy Act (the “Act”)Request for Access to Records Reference No. FOI-08-2015I am writing in response to your request dated March 3, 2015 for copies of thecontract between Islands Trust and Mr. Kris Nichols in 2010 and 2011 for workon Riparian Regulations and SSILTC Bylaw No 449; and for the total amount ofbilling submitted by Mr. Nichols for his RAR work.You will note that neither contract contains any provisions for a ‘terminating-of-retainer- fee’ as referenced in your request.Enclosed are copies of all responsive records, which include:* Contract 2010-0088 from Nov. 15, 2010 to Feb. 4, 2011* Contract 2011-0033 from April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011* A spreadsheet prepared by Finance staff re: RAR bylaw costsPlease contact me at (250) 405-5188 ... if you have any questions.Sincerely. [signed] Carmen Thiel”

I will copy here the pertinent portions of the “contracts” or the “amendments tocontracts”, whatever the case may be, but I will omit the “small print” of the Trust’s standard“contract form” for the sake of brevity. I will also reproduce all three of the documents Thiel sentme for they are all interesting “when viewed in their entirety”, if I may echo that infamous Trustline.

“(RAR) Service Contract – Amendment #3Contract No.: 2010-0088Project: Salt Spring Island Planning Services-Amended - RAR Communications - supplemental to OCP, Environmental DevelopmentPermit Area UpdateContract Initiator: Leah HartleyContractor: Kristian NicholsSCHEDULE "A" -SERVICES

The contractor will provide Planning consultant services undertaking theEnvironmental Development Permit update work on Salt Spring Island. Anticipatedelivery of draft bylaw during the term of contract.The work will include planning analysis, consultation, arrangements and conductof public review, response to enquiries, agency referral, and reporting to the SaltSpring Island Local Trust Committee. Scope of work based on 10 hours perweek, over 10 week term.Work conducted on Salt Spring Island on Thursdays as needed to report to theLocal Trust Committee.

Please be advised that no services are required during the weeks of Dec 20 to 31, 2010. Amended:

Increase contract services to incorporate RAR communications on Salt SpringIsland. Includes service during weeks of December 20 to 31,2010Includes travel to Salt Spring Island additional day per week as needed.

135

(b) TERMS: From: November 15, 2010 To:SCHEDULE ‘B’-CONTRACT PRICE

(a) Contract Price: Amendment #3 - Amended to (b) Fees: $33,600.00 (not including HST)Amendment #2 - Amended to $28,600.00 (not including HST)Amendment #1 -Amended to $18,600.00 (not including HST)$12,000.00 (not including HST)@Rate: $100.00 per hour

(d) Expenses:Amended to March 31, 2011

February 4, 2011NJA---------------------------(RAR) Service Contract – Amendment #1SCHEDULE "A" -SERVICESThe contractor will provide the following services:

• oversee First Reading through to Third Reading of Bylaw 449 includingpreparation for and attendance at each reading and at Public Hearing;

• coordination of communication activities concerning Bylaw 449 and associatedworks on implementation strategies for RAR including responding to publicity andagency referrals concerning Bylaw 449;

• considering and responding to directions arising from l TC resolutions and fromsolicitor advice;

• responsibilities as assigned by the Salt Spring Island Regional Planning ManagerTERMS: · April 1 , 2011 To:

Amended to July 29, 2011June 30, 2011"

I will start my brief review by remarking the correct name of the two “contracts” are:“Service Contract Amendment #3" and “Service Contract Amendment #1". That is to say, theseare not the “contracts”, these are the “Amendments to contract(s)”. It appears Thiel withheld theoriginal contract for reasons of the Trust’s own.

However, the “Amendments” identify that Nichols contract was initialed by RPM LeahHartley, the hourly rate for Nichols’ services was $100.00, and the contract had a 10 day-noticetermination clause. And that there is no provision for indemnity – this does not mean that suchcould not be claimed and/or paid...

It shows the original contract was for $12,000 and was signed by Craig Elder for the Trust onNovember 15, 2010. Subsequently, it was amended to $18,600, then again to $28,600, thenfurther to $33,600, and then finally to $35,000; it was terminated on July 30, 2011.

Patently the “Service Contract Amendments #1 and #3" are not strictly speakingexhausting the subject. They do not answer my basic question (see item #1) of whether theTrust has paid, one way or the other, indemnify to Nichols – Thiel skirts around this issue. Theevasive “response”; the efforts of the Trust to frustrate my FOI access request; and the re-surfacing of Nichols in the Victoria Trust headquarters after the SSI RAR fiasco; make thismatter hard to comprehend and accordingly conducive to suspicion.

I will now move on to the third document Thiel produced in response to my FOI request

136

and which she calls: “A spreadsheet prepared by Finance staff re: RAR bylaw costs”. Have alook:

“RAR BYLAW COSTS BY KRISS NICOLSKris Nichols invoice detail for service Contracts 2010-0088 and 2011-0033

Date Invoice Number TotalHours

Total $ Paidto Kris

Rar BylawHours

included inInvoice

ExpensesPaid to Kris

Total Costsup to June30, 2011

Nov 30/10 1-2010-0088 20 2,000.00 2

Dec 11/10 2-2010-0088 33 3,300.00 18

Dec 31/10 3-2010-0088 48 4,800.00 15

Jan16/11 4-2010-0088 40 4,000.00 10

Feb 6/11 5-2010-0088 59 5,900.00 10

Feb 20/11 6-2010-0088 46 4.600.00 5

Mar 6/11 7-2010-0088 45 4,500.00 0

Mar 27/11 -2010-0088 80 8,000.00 50

Mar 31/11 8-2010-0088 24 2,400.00 18

Apr 30/11 9-2011-0033 124 12,400.00 86

May 31/11 -2011-0033 105 10,500.00 83

June30/11

-2011-0033 68 6,800.00 68

June30/11

car rental-2011–0033 146.76

July 17/11 14-2011-0033 14 1,400.00 0

TOTALS 706 70,600.00 365 146.76 36,646.76

END OF THE EMAIL STRING

Trust lying, again...

The last item above is supposed to be the spreadsheet accounting for Nichols’ services.In one word, it stinks! In more words, the Trust was lucky that Ms. Basia Ruta (then BC AuditorGeneral for Local Government) did not audit the Trust!

Let’s commence with the title they gave the “spreadsheet”:

137

“RAR BYLAW COSTS BY KRIS NICOLS [sic] Kris Nicols [sic] Invoice detail for Service Contract 2010-0088 and 2011-0033"

The misspelling of Nichols name may indicate that the “spreadsheet [was not] preparedby Finance staff”. We know, Elder’s department knew “Nicols” with his real name it being“Kristian Nichols”; we also know that accountants are, by training, meticulous.

It is, therefore, likely that the financial information at issue was manipulated by the“Disinformation and FOI Evasion Trust Squad”, DAFETS for short (I am joking, of course, aboutthe name and the acronym...)

This “Spreadsheet” is a badly botched job of “creative” accounting. The last threecolumns appear being add-ons, displacing others, with the manipulation intended to mask thereality from the public eye.

1. There is no conceivable explanation about Nichols having two parallel-running contracts. And it is inconceivable that the Trust Staff would have two different contracts with onecontractor, billed with the same identification number for two different projects.

2. As per Carmen Thiel’s letter cited above, the monies were paid to“Mr. Kris Nichols in2010 and 2011 for work on Riparian Regulations and SSILTC Bylaw No 449". (emphasisadded).

But “Bylaw No 449" was then the official designation of the RAR Bylaw the then LTCwanted to impose on the island. Therefore the whole of the $70,600.00 fees billed byNichols were spent on the RAR failed attempt which Nichols was hired to command.

In the “spreadsheet”, columns #5, 6, and 7 appear being “after-patches” designed tomake the thing less irksome to the people of SSI. Column #5 shows that 365 of the 708hours billed by Nichols was for the RAR, the other 341 hours being for work done, on“Bylaw No 449", according to Thiel’s letter, to wit, on RAR, too!

3. The “Spreadsheet” shows Nichols having claimed disbursements attributable to RAR ofa piddling $146.76! Nichols made at least eight trips to Salt Spring Island. We are notsupposed to know from where because Thiel blacked out Nichol’s seat of business. Weknow, however, that Nichols’ business address was, at the time, in Victoria which meansthat he had to sail on BC ferries to SSI, drive, and eat etc, in order to attend SSI LTCmeetings, and, perhaps additional meetings with Staff. Nichols could not conceivablyfeed himself and pay BC Ferry fares for one of these trips with that $146.76 which isshown as being the total amount of disbursements paid to Nichols in the almost ninemonths he was on retainer with the Trust!

Enough said, I trust, on that incredible array of 16 emails. But it is not over yet.

April 29, 2015:

Email # 19: I emailed Stefan Cermak requesting the total cost figure for doing the RAR inSSI. He responded on May 11th with the following excerpt from a spreadsheet; Here it is:

138

Salt Spring Island Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) expenditures

Fiscal Period2010-11 & 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 TOTAL

SSI RAREXPENSES

36,646.76 41,303.62 37,702.60 115,652.98

It is, let’s say, thoroughly inaccurate...

In conclusion:

Searching for Waldo is fun; researching Nichols, Kris Nichols, is futile!

It may be Parenthetic, but it is Mighty Important

On January 20, 2016, an enraged LTC went to the media to release their rage at me forhaving exposed their plan to let SSI PARC impose a Sports Multiplex on Salt spring, whichIslanders had already resolutely rejected, when PARC sought to do it in the open. This rageoutburst morphed into overt serious defamation, consisting of reckless accusations about myperson, one of which is pertinent to understanding the unbelievable way the Trust treats theAccess to Information Act FOI, exemplified by the actual case I relate in this chapter.I will quote from that letter Chairman Luckham wrote to Driftwood newspaper:

“He, [Varzeliotis] has also made an unknown number of freedom of information requestwhich I do know has consumed 100's of hours of staff time.”

The “consumed 100's of hours of staff time,” all of them (save for a few minutes) havegone not in answering my FOI access request, they have gone, instead, to evading compliance with the FOI Law. Luckham presides over the Trust and is accordingly accountable to society for the conduct of the Trust bureaucracy. He has done nothing to stop the Staff fromtreating FOI Access Requests the way they do, as exemplified by the case related in this article.

The Trust’s determination to hide information the society is ironclad. In the Nichols case“special interests withing the Trust” caused that series of 19 Emails, and produced no singlehonest answer. This for information that the Trust ought to have provided in response to aninformal verbal request. Yes, eventually they succeed to frustrated my attempts to obtain theinformation they ought to never hide. But in doing that they demonstrated who they are andwhat they hide...

Trust secretiveness is a Trust systemic problem the solution for which is no other but toforce the Trust to operate in the light of day – or disband it – Because in a democracy there isno room for governance by stealth.

Reflecting further on the Secrecy State of the Trust, in general, is the following extractfrom Chairman’s Luckham defamatory January 20, 2016 epistle to the Driftwood newspaper:

“I would prefer all of the above not end up being quoted in print and ask that you respectthat.”

Do I write more?

139

TRUST Bon FOI

At the November 4, 2014, Public Hearing on the RAR Bylaw, I asked Stefan Cermak, thePlanner in charge of the RAR file, whether they had shown the draft RAR Bylaw to a lawyer. Heassured me categorically that the Draft Bylaw has been approved by the lawyers.

This floored me because I had read the document and I was aware that it was, let’s say“amateurish”, as I reason out in the analysis of the enacted bylaw. The purpose of my questionwas to hint that the document was poor, in the hope that they would decide to show it to theirlawyers before enacting it. Regrettably Cermak did not get the message.

Dum spiro spero (for as long as I breath, I hope). The next day I thought I would give itanother try and I did in the hope that the written word would work. The matter is a very seriousone and deserving of attention accordingly. With this in mind, I went back to Cermak.

The ensuing exchange of emails illuminates the road the Trust took to the RAR andgauges the need the Trust felt to hide its conduct from the people.

“November 05, 2014: From Varzeliotis to CermakSubject: Re: RARDear Mr. Cermak, Yesterday, at the RAR public information meeting, you informed that the RARimplementation process carried out by the Trust, was vetted by Trust’s lawyers. I will appreciate access to the pertinent information, to wit, the questions posed to thelawyers together with their responses. It is my contention that the subject legal advice isnot privileged. You also informed me that you, the Trust, had done extensive consultation on theimplementation of the RAR with ‘individuals and organizations’. If the pertinentinformation has been published, as it ought to be, please direct me to it; if it has not, Irequest access to that information, including list of contact made, written submissionsand notes on viva voce consultations. Thanking you in advance, Tom V.”

This elicited the following “disclosure”:

“November 10, 2014: From: Stefan C, to Tom V.Subject: RE: RARHello ‘Tom V.’Sorry for the delayed response. As you know, any legal information obtained by the Islands Trust is subject toconfidentiality. Permission can only be granted by the Executive Committee. TheExecutive Committee may refuse to disclose information that is subject tosolicitor client privilege.All communication materials were included in the Public Hearing binders whichwere available for over two weeks leading up to and including the Public Hearing.This material remains available for you to review at your leisure at the office. Best Regards, Stefan Cermak”

It is clear that the Trust was not forthcoming. What may not be widely recognized is thatthe exchange manifest a situation that should not be. To illustrate how economical with

140

propriety the Trust is, I addressed the following supplementary message to Cermak:

“November 12, 2014: From Tom V. To Stefan C.Subject: RE: RARDear Mr. Cermak, Good Morning

I will start with thanking you for the information on the workings of the Trust. I take it youare confirming that the Trust, over all the years that was pushing the RAR, neverdelineated the bandwidth of the parameters within which could write the RAR Bylaw.I had underestimated the severity of the control the ExCom claims over the flow ofinformation. I find it disconcerting that you, the Trust, would claim to have relied on‘legal advice’, among other factors, in making and imposing on us the RAR Bylaw andthen keeping that advice secret, thereby denying us our right to hold those who did theRAR accountable, as we, the people, may deem necessary.

Since ‘Permission can only be granted by the ExCom’, I need to know whether yourequested ExCom ‘permission’ to inform the people about the legal advice on which yourelied to shape the RAR, and if so, their response – did they refuse? Or you guess thatthey want the legal advice to remain secret? Is there anything we can do to help youobtain ‘permission’ from the ExCom to release the obviously non ‘subject to solicitorclient privilege’ legal advice? Do not forget that the ‘client’ is ‘we, the people’.

And do not forget the March 2012 well documented disinformation the TrustBrassattempted another suppression of information on the matter of the RAR. This challengeseffectively refute your assertion that ‘All communication materials’ were made availableto us, the public. But it manifests the Trust awareness that it ought to have made ‘all’that material public.

A final question, this one on the contemporary effectiveness of the archaiccommunication system of punching three holes on documents, sandwiching thembetween two sheets of cardboard, and then claiming to have fulfilled your duty to ensurethe citizenry is informed adequately for democracy to function, which duty to inform isincumbent on civil servants. This in an era our technology enables us to reach as far ascomets and asteroids.

Specifically on the ‘3 ring binder Trust communication system’, could you please informme how many citizens lined up to read it during the two weeks that you had that thicksandwich lay in state at the Trust offices by the Hydro Yard?

By the way, how long would it take Joe Q. Public (“the passenger on the Claphamomnibus”) to study that RAR ‘binder’? Pray tell...

Have a nice day, Tom V.”

Cermak answered in silencio, a very loud silence, indeed...

It is possible, albeit very remotely possible, that a hungry lawyer, if well paid andassured anonymity would pronounce the RAR bylaw document “passable”... But I do not believethat this is what happened and I suggest that the nonsense answers are a matter of Trustcredibility.

141

Trust Smart-Alecky

In the course of completing this work, I went on to “research the obvious”. On August11, 2016, I emailed Stefan Cermak asking him whether it was the Government of BC who had addressed the Trust asking them to do RAR or whether the Trust, on its own initiative, startedthe process that imposed the Trust RAR on us.

He passed the request on to a newly hired “Planning Team Assistant”, Ms. DanielaMurphy, selected for the task for reasons private to who did it. It is noteworthy that hot potatoissues are frequently assigned to lower levels of the hierarchy, so as to leave immaculate the“superiors” who ought to handle the hot potato.

Here is the email thread, from start to finish:

“August 11, 2016: From: Varzeliotis to Cermak Subject: RAR staring gun Dear Stefan, Good morning,

In Staff reports, live LTC discussions and other instances the Trust claim to having donethe RAR in SSI because it was demanded, one way or the other, by the ProvincialGovernment. As, for example, in your own staff reports and I will quote from one (August 3, 2013) that I picked at random:

‘The overall goal of the project is to amend the Salt Spring Island Local TrustArea bylaws to include riparian area protection provisions as required in theRiparian Areas Regulation.’ (emphasis added)

The information I need is the identity of who started the RAR rush in SSI. In plain terms,I need know who fired the starting gun in the Trusts’ rush to the RAR.Did the Trust move on its own initiative to ‘implement’ what the Trust deemed to be itsobligation emanating from the ‘Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation’?

Or:

Was the Trust responding to a specific request by the Provincial Government tothe Trust to do the RAR?

In the latter instance, to wit, if there was a specific directive from the provincial government addressed to Trust, I am seeking access to that document and willappreciate access to it at your earliest.

RegardsTom”

Passing my request on to the new hire of the team tells, more or less, that it was theTrust who fired the RAR stating gun on SSI. The email thread verifies that it was the Trust in itsperpetual search of “new areas to regulate by permit”, who did the dreaded SSI RAR. Justanother case of severe bureaucratic empire expansion.

142

In any event, it was Daniela Murphy who answered the query I had addressed to StefanCermak who was in charge of the RAR file at least since Kris Nichols was relieved of it in mid2011. How could anyone blame Ms. Murphy for misinforming on what the Trust did in Mid-2010, it being a half dozen years before she joined the Trust in Mid 2016?

On August 15, 2016, Murphy replied as follows:

“Subject: T. Varzeliotis - Origins of RAR - ReplyDear Mr. Varzeliotis,Thank you for your email.

RAR was implemented by the BC Provincial Government. I have attached theprovincial documentation for your information.

Additionally, I have included the following Local Trust Committee resolution.‘SSI-42-10 It was MOVED and SECONDED that the amended work programinclude items discussed: July 2011deadline be changed to May 2011; a progressreport on work on the Riparian Area Regulations by mid May 2010; framework fordevelopment of a village plan beginning next spring/summer; raptor nestidentification as time and resources allow.

RPM Hartley advised that the nature of the resolution might be seen as puttingnew items on the same level of priority as the work on the Official CommunityPlan and Land Use Bylaws. The Trustees confirmed that work on the OCP andLUB are the top priorities and their intention is to clarify the importance of thenext priorities’.

There is a public binder with further information should you wish to view it at yourconvenience.

Yours truly,Daniela MurphyPlanning Team AssistantIslands Trust, Salt Spring Island”

The “reply” does not answer the query but accelerates the deception:

* To begin with the “reply” is what Socrates deplored as “legein ala ant’ alon” whichliberally translates to “barking up the wrong tree”. The Trust has turned this intoa dirty trick, a staple in their arsenal frequently using it in clumsy attempts to foolpeople (Abe Lincoln’s line).

* Resolution SSI-42-10, is “clever”. But what does it say? It said that the deadlinefor something or other has being changed – a deadline for what? It says that a RAR progress report will happen “by mid May 2010"- so what? Andwhat does it have to do with the question about who fired the RAR staring gun?

* Murphy changes the subject from: “RAR staring gun”, To: “Subject: T. Varzeliotis- Origins of RAR - Reply”. This disassociates the Answer from the Question andit is another dirty trick in the Trust arsenal. Since any “answer” is a good answer to “some” question, presto, the divorcedAnswer is “correct”. This defeats the logical email setup which provides

143

automatic inclusion of the Question with the Answer. I presume Murphy wasfollowing instructions to avert using the “Reply” button, too!

* Murphy was instructed, I presume, to do that and additionally: to omit referenceto me having addressed the inquiry to Cermak; and to omit the classic “in replyto your correspondence of ...[date]”, as well; and to omit the usual invitation ofquestions for clarification of any part of her message, as well...

* Murphy writes: “RAR was implemented by the BC Provincial Government”. Thiscontrasts the mantra “we (the Trust) are required to implement the RAR...” KrisNichols had started chanting that mantra in January 2011 and Cermak kept onchanting it while they were re-implementing the pre-implemented RAR. The fact is that the Trust concocted Bylaw 480 and spend a 1/4 of a milliondollars to impose the bylaw upon us – they did not bill the Province for that, they“billed” us. One presumes the Trust expect to make a profit on “its” investmenton the RAR. Perhaps they did the RAR as a means to supplement the Trustincome loss in case SSI incorporates – who can fathom the mentality of this foxyTrust?

* The citation of LTC Resolution “SSI-42-10" does nothing to answer my queryeither.

The add-on second paragraph is there to insinuate that the RAR was done by the LTCand not by the Staff, this being to imply that, in doing the RAR, the staff was merely followingorders.

Note the omission of the “CARRIED” in one of the Resolutions. This makes the secondparagraph appear as being part of the Resolution, thereby attributing the nonsense of theResolution to the expendable elected Trustees. Such “passing the buck” is common practicewith Trust Staff, sad to say!

The Trust does not date resolutions except by year: “SSI-42-10". This means that thisresolution was made in 2010, the year Hartley set up a contract with Kris Nichols to do RAR in2011. Essentially, my query was whether Hartley was doing it in her own initiative or whethershe was responding to a Provincial Government request that the Trust does RAR. In the lattercase, there ought to have been a LTC resolution replying to the Government in Victoria andinstructing staff to carry out the LTC decision, whatever it could be.

The Trust produced no such correspondence, resolution, or instruction to Staff. This isbecause there is none!

There was no point in expending more time on this “FOI experience”. To sum it up, theyverified what I was guessing - that it was the Trust who fired the RAR starting gun. Theyrevealed that they had done the RAR as part of what they deem their mission, finding ever moreareas to turn into DPAs. That is to say, searching for human activities for the Trust to“regulated” by means of Development Permits.

Sad to report, the proliferation of dictatorisks in our entire political scene appearsepidemic. They have been on the increase and have developed substantial “resistance” todemocracy”. They are vociferous and have already consumed much of our freedom. That theydo it, more or less, like the Trust did the RAR, that is to say via “elected representatives”, mayprovide fake legitimacy but does not lessen the pain Czarisks cause populace.

144

PART VI � RAR SUBMISSIONS I MADE INTRODUCTION � Being Blasphemous

�Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's originalvirtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, throughdisobedience and through rebellion.�

Oscar Wilde

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Cults never fail to appear in societies tomenace freedom and otherwise ruin the lives of people. Some of them grow big and becomedominant, causing much pain, lasting until they become unbearable and trigger revolution towash the cult away. Revolutions are often violent, usually painful and in many cases result in amere change of the face of oppression.

Now, in 2016 AD, a primary cult du jour is Environmentalism, mushrooming in theshadow of Political Correctness. Not unlike in the Dark Ages where people were made to slaveobediently on Earth for a ticket to Heaven expecting to enjoy an eternal life at a perpetual harpconcert, we are now goaded to the extreme by extremists of the Environmental Industry. Theytwist our arm to deny Reason, ostensibly to ensure a green future for the plethora of ourdescendants of whom we produce recklessly, thereby choking the Planet to its death thesoonest.

As usual with �daredevils� who challenge Political Correctness, I need to clarify myposition: I do stand against the pollution of Land, Water and Air. I served proudly withEnvironment Canada for 15 years, starting the very day the Department was instituted. I haveseen DDT sprayed to kill mosquitoes and killing fish as big as two feet long along with tinyinsects. I am very concerned about the well-being of fish.

Yes, I have read Rachel Carson�s Silent Spring and I recognize her contribution ashaving done for humanity as much as Dante Alighieri did in another dire crisis on the road tocivilization with his Divine Comedy.

Of course, not unlike Humpty Dumpty, I must state what my words mean: �saviours�are those who seek and often succeed to impose their will on the people, so as to �save� thepeople from the consequences of their ignorance and inability to see the �light�!

I fought and continue to fight the Trust RAR not because I do not care for fish butbecause I esteem democracy; AND because the ways and the means by which the Trustimposed the RAR on us fly in the face of Democracy; AND because �saviours� have causedmore and more lasting pain to human society than even that which actuaries call �Acts of God�; AND, of course, because the Trust RAR would do little, if anything at all, for the fish; ANDbecause the Trust RAR will cause much grief to all of us; AND because the RARistas haveproduced no good and valid reason for saddling us with the RAR; AND because of more ...

The Trust came out against me the only way they could which is to abuse the power oftheir position and censor me. Then they went further to censor their censoring, so as to hide

145

from the people their maligning Democracy. This cowardly conduct manifests their awarenessthat they are subverting democracy to evade shame. For years now, I explained that to them,and urged them to do things that they can brag about and to refrain from doing things theywould be ashamed of � each time being like talking to columns of salt. Like a lawyer once saidat a Trust public hearing, �the cranium of the Trust is impermeable...�

In this section of the RAR Book I reproduce some of the RAR papers I submitted to theTrust during the period they were pushing the RAR. In that half decade, not once did anyonefrom the Trust discuss the RAR with me. Except that once I answered the Trust invitation to thepublic to visit their office for information on the RAR � I did and after several attempts, I met withCermak for a short time in 2011, as I discuss elsewhere in this work. At all other times, theyelected to expend their energies in suppressing my work and spared no effort to ensure that Ihave nothing to show for my efforts. There were times they brought me to the brink of giving up,but I persevered and as evidenced by the writing of this book, I continue fighting for Reason andagainst Governance-by-stealth. I could easily argue that the ferocity with which the Trust foughtback my attempts to contribute to the public affairs of my society suffices in itself to exclude anypossibility that the RAR they were advancing would be of merit.

Let me reiterate that these are only some of the submissions I have made to the Trust.They are a small fraction of the submissions I have made, but they suffice to depict the true faceof the Trust and let the people see what the Trust censored.

There is no hearsay in this book: I have witnessed the events I relate and I have run it allthrough the Trust without them having ever disputed anything ...

Tom�s Funtasy

�Tom�s Funtasy I have a dream � a Dream Driftwood Headline:

�RAR deferred for a year � Local Trust Triumvirate accepts invitation to do RAR in Venice

and is on its way there for a year.

Islanders despair fearing further delay of our own RAR as our LTC may move to Vienna to do the

Blue Danube, after done in Venice.

A Funtasy by Tom Varzeliotis, P.Eng (RARtired)�.

This is a snippet from a dream I had and shared with my fellow islanders grace of the Driftwood, the June 22, 2011 edition. Many islanders joined me in prayer for the dream to cometrue � but, as fate had it, Venice won... And for this I thank God!

146

A Four Page Town Crier

This submission is not one I wrote, it is one others wrote and which I appreciated. Itdeserves a place here because it is a fair shot at the cocoon of secrecy the Trust wove andmaintained over the RAR making. It is Titled �Salt Spring Island Supplement� and dated �May2011". It is a four-page tabloid-size flyer, in colour, printed on newsprint.

I will review it here briefly for it is an important contribution to understanding the Trust�sRAR and explains the reaction of the Trust subsequent to that demonstration of the power ofinformation dissemination, the power of the media, if you will.

As a reminder, �Bylaw No. 449" was then the attempted RAR bylaw, which was later re-branded to �Bylaw No. 480" after the Trust recovered from the June 2011 expression of�unprecedented public interest� in the RAR.

In the first page of the Flyer, there is a map, 20cm wide 30cm high, an un-undated map,presumably drawn by Trust Staff, but unsigned. It is showing the 24,000 acres (about 60% ofthe Island) that the Trust wanted to claw into its control through the RAR. It is titled as follows:

�SALT SPRING ISLAND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN

Bylaw #449Map 21a RAR Designated Watersheds

SCHEDULE 3Development permit area�

It seems Map 21a is made up from �Map 21", which in turn was made up from Map 12 by reversing the order of the digits. Map 21a, shows the Development permit area in purple anddominates the first page.

The Trust disputed the assertion that 60% of the Island would become RAR Land, butrefused to present a figure of their own. The harsh reality is that, to various degree, the Trusthas managed to affect virtually the whole island, at least all the land of the island that is notCrown Land. It has turned out worse than predicted in this respect. The Trust invented theinfamous and correspondingly well hidden: �Affidavit for Properties Not Subject to Riparian AreaRegulation� � with this, as the title asserts, the Trust has cleverly clawed into the RAReveryone, and left nobody out of that RAR.

Alongside Map 21a, in a column running the height of the Map on its right, is an articletitled:

�ISLANDS TRUST PROPOSED RAR BYLAW 449

Are You About to Lose Many of Your Property Rights?�

It presents information about the RAR, basic information, the kind of which the Trust waslabouring to hide.

The bottom part of the page, under the Map and the aforementioned column, another

147

article is running the width of the page (28 cm) at 15 cm height, unsigned, too. It poses anotherrhetorical question and answers it:

�Did you know?Some facts about the proposed RAR bylaw and how you will be affected ...�

I will quote a paragraph from it for it tells the RAR well:

�If you want to remove weeds, build a fence or a shed, plant a new veggiegarden within 100 feet of that newly designated �stream�(ditch), you will have tohire a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP). The cost will typically be from$1,500 to $3,500 for the QEP while the additional cost for the DevelopmentPermit will be $1,100".

The article closes with the warning:

�...property owners should �Wake Up� before it is too late�.

Neither of the front page pieces is signed.

On the second page of the Flyer:

There are two articles, sitting side by side.

The first one is titled:

� A Member Challenges the Conservancy�s Unqualified Support of the Proposal�

It is in the form of an open letter addressed �To the Executive Director, Salt SpringIslands Conservancy. Re: the Conservancy�s position on Proposed bylaw 449". It is signed�John Macpherson (member)�. I will quote a paragraph from that, too:

�Has anyone at the Conservancy performed an impact study or analysis as tohow the bylaw will affect the multitude of homeowners who will be living in thesweeping DP zone?�

The other article is titled �An Unnecessary Bylaw � an Opinion by Former Trustee EricBooth�.

He takes the position that the Trust was already in compliance with the BC Governmentrequirement that local governments recognize the Fish Protection Act. Among his reasons isthat the Trust Head Office has assured the SSI LTC that it was so when he was a SSI LocalTrustee. This too, proved to be true.

On the third page of the Flyer:

There are three articles. The first one is authored by Julia Lucich and titled veryappropriately, I found:

148

�The $1,500 Parsley Patch ...�

Lucich raises the issues of man-made �streams� such a ditches and ponds and the costof fees and permits one would have to pay for to do as little as add a Parsley patch to a garden.A colorful and realistic piece.

The second article is titled:

�Make way for the honey wagon� and is subtitled: The proposed RAR�bioblanket� brings forth many questions about future impacts on existinghomeowners and their properties�.

A fair warning it was.

The third article in page 3, is by Bob Harland and it is titled:

�What the bylaw means for you ...�

All three articles inform on the horror of living under the RAR, as imagined from the littlewe knew about it then. It turned out to be worse...

The fourth page of the Flyer:

The page is divided into left and right halves. The left contains the official renditions ofRAR taken from the official RAR PRopaganda literature. The right side of the page contains thedrawing from the left side with the RAR honestly superimposed on it, demonstrating the harshreality of the Trust RAR. All are in colour and the page is titled: �What the Trust doesn�t tellyou ...� How true!

That was the RAR pamphlet. It proved a substantial contribution to generating concernsabout what the Trust was seeking to do to us and contribute substantially to the foiling of theTrust- Nichols RAR expedition.

A word or two before signing out. As I already mentioned, the two articles on the frontpage and one in page three are unsigned, and so is some artwork in the pamphlet. This is avery important aspect of the matter because it manifests the fear the Trust has induced in thepeople of Salt Spring. People with active minds and the potential to make our society better,hide their identity to avert the well known vindictiveness of the Trust. Many such people do notspeak at all, others have distanced themselves from the Trust to spare them the feeling ofhelplessness that the Trust manner of �governing� generates...

149

BOOTH CANAL

Introduction

This submission appear parenthetic to the RAR, but it is not entirely so. It helpsunderstand the mindset of the Trust and gauge the credibility of the Trust people professingtheir dedication to the welfare of fishes.

I submitted it in 2011 at a RAR event, seeking to get the Trust to see things in a realistic perspective, to think comparatively when doing the RAR. I sought to lead the Trustees tocompare the Trust complicity in the ongoing demise of the rich shellfish beds of Booth Canalwith the RAR �potential� to save some stupid fish which on a rainy day may wander into someovergrown-with-weeds ditch.

I must confess here my partiality to Booth Canal. I live on it and I have been for a longtime, since 1974. I have fought for the protection and the restoration of Booth Canal since 1978, which is almost as long as the Trust has existed. Aware of the aversion of the Trust to considerthe woes of the Canal, I saw the RAR as a chance to put in a word for the Canal and I took it.

But the Trust kept on pushing the RAR and continued doing all they could to evade theirduty to Booth Canal.

�The Islands Trust SaltSpring I. Local Trust Committee April 28, 2011 Community Information Meeting on

Riparian Areas Regulation A Paper by

Dr. A. N. T. Varzeliotis, Civil Engineer

THE BOOTH CANAL ESTUARY

A beauty to behold and a crime to abhor

In 1978, and earlier, the now defunct Booth Bay Resort constructed a groyne extendinghalfway across the mouth of Booth Canal, reducing tidal flows through it to about half theirformer magnitude. The tidal regime of the estuary was altered, resulting in siltation turning largeareas of the streambed into mud flats. It also caused bank erosion of the South bank, oppositethe groyne. A narrow span road bridge further upstream from the groyne added to the problem.

At that time I raised concerns about the construction of the groyne and discussed thematter with Fisheries Canada. I led a team of officers on a site inspection of what washappening and we all left much concerned about what was being done.

150

The inspection and its aftermath became known to those who were constructing thegroyne. They reacted by publishing a �Legal Notice� in the November 29, 1978 Driftwood,advising of �intention to apply for a lease of Crown Land� for the construction of a boatlaunching ramp for the use of Booth Bay Resort guests. I filed a written objection but I neverheard further � the Legal Notice was bogus.

In 1996, a Land surveyor failed to recognize that the groyne was built illegally on Crownland. He then proceeded to register with the Land Titles Office about half of the area to whichthe Groyne has evolved as being property of his client.

The consequences from this Groyne are severe. The I.Trust which was instituted in1974, mandated to protect and preserve the Islands, failed to notice, or to understand, thegradual ditch-itization of the Canal. The Canal is now in a bad state and the deteriorationcontinues. I thought it was time to push the I.Trust to do what should have been done long ago. To that end I compiled a 28-page Application-Report on the Canal and filed it with the I.Trust onAugust 17, 2009. In it I describe the deterioration of the Canal and outline a comprehensiveplan for setting the Canal on a course to recovery.

The I.Trust was averse to preserving and protecting the Canal. I will not �guess� publiclythe reasons for it, but I will quote the excuse they uttered for washing their hands of it as theydid. They lack jurisdiction over shorelines, they said, which is, of course, a �sore-line�.

It was the stuff that drives people to apathy. But not all people - some of us lie down tobleed awhile and then get up to fight again. The dimensions of the environmental crimeperpetrated on the Canal cries out for action.

On May 15, 2010, I approached the I Trust again. I compiled evidence to refute theirprevious excuse, showing that while the I.Trust is not a global maritime power, it has a history ofstraddling shorelines, fording streams, wading in lakes and sailing deep waters. I submitted theevidence with a new application asking the Trust Triumvirate to reconsider the Canal. To easethe about face it would require, I reminded them that since the Vatican apologized to Galileo,lack of infallibility has become socially acceptable. It did not work � the I Trust closeted my re-application out of sight and fell silent.

Lady Luck came to the rescue. On its front page, June 9, 2010, the National Postheralded �The Return of the Bore�, bylined by Drew Halfnight. The famous Bore came back toMoncton after the �Causeway� barrage on the Petitcodiac estuary was opened up to the tides.Just as I had told the Trust we must do in the Canal.

The Moncton �Causeway� and the Booth Canal Groyne are engineering models of eachother. I know both of them personally: In the 1960s, I was the Regional Engineer, MaritimeRegion for Environment Canada, and the plans for the Moncton Barrage passed through mydesk. In the 1970s I protested the construction of the Groyne on Booth Canal, eliciting thebogus �Legal Notice� I mentioned above.

I clipped �The Return Of the Bore� article, explained the similarities between thePetitcodiac and Booth Canal problem and forwarded all to I.Trust. I did it driven by a mistakenexpectation that they would not argue with success and that they would appreciate the need to

151

act on the Canal Groyne. Well they did not argue with success, but just the same, they evadedwading into the Canal.

What the Bore article did was release the Trust�s adroitness in coverup machinations.What is pertinent here is that the Bore event broke the I.Trust evasive silence and forced it to �re-consideration� of Booth Canal, sort of!

The I.Trust reaction was a tacit retraction from their previous position, that of claiminglack of jurisdiction on, in and under bodies of water. To introduce their new position and firm uptheir stand, they issued an official Resolution and voted for it unanimously, 3-0, as usual. Withthat resolution the Three Trustees �direct staff to draft a letter to Dr. Varzeliotis explaining theLTC�s jurisdiction in the matter of Booth Canal�. There is no mention of the Petitcodiac, of theiroriginal �no jurisdiction� excuse, nor do they tell staff what to graft into that draft letter. Let�s saythe resolution lacks specificity and leave at that.

I.Trust staff overreacted to this instruction-by-resolution. Staff not only �drafted� but alsosigned and mailed a letter drenched in pure platitudes, skirting widely around the subject ofwhether the I.Trust would wake up to realities and do its duty to Booth Canal. The letter reflectsthe �precision� of the decision the Trustees expressed with that resolution.

And that is where we are now � the Three Trustees stand on the bank of the Canal, theirbacks to the water fearing, one presumes, that if they turn their heads around to look at themess, the Force would turn their lot to pillars of Salt Spring Salt like She did to the wife of Lot.

I should also mention the involvement of the I.Trust Bylaw Enforcement Office (�BEO�).In the fall of 2010 I was contacted for information on the matter of Booth Canal by the BEOOfficer. It appears the BEO was tipped by the I.Trust Lawyers who are fighting in and out ofCourt the owners of a low and short �stonewall� erected for bank protection on Thetis Island. Itis my belief that, irrespective of inherent merit, or demerit of the Thetis wall, the Court shouldhear about the precedent of the I.Trust ignoring the similarly rock-armored Booth CanalGroyne.

It is my expert opinion that the potential environmental consequences of the Thetis wall,if indeed averse, cannot be but a drop in the bucket compared to those from the SSI Groyne.The I.Trust, recognizing the potential of the discrepancy of their treatment to the outcome of theThetis action, instructed their Lawyers to block this evidence from reaching the Court, or itsexistence becoming known to the owners of the Thetis wall while the I.Trust pressures themwith the threat of Court action.

Recently the BEO asked me for additional information and I did oblige to the extent Icould. This because I do not know more of what they are doing. I only hope they do somethingand that what they do is the right thing. As for me, I shall keep on plowing along, till the Canal isset on the route to recovery.

The I Trust can easily save the Canal without RAR, but the RAR cannot save the Canalwhile the Trust remains reactionary

Tom Varzeliotis�

152

September 23, 2011� A Truly New RAR Start

Remarks

The June 2011 Trust attempt to hold a public hearing on the RAR was thrice aborteddue to �unprecedented public interest�, as the Trust diagnosed the cause for the peoplecongregating to have a word with the Trust about the RAR. Then went further into researchingit, and they got to the bottom of things: They determined that this �unprecedented publicinterest� was due to the failure of the people to recognize the goodness in the RAR. To correctthat, they ordered the Staff to educate us about the RAR and make us RARophiles. But theStaff was of another mind.

I noticed that and sought to get things moving with the submission at issue. Needless tosay I spoke to deaf ears!

I tried � they failed!

A Truly New RAR Start

Some three months ago, on July 7, 2011 the Salt Spring Island (�SSI�) Local TrustCommittee (�LTC�) hurriedly passed five Resolutions and unilaterally declared a lull in the thenraging RAR wars. The Trust was made to retract by strong public resistance to its attempt toimpose a vile version of a Riparian Areas Regulation (�RAR) on us, the people of Salt SpringIsland. Upon retreating, the Trust issued a News Release to publicize the cease-fire, posted iton line and published it in the community mass media, seeking to pacify the people and relieveitself from the heat.

But the Trust has not really given up on the RAR. A close look at the Five Resolutionson the RAR they passed and at the News Release they made reveal that the lull is partial anddevious. Evidently, the Trust did not cease the RAR war, it simply moved it temporarily from thearena of raw power to a PRopaganda quagmire.

The new thrust of the Trust is to �educate� us, the people, on the RAR, as they put it. The plan is to keep the scene calm through the pre-election period and avert making the RAR ahot election issue, so as to re-elect, or elect, RAR friendly trustees. And to soften the target fora new attack scheduled for sometime after the November elections.

I do not propose to analyze here the Five Resolutions or the News Release; mypurpose is to challenge the Trust to answer the contention they made through the FiveResolutions and that �cleverly� worded News Release. I am asking them to do what they ask usto believe they would do. I refer especially to their declaration of a newfound willingness toconsult with us, the people, and to listen to the vox populi. To that end, I would like to remind usof the specific commitments the Trust made:

153

In the first of the five resolutions the Trustees direct staff:

�... to engage in a community consultation and communications process toimplement the Riparian Areas Regulations on Salt Spring Island.�

In the third resolution the LTC direct staff:

�... to work with various community organizations (e.g. water council, Chamberof Commerce, Realtors, stewardship groups, agricultural alliance, etc.) and the[Trust�s own] advisory committees to discuss and receive input on theimplementation of Riparian Areas Regulation through a Development PermitArea Bylaw.�

In the fourth resolution the Trustees direct staff:

�... to research ways to improve communication on Riparian Areas Regulationand its implementation (e.g. brochures, website, community participation directstaff to research ways to improve communication on Riparian Areas Regulation�

In the fifth of the five resolutions the Trustees:

�direct staff to propose options and costs related to further stream mapping onSalt Spring Island regarding the implementation of the Riparian AreasRegulation�.

What is happening since? In the intervening months Trust staff, have done nothingpublically to implement the Five Resolutions. Their inaction, or underground operation as thecase may be, is detrimental to the cause of open government.

Following I will outline some steps I think the Trust must take to fulfill its commitment toappropriate process, suggesting that these are essential prerequisites to meaningfulimplementation of their Big Five Resolutions:

1. Abstract and publicize the minimum requirements the BC Fish Protection Act,(�FPA�) may compel Local Governments to meet.

2. Publish a call for written citizens submissions on any aspects of the RAR inparticular and on pertinent provisions of the FPA in general.

3. Publish immediately on line all the submissions citizens have already made inrespect to RAR; publish all new submissions as they arrive; allow a reasonabletime for the consideration of submission and debate.

4. Tabulate the concerns raised and the ideas brought forth through this processand wrap it up in a �RAR Report�.

5. Publish the Report; and advance a copy, together with a Petition to the BCLegislature, asking them to consider the Report and amend the FPA inaccordance with the what Report.

In a democracy it is the duty of the government to charge the citizenry with information.For information is power and when withheld by the magistrates, turns them into despots andgovernance becomes unpalatable.

154

�One-to-one consultations� and holding �information meetings�, impressive as they maysound, are thoroughly impotent. Hence the advent of town criers, the invention of church bellsand the popularity of the www. Characteristically, as mentioned above, when the Trust feltvulnerable to the peoples� reaction to RAR, they did not post the cease fire News Release in theentrance to their office and repair to their desk secure on the thought that the citizenry is trulyand fully informed � they posted online and published it in the Driftwood.

The RAR is a very serious matter. As such, it presents an opportunity for the Trust tohint that it may be reformable, this being the sunny side of the cloud � the dark side is that theTrust may not �get it �, thereby prolonging the RAR wars.

Tom Varzeliotis, RARely Correct September 23, 2011

A RARely Serious MisMap

IntroductionI personally filed this document at the SSI Trust Office for delivery to the LTC. Evidently

the Trust Staff intercepted it and withheld it from the Trustees. This became patent at theFebruary 23, 2012 LTC meeting and I asked RPM Hartley point blank whether the Staff hadintercepted the mail to the LTC and she admitted publicly that indeed the Staff had tamperedwith the mail.

�This is correct� she answered, burning her words into my mind.

LTC Chair Sheila Malcolmson stepped in to protect the offender and to defame he whoexposed the wrongdoing; she thanked Hartley for �sheltering the LTC against correspondencelike this�.

The two local Trustees remained unfazed by the exchange and stayed silent...

The Staff promptly censored this exchange, as well...

Following is the �correspondence� against which Harley �sheltered� the LTC:

�A RARely serious MisMap

At the February 2 TownHall, I sought to do my bit to avert a RARe MisMap. I asked theLTC to instruct Trust staff to release the tendering documents and specifically the�specifications� for whatever was to be depicted on the RAR Maps. My intent was to preventstarting up on the wrong foot. The Chair deflected my request, asking staff who had closetedthe stuff to �respond�. To no one�s surprise staff did not bring the stuff out of the closet...

We now have in the Agenda Package for the February 23, 2012 LTC meeting the StaffReport, the �specifications� on the �pilot� RAR mapping contract; what I was suspecting becameknown, sort of, after being hidden for the past 14 months [since the January 2011 Nichols RAR

155

debut]. My fears proved justified by the spectacle of what the Trust showed us, as I will discuss. But before doing that I will comment on the contractors.

The successful bidder is the Island Stream and Salmon Enhancement Society (�ISSES�) a �consortium� it appears being of Mr. Philip Grange and Ms. Kathy Reimer. I want, at this pointto make it clear as a bell, that I have high respect for these individuals. Both for theirprofessional and ethical stature. And indeed, I owe them gratitude for valuable assistance theyhave given me in the past. None of my comments is directed at them � I deem the messytendering and its aftermath of it to be entirely of the Trust� doing.

Having said that, I will state that I find the �specifications� for the RAR Mapping projectpitifully poor and potentially dangerous. Instead of precision, the Trust has built ambiguity andinanities into it. Yet, in the preamble to this �specifications� the Trust write:

�A detailed description of the services to be performed [by the contractor] withinCusheon Lake and St. Mary Lake watersheds include:�

This is followed by seven duties to be performed by the contractor. Since it is not clear whether the seven duties are all inclusive or whether there are other duties specified in thecontract, I went to the local I.Trust office seeking clarification. The front desk officer did notknow, nor could try interpret the Report (specifications). She went to the back and broughtforth a planner. But the Planner could not respond to my query, either. I explained to them thatthe Report is addressed to the people of the island, through our representatives in the LTCmicro-parliament, and wondered whether they expected us, �Joe Q. Public�, to understand theReport, while no one in the Trust office could. The Planner took the question to the RPM whoproved equally unaware of whether the list of the seven duties listed in the Report is completeor partial. Notably the Report is endorsed by the RPM.

This alone suffices to discredit the Staff Report and raises serious issues of Trustgovernance. But there is more!

The Mapping specifications compel (duty #1) the contractor to seek and �receivepermission [from property owners] to access their properties� so as to do the �mapping� They donot instruct the contractors what to do in the likely event an owner say �@#$% off�. Will they callin the Trust Police? Will go to court for an injunction? What?

The Trust mapping specifications continue with the same lack of specificity to the veryend of the specifications. Most notable is the lack of definition of the terms water �stream� and�potentially fish bearing stream�. Yet, these terms are the hub of the matter, the bone ofcontention of the RAR War the Trust has been fighting against the people since January 2011.This is of utmost importance to all islanders. That is why I suggested that the parameters ofwhat the Trust is obligated to bring into the RAR be delineated and published and that Islanders be given the facility to debate them through an ad hoc special �branch� of the IdeasBank. The issues are too important to be left to a Trust bureaucracy operating as they are witha corporate culture alien to democratic governance of a free society.

At issue is the future of the 10,000 souls who live on the island and perhaps to peopleliving in other islands of the Trust Republic who may be mislead by a bad precedent set as aresult of these amateurish, or sinister, specifications and the whole SSI RARmapping tendering

156

process. The disclosure of these unacceptably substandard �specifications� reveals why theTrust kept them under wraps till they would produce a fait accompli and silence criticism byusing the highly respected islanders who were awarded the contract as human shields againstexposure of the substandard specifications.

These specifications are pregnant with disaster for islanders, not unlike the Ulysses�wooden Horse was for the Trojans. We, citizens of a free society, must keep vigilance over themagistrates and we will be remiss in our civic duty if we let the Trust silence us. The 5-minutes, one size fits them all the Trust allow to hear citizens is utterly inadequate for thesubject matter. There is no room to reason out matters and I will, therefore mention here onlyone more of the several issues which must be resolved NOW.

Given that:

a. the principals of ISSES are QEPs; and

b. The contract specifications are inordinately spongy, key terms such as (water) �stream� encompasses the whole range from a street sidewalk gutter through �Trickle Creek� and �FairWeather DryDitch� all the way up to the Fraser River, the Mississippi and the Suez Canal; the term �potential� ranging from that ofcottonwood-seedling-infested ditch all the way to that of the Adam River;

c. That the above render the contract worthless un-enforceable and the outcomeaccordingly indeterminate in the entire range from RAR Map down to andincluding RAR Crap.

d. that there is no reason to believe that Court Justices, Ethics and otherCommissioners, Land Surveyors, and other citizens in similar callings are oflesser character than QEP, yet we demand that they be not in conceivableposition of conflict of interest; and

e. the enormity of the consequences from what the contractors may produce for the10,000 SSI citizens and the power of their, de facto, setting the standards offurther RAR mapping in SSI and, potentially, for other jurisdictions;

f. that the map(s) they are retained to produce determine the territory of the market,in both the dimensions of �extent� and �demand� and, therefore, becomedeterminants of their �income� in the future, above and beyond the mappingcontract issue, as well as that of their professions

These converge to place the contractors in an apparent strong conflict of interestsituation incompatible with the established norms of the society at large and professional, selfgoverned associations such as the Association of Professional Engineers and ProfessionalBiologists.

In Conclusion:

The process must begin anew, this time around to be based on soundground, and carried though the Ideas Bank entirely transparently as

157

becomes a society of free people.

Sincerely, Tom Varzeliotis, Serious Citizen�

That is what Hartley censored and Malcolmson, praised her for �sheltering the LTCagainst correspondence like this�. That is what the LTC did and that is certainly non-encouraging public input, for it is a warning that citizens daring to speak out would be malignedby the Trust...

Fallow Follow-Ups

This submission refers to two issues/events - the first is about the RAR, morespecifically about the �mellowing to Staff� of the then new Trustees we had mandated to changethe Trust.

The second one refers to another event also manifesting the �Mellowing of theTrustees�. It is about �Policy B.6.2.2.13". It is an interesting occurrence which would be amusingif it wasn�t painful...

I combined them into this submission in a subtle move to warn the Trustees that theywere incipiently metamorphosed by the Staff, in case they had not noticed. And that the Staffhad seized control over the RAR...

I will cite here the whole submission. Moreover, in an addendum I give a short accountof the �Policy B.6.2.2.13" matter because it is amusing and because it contributes tounderstanding the Trust which, in turn explains the occurrence of the RAR.

�June 7, 2012: Fallow Follow-Ups

1. It happens too often that decisions made by the LTC are not carried to implementation.There is a series of such occurrences which must be ended irrespective of what hascaused them. I will limit my presentation to two such events, with the expectation thatthis delegation will trigger responses to other pending matters and that this Trust�spractice of �creatively forgetting� may end.

On July 7, 2011, subsequent to the people of Salt Spring expressing their views on theLTC�s approach to RAR, the then LTC held its de facto swan song meeting. Unabashedly theydeclared the people ignorant on the RAR and identified the alleged public ignorance as thecause of the public outcry against their vile RAR. To remedy the situation they instructed staffto �educate� us, the people, about the RAR and backed up the instruction with a series of formalresolutions.

The LTC instructed Staff to contact local organization �e.g. water council, Chamber ofCommerce, Realtors, stewardship groups, agricultural alliance, etc�. And to produce anddispense RAR Propaganda �e.g. brochures, website, community participation opportunities, etc�,

158

all to the end of convincing us, the people, that were mistaken about the RAR, that the RAR isreally good for us, and goad us into to loving it so much as to demand the lovely RAR be doneonto us.

To this day we have been let down by the Trust Staff, left un-enlightened, abandoned inour state of ignorance. Worse than that really, as the Trust has been moving the RAR all along,ever more secretly than previously, in a thinly veiled intent to avoid public notice of their doing,lest the people come back. It looks like they are guided by the proverb: �Let sleeping dogs lie�.

2. At its March 15, 2012, the LTC instructed Staff to obtain a legal assessment of whetherOCP Policy B.6.2.2.2.13 clashes with the Local Government Act and particularly withs.946 of it. The LTC had specifically identified the request as being �high priority�. It isinconceivable, that after some three years of wrangling with the legality of PolicyB.6.2.2.13, the Trust�s professional Staff has remained ignorant of this �Law clash�. Ifindeed they were unaware of the matter and were caught by surprise by the newTrustees posing the query, they should have followed the command of the peoples� representatives and obtained the legal assessment of the matter. Their silence isinexcusable and given the frequency such issues arise, manifests the need for scrutiny.

Accordingly, this is a request that the Trust �educate� us on the RAR so we can get onand debate the matter, as it becomes a society of free people governing democratically theirsociety. And that RAR be brought to the surface from underground and be carried outpublically, as it must.

And to publish the Legal assessment of the matter of whether Trust Policy B.6.2.2.13 issuppressed by s.946 of the LGA.

Tom Varzeliotis, SSI Local Trust Area Citizen � June 7, 2012"

Addendum � September 2016

The second item of this two-pronged submission, needs explanation: It arose from anapplication I had filed requesting permission to create a homesite for my daughter from my 25acre Property. There are provisions for such in the Trust�s own Regulations as well as in theBritish Columbia Local Government Act (�LGA�), which regulates the I. Trust.

As it happened, the Trust specifies that the proposed lot must be smaller than �0.6 ha insize� (Policy B.6.2.2.13), while the LGA stipulates it must be �at least 1 hectare in size� (LGAs.946). Mindful that the LGA prevails over the Trust Policies , I sized the proposed lot 1.1 ha tosatisfy the LGA.

The LTC ordered my application be sent to the Agricultural Advising Committee. Itappears that the AAC recommended in favour of my application, because the LTC passed aresolution rescinding the one by which they had referred my application to the AAC!

The Trust denied my daughter a homesite in revenge for me speaking at a publichearing against a Trust pet project. But they had to �reason� their rejection of my application andconcocted a stupid one, albeit highly amusing. They denied my application, they authoritatively

159

wrote, because I was asking for a lot that was �larger than the minimum allowable�. Yes theydid, I have it in writing, on the Trust�s letterhead!

They had, of course, the facility to ask me re-size the lot size and make it less than theminimum allowable� or even �larger than the maximum allowable�, or whatever, but they did not. I complained for their handling of the case, reasoning out matters, as I usually do. The Trustadmitted to �Staff error� in handling my application and in a show of Trust logic, they sought toclose the file instead of �re-considering� the application, and to settle with me by refunding me$300 of the $600, fee I had paid them to process my application!

But I went on, asserting that denying someone a roof over her head is a serious matterand I kept on demanding they reconsider my application, properly. Lacking the will to relent ontheir act of revenge, they sought to buy my silence on their conduct by refunding me theremaining $300 of my application fee! Clever, eh?

Well, I declined the refund because I wanted my daughter to build her home on theIsland and told Hartley that I intended to continue pursuing the homesite for my daughter andthat I was not after a refund! Oblivious to what I was telling her, she mailed me the money! Isaw no point lighting my cigar with the $300 cheque, and used it instead to buy me another 5bottles of single malt. Faced with such nonsense I laid down awaiting the election.

After the November 2011 election, Hartley briefed the incoming Trustees, including inher repertoire the Trust sentiments about me. Trustee Grove met with me, because aspronounced publically ex cathedra, �He [ Varzeliotis ] needs somebody to talk to him, that is all, and I [Grove] will do that�.

When we met and I told him of how things look from my perspective, Grove said thatsince he is no lawyer, he could not decide whether �smaller than 0.6" was conflicting with �largerthan 1.0 hectares�. This indicates that the Staff had �primed� him that this was such a complexproblem and accordingly a matter for the Lawyers. But, all it needed was someone who wouldask the Staff questions...

To his credit, Trustee Grove raised the issue at the next LTC meeting and TrusteeGrams supported it. But instead of thrashing it out, they sided with the Staff and requestedlegal advice on the above question! The Staff told the Trustees to make it �low priority� becausethey, the elected representatives of the people were, limited by the Staff to only five items of�high priority� in the list � the Trustees insisted it be �high priority�.

At the next meeting, the then newly elected Trustees sought to initiate something else, Ido not recall what. The Staff told them that to do that, they would have to abandon the�subdivision for a relative issue� because they had already exhausted their quota of five itemson the priority list. Guess what...

I was present, and when the LTC recessed, Grove explained to me that it was a matterof waiting a little for my daughter�s homesite. I explained to him that while the �priority list� is notsurefire, the �non priority list� was a euphemism for the gargantuan wastebasket � Groveassured me of the sincerity of the Staff.

Some months down the road of time, Grove suggested I �put in a new application for the

160

homesite of my daughter � to see what would happen�, i.e. to see if Staff would allow it! By thattime I was fighting the RAR and advocating for Booth Canal and had raised other issues and, itappears, someone within the Trust figured that a pending application for a homesite for mydaughter would hobble my tongue.

I realized that there was no point in doing that. But I reminded the Trustees, albeitgently, on June 7, 2012, with the second item in my submission �Fallow Follow Ups�. They didnothing...

As far as I know, as we are about to enter 2017, the Staff has not bought in �legaladvice� about the �less than 0.6 v. larger than 1.0" problem, as it had promised to do early in2012. As of now, It has already taken longer than it took Churchill and Hitler to resolve theirdisagreement.

June 7, 2012 � A Peoples� Review of the Trust Request for PeerReview

Introduction

As a reminder, the Local Trustees had fastracked the �Pilot RAR Mapping� forcompletion within 2 ½ months by March 15, 2012, the period being from �decision tocompletion�. The contractor completed the work by March 29, 2012. But the Staff steadfastlyrefused to release the �report� � they were demanding a �Peer Review� of the closeted �report�.The purpose being to pre-empt criticism and evade accountability for botching the �pilot�RARmapping job.

By June the whole RARmapping scene had turned weird, and on June 7, 2012, I soughtto impress upon the LTC the need to be �realistic and pragmatic� (Mitchell Sharp�s line) with thefollowing submission:

��Peoples� Review� of the Trust Request for Peer Review �RAR pilot mapping needs peer review�

(Driftwood, May 30, 2012)

By definition �peers� of who may be perceived in conflict of interest are themselvessimilarly and equally suspect of conflict of interest. It is therefore inconceivable that peers maydisperse suspicions of partiality.

Having said that, let�s give the Trust a last chance and ask: 1. Who needs the Peer Review?2. Why?3. To Review exactly What? 4. Peers of Who?

161

5. What exactly will be lost, if we, the people, including the �peers�, do the �Review�,instead of �hired peers�?

6. Why is the Trust closeting the RARmap �stuff�?

Pray tell...

Tom Varzeliotis, Forever RARely correct.�

A REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ADVICE ON CENSORSHIP

Introduction

After a bitter battle against Trust Chair Sheila Malcolmson and RPM Leah Hartley, the local Trustees George Grams and Peter Grove won �A pilot run of videorecording the LTCmeetings�. As soon as videotaping commenced, the Staff found it unbearable, because itcreated problems for them in doing the RAR.

By the second time the camera rolled, the Trust moved in and censored the part of thevideotape pertaining to the RAR. Citizens expressed disgust at the Trust doings and theDriftwood joined in the fight against censorship.

The Trust, came out claiming that they had done the censoring on legal advice, which ofcourse was not true. I challenged the Trust to show us the legal advice and the Trustees foughtanother battle for it, obtaining a �compromise� of such. Eventually we got some legal advice, thekind that raises more questions than it answers. This is reflected in a submission I brought tothe LTC on July 5, 2012.

�A Questionable Legal Advice

The Trust censored part of the February 23 Videotape of the LTC meeting on the pretextthat citizens submissions were defamatory to two Trust contractors who did the RAR pilotmapping. The Trust were called to account then and finally, some three and a half months afterthe fact, sought and obtained legal advice confirming that the Trust had elected to �err� on theside of suppression. The advice came from the Trust�s Lawyers, Young Anderson, and wasmade public at the June 7, 2012, SSI LTC meeting. It is dated May 23, 2012, addressed to LeahHartley and signed by Melania Cannon (�Counsel�).

162

NB: The Trust did not publish the �questions� they posed to Counsel.

It is my position that Counsel has erred. To begin with, she fails to recognize that if apublic body elects to record its interface with the public, it must abide with prevailing law andcommunity standards.

Notably, in Paragraph 5 Counsel advises as follows:

�Another option [open to the Trust] would be to omit the allegedly defamatorystatements from the broadcast, particularly where the affected third party hasprovided advance notice that they believe that these statements defame them.�

For one, Counsel erred by ignoring the Access to Information and Protection of PrivacyAct (�Act�). A citizen�s submission to a public body during a public discourse is �personalinformation� of that citizen and as such falls under the purview of the Act. �Omission� of personalinformation is explicitly covered by the Act which protects citizens against misuse of personalinformation in the possession or under the control of public bodies.

In the event of a dispute, s.29 of the Act gives the public body the following two options:a) correct the citizens�s personal information as requested by that citizen; or b) annotatethe record with the correction requested by the affected citizen. In either case, the Actcompels the public body to publish the correction requested by the citizen or theannotation, as the case may be, to all who may have been apprized of the issue duringthe 12 months period proceeding the citizen�s request for correction.

Yet another error may be the counsel�s silence about the constitutional right of citizens to be informed of charges leveled at them and their right to challenge thecharges. The Trust failed to identify either the alleged offending comments, or the lawallegedly violated by the persons it censored. A court would strike a $50 traffic ticket, if thepolice do not specify the law allegedly breached. In this instance, the Trust censorship scandalis of enormously large significance to virtually all islanders. It is also pertinent that at least twoof the offended citizens, Mr. John Macpherson and the undersigned, have publicly andrepeatedly requested due process, the Trust responding with silence.

Giving a public body discretion what to publish and what to censor, is tantamount tofostering the suppression of the freedom of speech, arguably the most sacred of all freedoms.The prospect of a public body claiming licence to censor those who deviate from its official line of �Truth� is highly disconcerting. For freedom of speech protects the �thorns� on thesides of the potential and actual �thugs�, for the �thorns� are vital to a society of freepeople, a society democratically governing itself.

While this review may not be exhaustive, it does raise the issue of errors in that legaladvice, which errors may be of serious consequence in any case and more so if in the hands ofa public body with the corporate culture of the Trust. For these reasons I hereby request thatthis paper be appended to all files containing the subject legal advice.

163

In closing, I would like to remark that the paper at hand was made possible by the �new�Trustees having fought back the Trust�s ancient régime who fought a rear guard battle to hidefrom the public eye the legal advice they were ordered to obtain.

Sincerely, A.N.T. Varzeliotis,Booth Canal June 24, 2012"

At the Fritz , After Dark , on November 21 , 2012The Three Reports

Introduction

The Trust went into �a cosy hole� (as distinct from �a large hall�) to release the Pilot RARMapping� report, the �Peer Review� report of it and a Staff report reviewing the two contractedout reports.

I went there with a fourth report reviewing the aforementioned three. The Trustimmediately censored it and felt that my report was so effective as to warrant quarantining it forover two years, until they had made the RAR a fait accompli in SSI. Have a look at their objectof endangerment:

�At the Fritz , After Dark , on November 21, 2012 � The Three Reports

In early July 2011 the Trust made three attempts to talk RAR with us, all aborted due tooverwhelming public response, a serious surprise to a Trust longing for public �apathy�. Peoplecame in waves, not merely to listen, but determined to be heard, as well! When the LTCregained cautiousness they blamed the fiasco to an inability of the great unwashed tocomprehend the benevolence of the Trust RAR. They ordered Staff to �educate� us to love theRAR. They also directed �additional� RAR mapping, the �additional� intended to deceive thepeople that some RAR mapping had already been done, which was not true.

In the ensuing six months Staff ignored the LTC directive. However, on January 5, 2012 the new Trustees ordered �pilot� RAR Mapping of the St. Mary and Cusheon Lake watersheds. They fast-tracked it: bids to be in by January 23, the word to be completed by March 15.

Staff acting privately awarded the contract to Island Salmon and Stream Society(�ISSES�). Such was the blackout that they refused my FOI requests for access to mappingspecifications. The blackout has caused much grief, all around.

Selecting ISSES was imprudent because of the conflict of interest aspect of it. Whencitizens raised this issue, the local Trustees sought to cancel the contract, but the staffprevailed. Then, in an il-conceived attempt to hide this impropriety, Staff resorted to censoring

164

video footage of the February 23 LTC meeting, which evolved into the infamous CensorshipScandal.

The ISSES submitted an undated, marked �preliminary� report on March 29. This whilethe Specs (superfluous as it is) call for a �Final Report�. Staff kept the ISSES report secret forsix months to evade accountability for the substandard specs they had written and for dragging ISSES into a conflict of interest situation. As it happened, the blackout would move the publicevent to the Monsoon season, on a mid-week dark and stormy night, thereby minimizing publicattendance at the �public� event.

Staff pretended to an inability to determine for themselves whether whatever they gotfrom the ISSES was what they thought they were buying with that mapping contract. Staffsought and got LTC consent to buy a �peer review� of the ISSES QEPs� product. On October11, six months after the fast-tracked ISSES report was delivered, Staff released it with its �peerreview� report, both piggy-backed on a �clever� Staff report, suggesting three additional reviews!

That is how the �Three Reports and the Specks� show came to the cinema far fromyou, brought by the Trust cleverly circumnavigating the theater and the auditorium near you!

Some of the issues running through the Specs and the Three Reports:

1. They are seriously obfuscated. They are infested with platitudes, inconsistent usage ofterms, and unconventional terminology.

2. There is no evidence of authors� familiarity with Open Channel Flow, Hydrology andother science, essential to understanding the watery fish habitat. This is inexplicablegiven the involvement of a P.Eng with indisputable professional qualifications inHydraulics.

3. Science forever quantifies; One cannot manage what one does not measure; If you donot measure it, you do not know it! Nowhere in this bundle of reports is there to befound any measurement of pertinent quantities, such as flow, stream cross-sections,fish-counts, etc. The closest they come to quantify is: �more moist ground� or �drywaterstream�!

4. Determination of whether a �stream� comes into RAR, is done by a QEP pronouncing an�opinion� about it. This �rule of opinion� clashes with Democracy which is �the rule of law.�

5. The Trust�s pursuit of a �peer review� of the ISSES QEPs whom the Trust had handpicked, recognizes the obvious, that QEPs� opinions are �stretchy� and unfit tosubstitute for the Law.

6. This sad report bundle is bare of any consideration of a facility to challenge inclusion ofa property in the RAR (as done, for example, by the BC Property Assessment Authority)

7. Despite the dire consequences from inclusion of land in the RAR, there are no checksand balances that would moderate overzealous QEPs, Trustees or Staff bent ontorturing citizens.

165

8. There is no mention of Cost/Benefit ratio assessment of clawing peoples� property intothe RAR. Contrast this to worrying about a 4" drainage pipe getting clogged, the waterflowing overland with schools of fish populating the ensuing �drainage�; and more similarinanities.

9. There is no exploration of a reasonable means for addressing the spirit of the FPA otherthan this dictatorial RAR.

10. The Staff and their contractors failed to consider obtaining lawyers� interpretation of theLaw, instead of leaving it to a Biologist, a P.Eng and a Technician, who may lack theskills and the objectivity this task requires.

11. In response to my concern, Chair Malcolmson informed the public that there is case lawon the RAR. She did not deny that her revelation may be fatal to the Three Reports,which fail to take that into account.

Report� specific concerns: Trust Staff Report

12. Staff cleverly omits the enabling LTC resolutions authorizing the ISSES and theMadrone contracts. This hides the lack of a money appropriation LTC vote for eitherproject.

13. Staff wording is cleverly chosen to leave the impression that the many owners ofproperty in the �pilot� watersheds are spared the RAR and the QEPs as a result of the�pilot� � It is not true!

14. Staff has sought to shed accountability for the RAR mess-up by �contracting out� toMadrone the �damage control� for it. �Who are you to criticize what the peers verified?�

15. It makes no sense to waste $8,200 and half a year of precious time to have a $14,000 report �peer reviewed�!

16. It made no sense for the Trust to commission a �peer review� of a �preliminary� report, and, arguably, it was equally inappropriate for Madrone to accept the commission.

A �Final� Review of a �Preliminary� Report? Priceless!

17. Staff unabashedly cite the Specifications they issued to ISSES in a highly �doctored�version, cleverly omitting 2 ½ clauses, reducing the Specs from 7 to 4 ½ !

18. The authors of the ISSES and the Madrone Reports, uniformly sign without their QEPidentifier after their name. Someone �coordinated� the omission � is fecit qui prodest!The Trust profits, for the omission hides the conflict of interest situation of the twocontractors and the Trust�s culpability for placing them in that position. A continuation ofcensorship, this is!

19. The appearance of Phillip Grange of ISSES and Trystan Willmott of Madrone, at theOctober 11 LTC meeting was omitted from the Agenda Package; in addition, they

166

scheduled them to appear at the time of the meeting, that is sparingly attended by thepublic.

20. The November 21 RAR meeting was scheduled for the 120- seat Fritz, in mid-week,after dark, away from Ganges, bypassing the usual venues, in inclement weather. So asto overcome public �apathy� and foster involvement in public affairs, they would have usbelieve!

Tom Varzeliotisgoing as deep as need go.�

PS - I just cannot resist a postscript and here it is:

This is the submission I brought to the RAR soiree at the Fritz, where the Trust resumedthe intercourse with the people which Kris Nichols had attempted and which was thrice abortedalmost a year and a half earlier. My paper was censored instantaneously, on the spot, at theFritz.

On February 2012, after much ado, I got the LTC to order the censored �material�released with the next Cermak RAR report � it wasn�t to be! The Trust kept my submissionunder wraps until after they did the RAR, and even then they �released it hidden� � my paper inthe RAR Reference Documents listed where it would be least expected to be found. They madeit the last item in the last group of Reference Documents, alongside the Official CommunityPlan, the Local Government Act and other such eminent company!

After I bragged about them having treated my work as being �the best to be left for last�,the Trust hurriedly plumbed in another item (�RAR pamphlet�) after my paper; and added andanother �group of one item�, (�Media�), at the very end of the array. Presto, Tom� paper is nolonger the last item in the last group!

It is hilarious and I laugh, but I find it disconcerting being governed by people of such amindset and this makes me cry.

Another Wave of Trust Censorship

Introduction

This is another double-pronged submission. The first prong appears alien to a book onthe RAR but it is not. It is about the epicenter of the 2013 censorship tsunami whichsupercharged and pseudo legitimized the Trust censorship apparatus and it is relevant,because without censorship the Trust RAR would not likely be done.

It relates the Trust�s violent reaction to my Review of the �Hartley Report on BoothCanal� which upset Trustee Grove so much that he resolved on the spot to build the formidableTrust censorship system to �stop questions like Dr. Varzeliotis poses�, as he put it. This hasaffected everything the Trust has done since, including the imposition of the RAR.

167

The second prong is about one of several submissions I made to the Trust seeking toun-censor the submission I made at the Fritz RAR event on November 21, 2012, the importanceof which is measured by the intensity of the Trust determination to hide it from the public eye. Needless to say, the Trust answered my submission with burgeoning suppression ofexpression.

�Tom�s Town Hall Placardby Tom Varzeliotis � September 6, 2013

A New Wave of Trust Suppression of expression

1. At the August 22, 2013 SSI LTC meeting, after the �removal� (censoring) of mydelegation, the LTC stated that they did it �to protect Trust Staff� � but would not elaborate onthe perceived peril. This is tantamount to painting St. George lancing the dragon to save themaiden and leaving the dragon out of the picture!

When I pointed out the blank in that picture, Trustee Grove of the Trust Dragon SwatTeam suggested we step outside the saloon to sort things out. We did so on August 26, 2013,in a windowless room of the Trust office. Grove came flanked by RPM Hartley.

They both conducted themselves uncivilly... Any Questions?

2. On November 21, 2012, at the Fritz RAR event and after it, the Trust suppressed myanalysis of the pilot RAR �mapping� and the �Peer Review� of it. Thereafter the Trust foughtfiercely my requests to make things right until on March 21, 2013 when the LTC finally directedStaff to publish on line my submission. Staff ignored the LTC and at the August 22, 2013meeting I raised the issue via the Placard. Sadly, the LTC stonewalled on it.

Because of the importance of the matter, both per-se as well as in terms of democracy,and because it seems that censorship has become endemic with the Trust, I hereby repeat therequest that the LTC asserts control over the bureaucracy.

Tom Varzeliotis, Citizen, Civil Engineer�

168

The Road to RAR...

Introduction

May 8, 2014 was the day of the great RAR �educational� bash, budgeted at $8,500,meant to grease the rails for the launching of the RAR. It was to follow the regular LTCbusiness meeting, �reconvening� in the evening to discuss the RAR, they said. In anticipation ofthe evening RARbash, I brought to the LTC at the �TownHall and Questions� session, which isheld at high Noon, the following message via the Placard and viva voce:

�The Road to RAR...

The story of the Trust pushing RAR on us is interestingly sad. It is also too long and would notfit into this space. Let me remind you of some realities:

* The Trust hired a RAR-strongman to push the RAR on us. He too, failed to do what theTrust had deemed itself unable to do. ($100,000 down the drain).

* They induced public �apathy�, exemplified by staging the November 21, 2012 RARmeeting at the Fritz cinema, on a, literally, dark and stormy midweek night. With this theyreduced public attendance from the previous 400 to some 25 brave souls.

* They censored my analysis of the Pilot RAR Mapping, the �Peer Review� and the Trust�sown �Analysis� of them. The Staff furiously resisted �un-censoring� my submission andwhen the Trustees instructed the staff to publish what they had censored, the staffignored the Trustees.

It is imperative to understand that maps can be �bad maps� and this instance bad theyare. And that the availability of �maps� does not suffice to justify the imposition of the Trustversion of the RAR on us.

It is equally imperative to understand that mailing invitations to �affected� citizens todiscuss RAR Mapping one-to-one with a trained Trust Planner, is like putting me in the boxingring with George Chuvalo, or Justin Trudeau. This is no substitute for open debate unfolding inthe open in front of the public, beyond reach of the Trust�s mighty censorship axe.

Delivering citizens to a Planner for a tête-a-tête cannot compensate for the absence ofan impartial arbitration facility built in the RAR bylaw. This is not a small issue, RAR istantamount to �partial confiscation� of peoples� property, and lowers our homes and outhousesinto �non-conforming� structures. Even the BC Assessment Authority has such a mechanism,while errors in assessment are of one year duration while RAR errors are �forever�.

It is the duty of the Trust to come to terms with reality. Without the people beingapprised of the facts, without the citizenry being charged with information, democracymisfunction, not unlike a Ferrari fed hay instead of gas. And what need be done will not bedone, and what can be averted and must be averted, will be imposed on us with no prospect forrelief.

169

Come and show us the threshold of an acceptable RAR bylaw. Show us a legal analysisof how we can proceed. Forget the �peer reviews�, give us legal research of options open to usto define a RAR that we can live with. For unless we know that, we cannot discuss the RAR. It iswrong to do the RAR, based on the views of those who may profit from it, irrespective of howsincere they may be � do not forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Tom Varzeliotis May 8, 2014"

Requesting Agenda correction

Introduction

This is an unusual submission, but not one of a kind in the course of trying to get theTrust to operate as it must, to wit honestly. It is of interest in assessing the way the Trust did theRAR and almost everything else the Trust does. This because it explores the Trust practice of�Double Censoring�. This consists of censoring citizens� submissions secretly, then lying tosociety by writing in the Agenda: �SUBMISSIONS: None�, thereby censoring their ownunspeakable doings.

The Law decrees that the Trust does its business in front of the public; In Canada,censorship is illegal unless the War Measures Act has been invoked; and of course when theWMA is in force, censored material, even soldiers� letters to their families, are rubber-stampedin big red letters �CENSORED�, for obvious reasons. The �double censoring� appears being aTrust invention and manifest the readiness of the Trust to conduct itself in shameful andillegitimate manner...

A request to SSI LTC to amend the Agenda of its January 14, 2014meeting to affect compliance with the Trust�s mandate to conduct

itself truthfully and honourably.

Your Chairmanship:This is for the �Town Hall and Questions� session

which implies your �to answer� obligation. Which is your legal and ethical obligation,

That which you solemnly affirmed by running for election, It being to charge with information the people who trusted you at the last election, And given that you have censored my �Correspondence� and my �Delegation�,

Please answer this my question:How you plan to inform the population

That you have censored my communication.And how will you ameliorate the serious implications from your reckless violations

Of citizens democratic birthright to participation, While franking the sacred Freedom of Information and expression,

170

Without honouring your obligation to conduct yourselves honestly Vis a vis us, the population.

All I am asking for is a little of Luck to run a Gram of trust in the Groove of the landTom Varzeliotis, from Booth Canal with Love�

RARe Tough Questions

Introduction

A SSI family would not suffer silently the RAR and went public through the Driftwoodcommunity newspaper, the item bylined �Sean McIntyre, August 31, 2016". Because this wasthe first RAR application case to surface, it was generating the impression that it could be thefirst to occur, which I knew was not true. To prompt awareness, the next day, September 1, Ibrought the issue to the LTC via the Placard.

The LTC responded that they should not be expected to have the answer at theirfingertips, which prima fascia appears sensible but it is not. Yes, they ought to have the answerat their fingertips, for it was their duty to monitor the performance of a Bylaw that had taken fiveyears to concoct and which had drawn �unprecedented public interest�, as the LTC had calledthe public reaction to it, not to mention having spent a quarter of a million dollars, ostensibly tocomply with the wish of the Provincial Government. And they ought to have reported to societyon the performance of the RAR, which they had not done either. Evidently, being seen derelictin their duty was deemed by the Trust to be less painful than monitoring and reporting on theRAR.

I countered their �not having it at their fingertips� contention by asking whether theyknew of a single case where one who, in the past two years since the advent of the RAR, got bythe Trust RAR watch something without a QEP�s Report or an Affidavit of RARinocence � theypretended ignorance of this, too! I asked them point blank whether they had monitored theperformance of the controversial RAR Bylaw. They would only mumble, because this questionwas �tough, too!

Here is my query as I took it to the Trust on the Placard:

Tom�s TownHall Placard

September 1, 2016

***

�Town Hall and Questions� session A Question to the SSI LTC by Tom Varzeliotis

171

Dear Chairman Luckham,

Re: Monitoring the Performance of the SSI RAR Bylaw #480

I would appreciate the answer to the following question:

How many applications that could conceivably be or not be RAR affected has theTrust received and how many of these has the Trust accepted for processing bareof: either a �Report by a QEP�; or an Applicant-sworn Affidavit of �RAR-Innocence�; or for procession conditional to Applicant producing a QEP Report oran Affidavit?

Please, identify the Applications, if any.

I am referring to the 20 month period spanning January 1, 2015 to the date of this request.

Tom Varzeliotis, Forever RARely Correct�

I already commented on their invocation of the �ineptitude excuse� to evadingdemocratic accountability, to �protect and preserve� secrecy-in-governance.

The Trust would not talk RAR

Introduction

After the September 1, 2016 LTC meeting, Chairman Luckham did not honour thepromise he made to answer my query about the performance of the RAR bylaw.

His negation prompted me to submit the following Delegation for presentation to the LTCat its next meeting on September 23rd. Needless to report, the Trust double-censored mydelegation (�double-censoring� is censoring a Citizen and then censoring themselves, to hidetheir action and evade being called to account for the censoring).

I submitted the document, although I was expecting them to censor it, because this is avery important subject and I would not censor myself to spare the Trustees the consequencesof censoring it themselves and give them the defense of �citizens did not complain� about theirconduct.

Following is the paper I brought to the September 23, 2016 LTC meeting and which theydouble-censored on the spot.

172

The Trust would not talk RAR

The August 31, 2016 issue of the Driftwood Salt Spring Community paper carries anarticle titled �Riparian regs [regulations] surprise Channel Ridge property owners� andsub-titled �Development challenge stresses the importance of consultation�. It \waswelcome because it triggered a long overdue glimpse at the performance of the RAR which theTrust imposed on the Island in December 2015, it been almost two years since the bylaw cameinto effect.

Neighboring Saanich had a similar experience with a citizen exposing a bylaw enactedto protect some 2,000 �sensitive ecosystems�. Eventually a victim of that bylaw, Anita Bull�went public� and many others added their voice to hers. Their pleas for relief were heard butrelief was opposed by �fifth column� action within the Council, causing fears of the outcomebeing compromised to �cosmetic reform�. This would be the worst outcome as it takes the windfrom the sails of reform for a long time to come. The people of Saanich keep their fingerscrossed, I imagine...

The same thing happened in Salt Spring. Recently, the Trust hurled the RARbook atAdrian Scanlan and Richard Clarke who were working to build their dream home on theirproperty. The Trust stopped them in their tracks and sent them to find a QEP and purchasesome $1,500 worth of RAR science to guide the Trust Planners in determining whether to allowor forbid Scanlan & Clark to run a ½ inch water supply line to connect their yet to be built hometo the public water main running by their property.

Scanlan & Clarke found this difficult to take and cried out seeking relief. They wentpublic via the Driftwood article mentioned above. The next day I took up the issue with theTrust�s Local Trust Committee, through �Tom�s TownHall Placard�, the �newsletter� sheet Ipublish for such occasions. This drew more ugly stuff from the Trust.

I will review briefly the Driftwood article because it contains some ambiguities leading towrong impressions about a matter of utmost importance to islanders thereby posing the need tobe understood. The Driftwood article is found in this part of the Book for easy reference.

I will start with the article title and the subtitle, for they do need comment.

The article title states that when hit with the RAR club, Scanlan & Clarke became�surprised�. This is indicative of the surreptitious way the Trust did the RAR. This RAR simplycould not have been done in the light of day...

The subtitle �stresses the importance of consultation�. In effect, it echoes theposition the Trust�s SSI RPM Stefan Cermak took when interviewed by the Driftwood, on theScanlan&Clarke story. (RPM is not the common �revolutions per minute� usage � here it standsfor �regional planning manager� it being the title of the head of the Trust�s branch office in SSI.

With this assertion, Cermak seeks to reduce the issue to a mere failure of Scanlan &Clarke to follow procedure; blame it all on them; launder the RAR; and, of course protect theTrust planners against being seen overzealous.

173

Let�s take this a step further: Suppose Scanlan & Clarke had gone to the Trust for�consultation� at an earlier stage of planning their home: The only response the Trust officercould give is to go find and hire a QEP to certify that a domestic water connection is not a crimeagainst the environment, and would not affect the well-being of fish. Then take the QEP�sReport to the Trust and pray for a sympathetic planner to consider letting them access publicwater. But that does not speed things up; it relieves no one from the cost of a QEP Report; itdoes not spare one the pains from red tape; it does not help at all... Except, of course, in hidingthe harsh reality of the Trust RAR.

The Driftwood article states:

�Salt Spring's RAR bylaw is based on a provincially mandated requirement forlocal land-use agencies to protect fish-bearing water courses.�

That the SSI version of the RAR, was imposed by the Big Bad Victoria Government is not the whole truth. In reality, the SSI RAR bylaw No 480, was concocted locally and wasenacted by the Local Trust Committee (�LTC�) � and reflects substantially their mindset.

The Driftwood article states:

�About 1,500 property owners on Salt Spring are directly affected by RAR-designated water courses.�

Not true! Indeed the LTC has claimed that of the 3,271 Properties deemed impacted byRAR, only 1,544 are now RAR-listed, the rest having been rescued by clever RAR mapping. This is not true either. There are 5,761 properties in SSI, (Trust count) and all of them are nowimpacted by the RAR, albeit to various degrees, but no one remains RAR-free.

The Driftwood article states:

�Whereas some homeowners faced with such a predicament have the option tobypass their RAR area altogether, building around the problem wasn't a choicefor Scanlan and Clarke.�

This reference may be to that some owners of property lying far away from any water,may get away by swearing an Affidavit of RAR-innocence in lieu of a QEP report. But that doesnot mean that many citizens have the option of accessing this small RAR mercy.

The Driftwood article states:

�The Islands Trust's map shows a distinct RAR zone...�

The Trust RAR map does not show any �distinct RAR zone�. Simply said, there is no�Trust map� showing boundaries of the lands clawed into the RAR to make up the RARRepublic. As a reminder, the size of the SSI RAR Republic was initially estimated at �60%� ofthe island � the Trust disputed that but never came up with a figure of their own...

174

The Driftwood article states:

�He [RPM Cermak] added that the property doesn't appear to fall within any ofthe exemptions listed in the RAR legislation. Trust staff continue to workalongside the property owners and CRD building inspectors to resolve thematter.�

Likely they will resolve the matter so as to shut the lid on the Driftwood article and this isgood for Scanlan & Clarke. But it does not eradicate the nonsense the Trust have built into thatRAR bylaw.

The Driftwood article states:

�Cermak said the situation highlights the need for all parties involved in thepurchase, sale and development of land to thoroughly consult with all regulatoryagencies.�

��This occurs to me as being regular due diligence,� Cermak said.�

Yavol Commandant!

The Driftwood article states:

�Information about areas affected by RAR and a comprehensive map of theisland's DPA7 zones is available at the Trust office.�

As for �information about areas affected by RAR being available from the Trust office�this is not true either. The Trust fought tooth and nail against former Trustee George Ehring�ssuggestion to have the Trust determine whether a property is in the RAR or not, and accordinglysend only those who test positive to buy a report from a Qualified Environmental Professional(QEP). The Staff won that one, too, and now the only advice they have to give to applicants is togo hire a QEP and buy a Report, for without it the Trust would not let you grow the zucchini andgarlic garden you dream of.

The Driftwood article is not exhaustive but suffices to warn us that the Trust has much tohide about the RAR.

I will close this review with an account of my presentation to the LTC.

Prompted by the Driftwood article, I went to the Trust meeting on September 1, with thefollowing question, in writing and voice:

�How many applications that could conceivably be or not be RAR affected hasthe Trust received and how many of these has the Trust accepted for processingbare of: either a �Report by a QEP�; or an Applicant-sworn Affidavit of �RAR-Innocence�; or for processing conditional to the Applicant producing a QEPReport or an Affidavit?�

175

They could not know that, they could not be expected to have this information in theirfingertips, they responded.

I rephrased my question to refresh their memory or at least to make it very easy for themto answer:

�Has there ever been any application done without a QEP�s Report or a swornAffidavit�, I asked.

No one knew that, either. But they ought to know the answers because they havethemselves written into the Bylaw that they, their successors and heirs, cannot process anysuch applications without sending the applicant to a QEP, a Lawyer or a Notary Public. But thatis what I was trying to draw out and they were determined to hide.

The LTC moved on to evade answering, for their failure to look at the performance of thehighly potent bylaw they have imposed on the Island for the first two years after imposing it. Ifind this highly inappropriate. Or disingenuous...

Perhaps I shall copy here the way Trustee Grams remarked on my presentation to theLTC at its �TownHall and Questions� period. Transcribed from the audio recording, it reads:

�Trustee Grams: �Well, the LTC does not have that information at theirfingertips. I think Staff [pause] . If Staff are prepared to provide it then [pause] � I will leave that to their discretion if the planning manager [pause]. I think that isall we can do!�

�If Staff are prepared to provide it ?�

�I [Trustee Grams] will leave that to their [Staff ] discretion?�

�Is that is all we [the elected LTC, the peoples� representatives] can do?�

Chairman Luckham asked whether I �still want an answer to my question.� To which, ofcourse, I answered �Yes�. He said that I will get one... And closed the discussion.

Well, in effect, I had already got the answer right then and there, had I not?

Andria and Richard of Channel Ridge are not alone. The Trust has us all simmering inthe RAR cauldron � The heat emanates from fusion of their secrecy with our innocence!

Let the Truth about the RAR Triumph... No Remorse, Apologies, or Relief in Sight

Introduction

At the September 1, 2016 LTC meeting, Chairman Luckham closed the LTC reaction tomy query regarding RAR performance by asking me if I �still wanted answers� to the questionabout the existence, in the eyes of the Trust, of RARfree citizens. I would have said �no� if the

176

Trustees had shown some remorse and had taken a step, even a shy one, to commence areview of the RAR. But they did not, and I answered Luckham �yes�. I wanted to let the peopleknow what the Trust wanted to hide from the public eye.

Of course I received no answers. I should say because the best the Trust could do foritself was to �invoke the Fifth�, as they say South of the border. In other words, they were nottelling the Truth when they were telling us about having saved most of us from the RAR. Thismade me bring the following requests to the LTC at its September 23, 2016 meeting:

�Let the Truth about the RAR Triumph...

Recently, the Trust hurled the RARbook at Adrian Scanlan and Richard Clarke to blockthem running a ½ inch water supply line by their driveway to connect their home to the publicwater system.

The LTC has claimed that only one in four island properties are RARified, the remaining 4,217 being RARfree � which is not true. To demonstrate that what happened to Scanlan &Clarke, was the �norm� under the Trust RAR, I challenged the Trust to tell us how many permitshave been issued without QEP reports or sworn Affidavits of RARpurity � They would not tell,because there aren�t any!

Their silence constitutes continuation of the disinformation about the massive RARproperty confiscation, which was spread by the Trust to glide the RAR past us.

Now I ask once again the Trust to level with us and scuttle the dreadful RAR � �Now�, forit is already late.

In effect all I am asking is to give us back what you should not have taken from us.

Tom Varzeliotis, Thoroughly RARirked citizen�

Caricature Trust Meeting

Comment:

The conduct of the Trust at the September 1st and the September 23rd LTC meetingswas too much to take lying down, thereby accommodating the Trust�s desire for secrecy. Sostrong was their urge to hide what transpired at the September 23rd LTC meeting that theywould not post the audio recording of it, it being the first time of doing that as far as I know. Itwas after I raised the issue and they realized that they were �caught� that they posted it! Withoutapologies, or posting date, of course...

177

When I saw the �Draft Minutes� of the October 13th LTC meeting, I was impressed by theclever spinning of words they had done to render palatable, if not attractive, what they wanted tohide. However, the duty of citizens to expose wrongdoings is determined by the extent of theneed to hide felt by the perpetrators. As it happened, I had the information and this made it myduty to let people know, which I did on October 13th.

PS: I had been checking out daily, the Trust�s website for the Audio recording of theSeptember 23rd LTC meeting since September 28th, when it was due. This because I wanted torefresh my memory in preparation of my submission to the October 13th LTC meeting. The lasttime I checked was on October 13th at 8:16 AM, which was one hour and 14 minutes prior to thecommencement of the LTC meeting � the September 23rd audio had not been posted. Yet theyhad added the audio of a later event that of the October 3 meeting the SSI LTC had conductedon Piers Island!

However, at the LTC meeting I divulged that I was aware of the withholding of the audiotape. Lo and behold the audio of the September 23rd LTC meeting hurriedly surfaced where ithad previously been absent!

This indicates that they sought to hide what I exposed at the September 23rd LTCmeeting for obvious reasons. But they were caught red-handed and then, cat-quietly, the Trustplumbers (�plumbers� as in Nixon�s Watergate) were dispatched to fix the problem I hadexposed! It is not the first time they have done that and to hope that it is the last would be naive.

Tom�s Town Hall PlacardTom Varzeliotis � October 13, 2016

A Caricature Trust Meeting

The September, 23 2016 LTC meeting

The propensity of the Trust to conduct itself in a manner serving their need to hide theirconduct has accelerated steadily since 2013: Files are purged, videotaping is banned, theFreedom of Information Act is maligned, the content of Meeting Minutes is �cooked�; citizenswho expose Trust wrongdoings are publicly attacked; citizens rights, including fundamentalones protected by the Charter, are routinely trampled.

The Trustees� and the Chair�s Reports, being a mere token offering to democraticaccountability, have shrunk to Trustees telling us with whom they drunk a cuppa of tea in theinterim; the Trust website is labyrinthine by design; citizens� appeals for openness are answeredby plugging holes and closing cracks to hide the secrecy in government as to avert demandsfor openness. Expression of views contrary to the Trust�s official line of truth, or which aresimply displeasing to Trustees or the Staff, are instantaneously double-censored; Rehearsedskits are acted to cosmetically �fulfil� the Trust obligation to conduct its business in public. Thisis not an exhaustive list, but enough said, I trust...

178

To illuminate the above I will take a look of the September 23 LTC meeting Minutes andfor the sake of brevity I will focus only on the Agenda/Minutes slot �TownHall and Questions�: Itcomprises three items, as follows:

�One member of the public expressed opposition regarding application SS-TUP-2016.4(Islands Trust Office at 500 Lower Ganges Road) and raised concerns that this item wasadvanced from the afternoon to the morning session.

One member of the public expressed support for Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) andfor the protection of watercourses on Salt Spring Island. Concern was expressedregarding Cusheon Lake water quality. Support was expressed for application SS-TUP-2016.4.

One member of the public expressed opposition to the Riparian Areas Regulations onSalt Spring Island and requested a review of Adopted Bylaw No. 480.�

This ostensibly reports the whole TownHall session of that meeting and it is dizzily spun,to hide the ugly reality. The whole picture being cleverly processed to hide much and distort therest, to convey impressions at variance with the reality it pretends to depict.

The first �member of the public� who spoke at that meeting was Mr. John Quesnel. TheMinutes recording that an unidentified �member of the public� said something or other, it doesnot matter what, about �SS-TUP-2016.4 (Islands Trust Office at 500 Lower Ganges Road)�.Even with a boulder-size crystal ball, one would not discern what Quesnel said. It could beabout erecting covered bicycle parking for employees, or venting the office coffee machine... Who knows? The confusion is not incidental.

Quesnel did not really object to SS-TUP-2016.4 per se, if one somehow bother toinvestigate what it this. His stance was against discrimination, conflict of interest and abuse ofauthority. He exposed the Trust being in sharp conflict of interest when deciding their ownapplication, which is what SS-TUP-2016.4 is; Quesnel exposed the LTC succumbing totemptation in a conflict of interest situation. And castigated discrimination citizens suffer in thehands of the Trust.

Additionally, Quesnel exposed the Trust deliberately scrambling the Agenda to discussSS-TUP-2016.4, in effect behind the public eye. Expecting opposition to what they were doing,they scheduled the item for the afternoon session and then they shifted it to the morningsession which has the least public attendance, thereby offending the Law that decrees the Trustdoes its business in front of the public, and pulling the carpet from under the feet of who wouldcome to object.

After some seven years of studying the Trust, I vet these assertions of Quesnel � theyare meritorious and their occurrence must be damned as Martin Niemöller has convincibleasserted in his world-wide celebrated �They came for...� poem.

In addition, I note that the Trust transposed the second and third �members of thepublic� in the Minutes. This facilitated turning the �information-to-be recorded topsy turvy � staytuned!

179

The �One member of the public [who] expressed opposition to the� RAR, was I, TomVarzeliotis, and I spoke right after Quesnel. I spoke to the article I had brought to the LTCthrough the Placard and which I had titled: �Let the Truth about RAR Triumph�.

With it, I expose once again, the secrecy the Trust maintains about the RAR to evadedemocratic accountability. And I am asking the Trust to let the people see the real RAR, naked,to see the wolf without the lambskin...

The Minutes shows that I �expressed opposition to the Riparian Areas Regulations onSalt Spring Island and requested a review of Adopted Bylaw No.480.� Notice the cleverdisassociation of the RAR from Bylaw No.480 � this is to portray me as an argumentative chap,a negative type, one who objects to everything, one who is intolerant of other peoples� beliefsand is as irreverent as to �requests a review of adopted Bylaw No. 480�...

The �One member of the public who expressed support for Riparian Areas Regulations(RAR) and for the protection of watercourses on Salt Spring Island� was Norbert Schlenker andhe spoke after me.

Imagine the image this rendition of the event may generate: Two years after the RARenactment, people come to express their appreciation for that lovely RAR! Do not miss thebundling of RAR with the �protection of watercourses on Salt Spring Island�!

Norbert did open his speech with a parenthetic to his subject comment, expressing hisdisagreement with what he thought I had just told the LTC about RAR. Norbert would not oppose a request to �Let the Truth about RAR Triumph� � this only the Trust would object to!

Since, that was being a �Townhall and Questions� session, it was proper for Norbert toenter into discussion of whatever was �thrown into the ring� and so he did. I recognized that hehad misunderstood me and I sought to set the record straight.

This, the Chair would not allow. I tried to tell Luckham the facts about the flowers and thebees, about my right to answer my critics and his duty to honour my rights and to ensure thatthe LTC, and by extension the society, should hear both sides of the story. Luckham wouldnot relent, he was determined to uphold the supremacy of the Trust over law and socialconventions.

I challenge the Trust to come up with someone willing to refute my assertion that theTrust hides important information about the RAR and/or dispute, in the open, the merit of my callto Trust to �Let the Truth about RAR Triumph�.

Imagine what would have happened if the Minutes had reported truthfully what unfoldedin that meeting, the entry reading something like:

�Tom Varzeliotis, a retired P.Eng, who has followed closely the making of theRAR since 2009 and has made numerous submissions to the Trust about it,presented a paper and spoke to the Trust having left society in the dark aboutthe RAR, asking the Trust to level with the people and inform us about the RAR �The Chair and the Trustee fell silent.

180

The Chair steadfastly denied Varzeliotis his right to answer Norbert Schlenker who took exception to Varzeliotis� presentation.�

I would like to touch now on the Trust practice of demeaning citizens who seek tocontribute to the public affairs of the society by portraying them as amorphous �members of thepublic�, unworthy to be named. I have raised the issue with Luckham, who promised correctiveaction that never materialized. Recently I asked Cermak whether this is Trust policy and if so,its origin and date. His answer is that it is indeed so, but he would not answer my otherquestions. I suspect his silence, about who did it, is because the decision was made in hiding, which in turn makes it additionally illegal, unethical and ugly.

Finally I would like to report the latest escalation of Trust censorship. To censor me andto hide the subject of my submission via the �Tom�s TownHall Placard�, for sometime they werepretending to gross ineptitude, reporting in the Minutes as follows: �A member of the publicpresented written material entitled Town Hall Placard�. But people got to know that it is Tomwho writes in the Placard and this the Trust does not like to be known. Now they go all the wayto ban mention of the Placard, and refer to �written material� ...

At this point I want to make clear as a bell my belief that the Minute takers are notto blame, that the shame for the sad state of the Minutes should be born entirely by theTrust Brass.

I will close my presentation with a quote from Luckham� predecessor, SheilaMalcolmsom, who told society through the Driftwood, the July 10, 2010 edition, in a piece titled�Trust has Minutes Policy�, reading as follows:

�Islands Trust Policy 4.1.vii says �minutes are intended to be a condensed versionof the discussion that took place��

181

An Afternoon at the ArtSpring Theater - May 8, 2014In 2011, the Trust held a couple of PRopaganda RAR meetings and attempted a public

hearing, all organized by RAR consultant Kris Nichols. But by Mid 2011 the people knewenough about the RAR to become worried and when in Mid-June Nichols scheduled a �publicconsultation event�, the people swarmed in to give the Trust a piece of their mind. The eventwas thrice aborted in as many days and this pulled the curtain to the first act of the Trust RARplay.

Nichols� failure was officially attributed to peoples� inability to understand his RARsermons. The LTC terminated Nichols and passed the RAR file to Planner Stefan Cermak alongwith the command to educate the people and make us love the RAR; the Staff promptly ignoredthe LTC command and laid low.

The RAR became an issue at the November 2011 election, but the promoters managedto shrink the matter and contain it into the one issue, that of RAR-mapping the Island.

The RAR flared up again in February 2012 when the newly elected trustees Grove andGram sought to do the RAR �properly� as they had promised in their campaign. However, theStaff steered them the wrong way and when this invoked public reaction, the Staff reacted bycensoring public input adverse to their pursuit of the RAR.

Surprisingly quickly, the new �Trustees for Change� became embedded into the Trustand the Staff shed their fears that they would bring Change. This led to �collaboration� thatresulted in the November 2012, infamous �popcorn and poppycock, RARe PRopaganda event,which they rolled out on a dark and stormy night in the �out of town� Fritz cinema to toast the�successful� outcome of the RARmapping �pilot�.

Then, after declaring the 2012 �pilot� RARmapping a �success� at the Fritz, they movedon to similarly RARmismap the whole Island. The Staff got Madrone Environmental Services ofDuncan, B.C. to do it, they being the people who had done the �Peer Review� of the ISSES PilotRAR Mapping.

But before hobbling us with the RAR the Trust had to stage another �consultation� withthe public. The Staff and the Trustees having understood that a repeat of the �Fritz� eventwould be too gross to attempt, set it at the ArtSpring foyer and made it a �rich cheese and sweetRAR chat�, it being of higher grade than the Fritz theme of �popcorn and poppycock�.

Moreover, this time around they did the thing in the afternoon, in Ganges, all beingmajor concessions by the public-phobic Trust. The event unfolded on May 8, 2013, some twoyears after the previous LTC had directed the Staff to convert the islanders into RARophiles. Noeducation had been done in the interim, but so be it, the time had come for the Trust to RARinterface with us and the LTC budgeted $8,500 to stage a show at ArtSpring.

The budget seems rich, and it is. I have not a breakdown of the actual cost, but itappears most of the money was earmarked to buy PRopaganda infographics with which to�persuade� the people that the RAR is lovely.

182

Infographics are important communication tools but not unlike other wonderfulinventions, they have been embraced by the PRopaganda industry and made into mightyinstrument for the spread of sophistry. Because the �picture� conveys surreptitiously themessage of the persuaders and does not invite scrutiny of the message, infograms are deadlyinstrument of disinformation. In this instance the message being peddled was that the RAR isabout comforting fishes, mostly mythical fishes, and was pursued by hushing up the impositionof permanent discomfort to the humans.

The event is of significance to understanding the RAR because of its RARity, and mainlybecause it manifests the gross disinformation dissemination the Trust deployed to slam theRAR onto us.

The Trust plays RAR at the ArtSpring

On May the 8, 2014, some 80 people gathered at the Artspring it being a poor showingafter the previously attempted RAR events on June 20, 2011 � that time around, people hadswarmed by the hundreds, over-filling the Artspring to the brim, spilling out, causing concerns topolice and the firefighters. A far cry from that, this time it took a pile of fruit, a load of cheeseand several jugs of organic fruit juices to attract some 80 people to the RAR event.

The gathering was dominated by RARophiles. People who would argue the root issuesof what the Trust was doing to the Island were sparsely represented, mainly due to seeing nopoint in being there. The event was firmly controlled, all as expected by those who had watched the Trust traveling the road to RAR. Citizens could dot the i�s and cross the t�s andcould discuss the shade of the colouring on the RARmaps but could not affect much else. Speaking against the RAR at such a gathering would be like speaking against a substantialSaint in a medieval Basilica.

The Artspring foyer was set up for the occasion with coloured RAR Maps andinfographic posters hanging on the walls and resting on easels. There were Trust Plannersstrategically positioned on the floor to greet us, much like the �greeters� at Costco and other bigbox stores. They were offering direction to RAR maps and posted documents and invitingquestions of the curious.

In due course, the organizers split the participants into small groups, each to be seatedat a round table to ensure �equality�, thereby giving the RAR a fake aura of being made �by thepeople, for the people and the fish�. Creating the mirage that we, the people, routed the Truston its way to the RAR, would disarm critics of the Trust and the RAR.

To draw out the �truth�, the Trust had gone to pains to control the group discussions.They issued the participants an �Information Sheet� on which to consolidate�their thinking�which was to be formed with the handed out and the hung up infographics and by listening tothe wordy information dispensed by the Trust people. To further facilitate this, the Trust issuedto attendees a form titled �Feedback Sheet� ostensibly designed to convey the deductionpeople would arrive at the round table discussions. This too, would facilitate funneling thediscussion away from what the True RAR the Trust was bent on hiding.

Halfway through the event, caterers arrived and loaded a long table with cheese,

183

grapes, other fruit, and non alcoholic beverages. Needless to say there were no sardines,oysters or other water-borne delicacies! Incidentally, this costly event was another indication ofthe Trust�s willingness to �help the provincial government implement the RAR�!

A close look at the Trust RAR �LitterRature�

The sixth group of the RAR �Reference Documents� (posted post-RAR-imposition, inearly 2015, on the Trust website) is labeled �Community Information Meeting Documents�. Thefirst item of the Group is labeled �Community Information Handouts�. It contains 10 items, nine of which are infograms, the tenth being the �Workshop Introduction�. All refer to the May 8,2016 RAR event at the Artspring theater. They are important because they summarize thePRopaganda literature the Trust developed and unleashed to push the RAR past the people.And because the Trust uses it to �prove� that they did the RAR democratically, carrying throughthe will of the demos.

The �handouts� are deceptive. They are rich in disinformation, with the odd innocuous�truths� inserted strategically to create optics of credibility thereby enriching the potency of thedispensed deception.

A visitor to the Trust Website may stumble on the handout bunch at the end of thefollowing path:

�http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/islands/local-trust-areas/salt-spring/projects-initiatives/previous-projects/riparian-areas-regulation/reference-documents/#sthash.pmdIeYDg.dpuf�

Following I will copy the Trust Infographics and the �Feedback Sheet�, laced with a tadof commentary. Enjoy!

Infographic No. 1: �What is the Riparian Area Regulations (RAR)?�

184

This was May 8, 2014; the Trust had started the RAR sometime in mid-2010; they hadspend some 1/4 million Dollars pushing the RAR on the island; $100,000 of it on a Consultanthired to �educate� us on the RAR; and had Staff spent a lot of pricy time �educating� afterNichols, the Consultant, became RAR-dissipated. Yet, after all these years of educating us,they figured that we need more tutoring on RAR. Wouldn�t that indicate incompetence on theirpart? Well, persuaders know all too well that instilling a feeling of ignorance increases theperceptiveness of whom they target.

The Trust�s answer to this rhetorical question, is in the five �bullets� of this highlyenlightening in-fog-graphic:

Bull #1: �The Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR), enacted by the province in 2006, requires localgovernment to protect riparian areas.�

This is basically true. However, I question the contention that the Government of BCcompels the Trust to spend a quarter of a million Dollars to �sell� the RAR to islanders. Andcertainly, the Government of BC did not compel the Trust to write such a bad Bylaw as the onethey impose on us.

It is pertinent that the Trust insisted that the Government of BC had left it no choice butto enact the Trust RAR on us. The then Trust CEO Linda Adams personally maligned formerTrustee Eric Booth for reasoning that the Trust did not have to do the RAR.

�The devil government in Victoria forces us to do the RAR� had been the official mantraof the Trust. It has been the main page in the Trust�s RAR hymn book since January 2011 whenthen Trustee George Ehring introduced Kris Nichols as a RAR guru set to lead us to RARnirvana. Ehring and Nichols told us about the RAR, and emphasized that it is a creation of theGovernment of the Province, who decreed that each and all local governments of BC enactbylaws adopting the RAR. �Blame them, the Government of British Columbia, not us�, the Trust,they insinuate, �we simply follow orders lest we be insubordinate�, that is all, they kept telling us.

Incidentally, the Trust never sought reimbursement for the money ostensibly spent doingthe RAR job on instruction and on behalf of the Government of BC... This is the Trust whodemands the people pay the LTCs and the Trus for making us suffer the RAR as if we hadasked for it!

At no time did Nichols, Cermak or the rest of the RAR prime movers cite the section ofthe RAR that orders the Trust to duplicate the RAR. However, they copiously uttered the claimthat they were working hard on behalf of the people, �to meet but not exceed the obligations theRAR imposes upon the Trust�. In effect, they labored to do the maximum RAR they could getaway with. Anyway, pertinent is that they never answer challenges to show us where to find itin the Government of BC RAR nor they headed suggestions to get legal interpretation of theRAR.

But what are these obligations? The Trust did not yield to the request to delineate them.This is the Trust who wasted one quarter of a Million Dollars of local peoples� money on�consultants� , �map-makers�, �peers�, �third persons� etc, ostensibly to meet obligationsallegedly imposed upon the Trust by the Provincial Government, persistently refusing publicpleas to produce evidence of such.

185

As a reminder, the provincial government is in charge of the fresh water fishery and theRAR does not detract from that. The RAR transfers no powers over the fishery to LocalGovernments, none, period!

As I reason throughout this book, the RAR is for the benefit of the QEP industry and theTrust bureaucrats � the fish is merely incidental to it, it is only a means to selfish ends, it is�collateral damage� to the cause of compromising the truth.

Bull #2: �Riparian areas are the land areas bordering watercourses�

This is a loose notion, inadequate to sustain law making. It would have a parallel indefining �murder� as �taking life� � imagine the effects it would have on abattoir, pest control,military; and other industries workers, who earn a living by �taking lives�!

Of course, a glance at the map would show that all land on the surface of the Earthborder �watercourses� - no exception!

Bull #3: �Riparian areas provide shelter and nutrients while protecting fish habitat.�

Because, (as per bullet 2, etc) �riparian areas� are �land areas�; and since fish live inwater but die on land; therefore, riparian areas provide no shelter for fish!

Ditto for the blanket assertion that riparian areas provide nutrients to fish � this isanother wild generalization. The professed need to secure this source of nutrients for the fish, isentirely bare of substance. To argue this assertion, one needs quantify the amount of fish dietthat comes from the �riparian areas� at issue; determine how much of that is hitherto denied tofish due to the absence of RAR protection; the effect it had on the fish population; and thebenefits expected from RARprotecting it! But this was not done by the proponents of the RAR... They just proclaim universal fish famine and want to make us repent, reform, pay and pray!

The onus is on the RAR proponents to demonstrate a shortage of land-borne fish food;and show calculations justifying the confiscation of 60% of the land area of SSI to give it theQEPs to be given to fish nutrient production and that the remaining 40% of the SSI land be leftto feed the rest, i.e., the animals, the birds, the reptiles and us humans, the 10,000 souls whoendure and nilly willy �feed� the Trust. Surely there are many more parameters to beresearched before shackling society with the RAR.

Procuring a Panzer Tank for bringing the hay from the field to the barn is unbecomingwise folk although it would make a lucrative market for Panzer Tank makers.

Bull #4: �RAR deals with riparian areas only for NEW Residential, Commercial, or Industrialdevelopment.�

This statement is atrocious. To begin with, note the capitalized �NEW� for it gauges theTrust� readiness to lie, it measures their determination to fool the people! No, it ain�t stupidity, itis unadulterate malice, unabashedly expressed! Thgey want to ease the people into a falsesecurity that the RAR does not imperil their homes, which it entirely false, and the Trust knewthat was false, because, even if they could not figure out by themselves, citizens, including me,had explained this to them.

186

RAR does not deal �only for NEW Residential Commercial, or Industrial development�!Far from that, RAR claws into itself everything, be it NEW, old, or in-between. RAR makesexisting peoples� homes and other property �non-conforming�, and imposes other restrictionsthat seriously limit the use and the enjoyment of property and substantially reduce, or diminishproperty value.

The way the Trust did the RAR, affects everyone, everywhere on the Island, even thoseliving on mountain tops. The Trust Staff have positioned themselves to bug everyone, they have pronounced all of us RARguilty and have saddled us with the onus of swearing Affidavits ofRARinnocence and RARcelibacy for ever and ever, Amen!

As for the �Commercial, or Industrial development�, note that to those the RAR is like abox of band-aids in a heart transplant operating room. To such developers RAR matters lessthan a mosquito on the horn of a bull. We already have in place a host of better laws to regulatethose developers.

Bull #5: �RAR stipulates that a developer provides an assessment report by a QualifiedEnvironmental Professional (QEP) before local government can approve a new development�.

Yes, of course, �that is all there is to it�, they say � �that is all RAR is about� I say. Andis lucrative for the QEP and the Trust, painful for the people who want to sting a hammock andwho the Trust labels �developer�!

In this bullet, we read clearly what the RAR is all about: that it is to turn the island into amarket for the fledgling QEP industry and create a rich source of permit-fee revenue for the�local government�, to wit the Trust. It is the Trust building up its bureaucratic muscle...

Enough said for that Infographic, I trust. Let�s now move to Infographic #2.

Infographic No. 2: �What is Riparian Area (RA)?�

187

Here we have another rhetorical question answered by the Trust in three bullets.

Bull #1: �Riparian area is defined as any area bordering a �stream��

This is an improvement over an early Trust definition of the subject as being an area�immediately adjacent� (Trust syntax) to streams � yet the fix of the wording is not enough.

Evidently the infographer meant �area of land�. But, there is no land that does no borderwater and there is no waterbody that does not, at least occasionally, �stream�. What is then�riparian area�? The answer is important because it is law-language we are discussing here!

Bull #2: �A �stream� is defined in RAR to include a watercourse, whether it usually containswater or not, that provide fish habitat.�

A stream including a watercourse? Be darned!

In precise language, their definition would include all the land surface of the Earth, savefor the Sahara and other deserts, because precipitation turns all dry land into water conduit.

�A stream� is meant to �include� a watercourse, be it dry or wet � whatever the case maybe... Problem is that if fish �inhabits� a waterless watercourse, the fish is dead and thereby haslost the capacity to appreciate RAR benefits.

Bull #3: ��Streams� include ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks, ditches, springs, and wetlands if theyare connected by surface flow to fish habitat.�

This bullet is �meant to include� all that for �added clarity� one presumes!

Infographic No. 3: �Timeline�

The purpose of the infographic is to inform of the four plateaus in the Trust descent toRAR. They are depicted as large dots, each with its legend, tagged to a horizontal timeline. Iwill denote them as �T-posts X� and comment on them.

188

T-post 2006: Here we go again, the boring mantra about the devil in Victoria is making theangelic Trust do the RAR in SaltSpring. I glanced at the Provincial RAR document and foundnothing more than the following:

�The RAR calls on local governments to protect riparian areas�

This does not compel the Trust to spend a quarter of a million Dollars to pacify the iratepopulace to tolerate the Trust enacting a bylaws to administer a �Provincial Regulation� � this,the government of BC could do by itself if that was its wish. Moreover, no government wouldever compel another government to do a bylaw as poorly worded and accordingly potentiallypainful to citizenry as the SSI Bylaw No. 480.

Anyway, since the Trust has not pointed to any section of the Provincial RAR compelling the Trust to make such a bylaw, one is bound to question the Trust mantra about been forced toenact the silly bylaw the Trust made.

T-post 2011: The thrice aborted, in as many days, RAR �rally� in mid June 2011 crescendoedthe public disgust for the RAR.

At the time the Trust attributed the triple abortion to �unprecedented public interest�, butin body language they recognized the failure of Nichols to produce adequate public apathyabout the RAR. It is to this the Infographer refers to with �Many residents oppose proposedbylaw and request mapping of local streams.�

Indeed, among the many peoples� concerns was the mapping the lands eyed to bebrought into the RAR. That �mapping� meant colouring �streams� on an old map, was the RARpromoters� preferred interpretation of the term. In reality, at issue was the extent and theidentity of the land about to be grabbed into the RAR. The demand for mapping was fueled by the Trust denying the then prevailing assertion that 60% of the island land was to go into RARbut refusing to provide a figure of its own � the Trust never did!

As a matter of interest, if the Trust was indeed ignorant of how much land would go intothe RAR they ought to be cited for gross ineptitude. If on the other hand they had figured it outand were hiding it from the people, they should be cited for subverting democracy ... In eithercase, the Trust looks bad...

Regrettably, the Trust sought and managed to goad the people to ignore mapping theproposed RARland and mislead us to focus on �Mapping the Streams�. At issue is not the sizeof a stream or the fish population swing in it � at issue is the Land to be grabbed into the RAR.�Mapping the Streams� would be like measuring peoples� IQ to design helmets, instead ofdetermining the size of the cranium and pondering the type and intensity of the impact thehelmet is to absorb. The Trust wasted some $150,000 on �mapping�... on mapping reallynothing, but on colouring the streams on the old SSI map.

T-post 2012�2014: Why would the infographer record that it was the �Local Trust Committee and Staff� who did the Mapping? Simple! It shows the Staff innocent of the mishandling of the�RAR mapping� for which they were severely criticized. The infographer�s wording insinuatesthat there is nothing to blame the Staff for, because the RAR mapping was blessed by thepeoples� representatives! As for the assertion that it was only the Trust among the Local

189

Governments of the province that had not legislated RAR was not true either.

The Trust has never shown the people of SaltSping any Trust Bylaw enacted by anyother Local Government. Such could serve as a prototype, or would enable us to judge howlovely is the one the Trust �yoked� us with (�yoked� is the word for the imposition of the RARwhich Grams used for it before becoming a Trustee).

T-post 2014: Yes, the Staff had drafted a Bylaw, a sad example of one, and the May 8meeting under discussion was staged to create the impression that the public was part of themaking of that Bylaw.

Infographic No 4: �Riparian Areas Proposal�

This builds on the previous Infographic by laying out for us to see what the Trust foughtand won for us, lest we not notice. The infographic is supposed to be comparison of what theTrust was offering us that day over what was offering us before. These were to pass as improvements to the SSI RAR, won for us by the Trust fighting the evil Provincial Government. Itis intended to elicit appreciation of the Trust effort and meet the expression of public gratitudefor the brilliant work �they� did for us. Let�s go through that:

Dot #1: �More Accurate � Mapping has been completed.�

The Trust wasted some $150,000 of taxpayers Dollars on colouring the streams on theIsland map. Is this �mapping�? Is it �more accurate� than what? What is the amount of non-crown owned Salt Spring land that comes into the precinct of the RAR? What percentage isthat of all the privately held land? Did the trust figure that?

In 2010 they identified 26 previously un-identified �RAR Designated Watersheds� theysay! That is impressive!

But what is a �RAR Designated Watershed�, and what its �identification� does to lessenpains from the RAR?

In 2011, Streams were not �individually mapped� and the �number of streams in

190

watersheds� was a mystery. Now they are mapped and enumerated, respectively.

But what is an �individually mapped� stream? What use do we have for the �number� ofthe streams in watersheds�? What is a �watershed mapped for individual streams�?

As for �streams not been mapped�, I will mention that the Water Survey of Canada hasa good inventory of the �wet� ones, in many instances c/w hydrographs and other information.Extrapolation of these would yield reliable information for streams not water-surveyed. But thereis not a single mention by the RARmakers to the Water Survey of Canada, absolutely none!Which is like studying Heaven ignoring St. Pater and the Angels...

Dot #2: �Less Impact � Significant reduction in number of lots impacted by proposed bylaw. 2011 � 3271 Land parcels impacted by proposed bylaw.2014 � 1544 Land parcels impacted by proposed bylaw.

Wow! What a difference! The Trust had wasted some $100,000 on Kris Nichols toRARify the island. But because of that July 2011 three-day show of �unprecedented publicinterest� the Trust wasted another $150,000 (estimated) to �deRARify 1,727 out of the �3,271RAR Land parcels�, This would leave for RAR to claw in only �1,554 Land parcels�, the Trustinforms and bangs its chest with unbridled pride, Tarzan Style.

Regrettably the Trust has not published a list of the �1544 Land parcels impacted byproposed bylaw�, nor have they identified the RAR-free properties.

They overshot mention of the RARland boundaries because they do not want thepeople to know that hardly anyone is spared RARpain that we are all together in the RARcauldron! The �silence� is intended to evade Public RAR-ire.

Dot #3: RAR in Small, Medium and Large � Stretching and shrinking the Law

The Provincial RAR documents are not reminiscent of Beatrix Potter clarity, far from it. Ido not claim RAR scholarship, but I read though the BC RAR document and found it to be �one size RAR width fits all streams. And I understand �all� to mean �all�, from the Fraser River andthe Okanagan Lake down to the roadside ditches, leaving unregulated only the dark clouds in�streaming� in the sky.

Then, who and how can turn RAR topsy turvy? Who has the power to �cut and fit� law�?Who did all this customization to the RAR? Who cut in half the number of the �RAR impactedparcels of land�? Could not he/she/it/they, halved it again?

If that much can be done, why not more? Why not parse the RAR further, to relieve thetaxing of the �1,544" islanders the RAR is burdening ostensibly to ensure fish protein supply forall of us, pray tell.

This emergence of �bargainable law� is a serious one and must be thrashed out for itreaches the root of the principle of being �governed by law�.

191

Infographic No. 5: �Watercourses �streams� � Riparian Areasscaled�

What this is meant to mean is that instead of having one size RAR strips, 30 meters inwide to fit �all them watercourses�, they decided to bring the RAR in three sizes for better fit.Please see my comment in infographic No, 4, questioning the power to pass the law.

Infographic No. 6: �Riparian Area Regulation�

This consist or a square depicting a stylized part of island map. It is traversed verticallyby a variable-width �stream�, mildly meandering, coloured blue. The direction of flow is notshown but I will presume it flows upward, thereby identifying the �Left� (Rive Gauche) and theRight �Banks�, as seen by the reader. On either side of the stream are the RAR zones, ofconstant but width coloured a nice hue of green. Beyond these, Left and Right, are �ordinary�land patches left paper-white. There are also six dark Green-Rounds on the Left Bank and fiveBrown-Rounds on the Right. These are important.

In the Left Bank, two of the Green-Rounds lie withing the RAR zone, two outside it andtwo straddle the boundary line. At the Right Bank, three lie withing the RAR zone, none, outsideit and two straddle the boudary. In either Bank, one of the Rounds straddling the boundary liemostly inside the RAR zone, the other being mostly on the outside of it. This positioning is notincidental, it denotes something important the Trust has cleverly smoke screened in the RAR

192

bylaw. They are drawn so to indicate that any property crossing or touching the RAR linebecomes RARland in its entirety.

Had the Trust mapped honestly the RARland, it would have been a highly jaggedboundary line. This would have cause further �unprecedented public interest� on the RAR, several times the size that seen in June 2011. This would crash the RAR in its tracks,instantenuiously. But the Trust would not give up clawing into the RAR the numerous�marginally� RAR properties and to avert the public disgust they decided to fool the people bysmokescreening it out of sight.

The infographic carries two lists explaining the green and brown rounds with bullets ofthe same colour flanking the square. That on the Left Bank reads:

�The RAR DOES NOT APPLY to the following activities: Bull #1: OUTSIDE a Riparian Assessment AreaBull #2: FARMING activitiesBull #3: INSTITUTIONAL development Bull #4: EXISTING permanent structuresBull #5: RECONSTRUCTION / REPAIR of permanent structures if it remains on

its existing foundationBull #6: APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS but not yet built�

I will comment on each of these six bullets which ostensibly, identify things the RARdoes not forbid.

Bull #1: This appears being superfluous and silly � there ought to be no confusion of whetherRAR applies or not outside the borders of the RAR Republic. However, the Trust has �verycleverly� spread its tentacles everywhere, well outside the jurisdiction claimed openly by theRARistas. The purpose of the innocent-appearing assertion, is to hide what they have put in theRAR but which ought to have been heft out. In plain words, the bullet is in the infographicentirely intentionally made to hide the reality that the RAR �applies� to all the people of theisland or the land.

Fact: The Trust Bylaw requires RARinnocent people to either purchase a QEP Reportcertifying them RARfree, or swear to God or some other Force an Affidavit ofRARinnocence and more!

Bull #2: Not true! The RAR allows the continuation of existing farming, but prohibits NEWfarming without licence from the Trust, issued on the basis of a QEP�s report. This affects allfarming, including sustenance farming, a family veggie garden, everything...

Bull #3: Hard to tell what �institutional development� is: Is a Rehab Center an �institutionaldevelopment� permitted in RAR Land? What about a needle-exchange center?

Bull #4: This is a lie, too! The RAR zaps �EXISTING permanent structures�, such as a house,by snipping off it roughly half its market value, forbidding extension or replacement with adifferent footprint house. These restrictions reduce the value of the property by some 50% ofwhat it would without the RAR.

193

Bull #5: What about �additions? What about expansion of a house transcending the RARboundary? Try to find in the RAR Bylaw provision for such...

Bull #6: How many islanders may benefit from that generous permission to build �APPROVEDDEVELOPMENTS but not yet built�? Likely very few. But even so, the Bylaw still requires aQEP Report!

Now note that this affects only developments that were approved by the Trust beforethe arrival of the RAR. My plan to built a combination Roses & Oregano dream garden, areblowing in the RAR wind because I had not applied for it before the RAR, which is because I didnot have to apply for such an enterprise prior to the RARification of my land!

I will close this side-list of the infographic with a question: Must we assume thatwhatever is not permitted, is prohibited? Of course not! Then, this suggests that the truepurpose of this �List of Allowables� was not to allow something or other, it was to hide things theTrust unduly prohibits, which makes it is a double shame really!

Let�s now shift to the Right Bank column of this infographic to see what the RARprohibits:

�The RAR DOES APPLY to the following activities : Bull #1: NEW CONSTRUCTION - Residential, Commercial IndustrialBull #2: NON STRUCTURAL � impervious or semi-impervious surfaces

(e.g. parking lots, patios)Bull #3: VEGETATION � removalBull #4: SOILS � removal or disposalBull #5: NEW INFRASTRUCTURE � development (e.g. roads)

Bull #1: Here we have another re-chanting of the prime RARlie, the bundling of digging up abiffy with a �Residential, Commercial Industrial Development� � Who will not object to aMonsanto fertilizer plant of the shore of St. Mary�s Lake, or to a Costo commerce in the vicinityof Weston Lake?

To be governed by people who try to lead us to lump a fishing fly- tying operation or afishworm breeding facility with Trump Tower Inc, Walmart Boxstore Emporia or BombardierIndustries, is scary � it smells dishonesty on the part of those who govern us. This is what theTrust scaremongers did to scare society, to induce the fear with which they would grease theslipway to launch the RAR on the island.

Bull #2: Ditto. Bundling a �Parking Lot� with a carport or a barbeque deck, is sinister, too.

Bull #3: They give no examples of �VEGETATION removal�, but one visualizes RAR Policeticketing citizens for brush-cutting brambles, Canada thistles, and Scotch Broom... Fishnutrients, eh? Or is it �fragile ecosystems�?

Bull #4: �SOILS removal or deposit� Talking about that, have a look of the battle the QEP wageto stop the humongous soil removal and deposition that currently happening in Tsawwassen...

194

Bull #5: RAR forbids equally the construction of a high way as does the making of a gardenpath.

Infographic No. 7: �Riparian Area � Ravines�

�Ravines� it appears are fascinating land forms to the Trust RAR people. In any eventthis infographic causes me little concern. I just cannot see why they rated this schematicpresentation. I found it out of context, out of order out of proportion!

Infographic No. 8: �Development Permit Application Process fordevelopment proposed within Riparian Area�

This is my favorite In-fog-RAR-graphic! It showcases the Trust RAR is as being a ratherjoyful activity, akin to a three step dance. Let�s dance!

It starts with a citizen who would like to plant a cabbage garden, let�s say that is what he

195

intends; He is stopped in his furrows by the Trust bureaucrats flashing a red light; The TrustPolice (Bylaw Enforcement Force) is brought in, investigate and make the citizen file anApplication for �Cabbage Cultivation� with the Trust; The Trust Planner seized with theCabbage Patch file directs the applicant to buy a report from a QEP. That is what is framed inthe left porthole of the Infographic.

The Applicant seeks and retains a QEP with a reputation of being more sympathetic tocabbages than to alders and retains her. The QEP walks the land slated to become thecabbage patch and finds a couple of alder seedlings; carefully measures their trunkcircumference and takes several pictures of them; writes all that on a clipboard. Back in heroffice, the QEP writes her Report on the Cabbage patch RAR situation, recommending the Trustgrant licence for the cabbage patch on condition that the applicant re-plants the cottonwoodseedlings that now stand where the cabbages will grow. In the infographic the QEP is depictedmaking site-inspection notes on a blue background symbolizing the cabbage-hopeful personcrying the blues.

In the third porthole of the infographic the Trust Planner ponders the QEP�s profoundreport. He fears that the applicant may do the cabbages without replanting the alders. Tosafeguard the public interest, the Planner requests a legal covenant to ensure the threeseedlings are not lost to society, and/or demands a compliance bond for 150% of what thebureaucrat figures it would cost to replant the cottonwood trees. This done, the Trust Plannergives the thumbs up gesture, depicted in the infographic on green background, symbolizing the�go ahead� to the cabbage project.

But by then the cabbage planting season has gone by and the applicant responds withthe Trudeau Salmon Arm gesture and orders a copy of Good Soldier Schweik to search forclever ways to outsmart the Trust, next season!

It is ridiculous! Look at the Trust Planner�s thumb up in the third porthole of theinfographic and imagine the grin in his/her face and the wink of his eye, heralding the successfulconclusion of the process and the joy of traveling the RAR path to a cabbage patch... Sometimes the pleasure is in getting there...

Perhaps that is what Trustee George Ehring had in mind in January 2011 when hesought to ease us into letting them do the RAR, by assuring us that the RAR would not hurt, wewill still be able to do what we now do, as long as we buy reports from QEPs, he said with astraight face! Just like in the infographic!

196

Infographic No.9: �Next Steps�

This infographic tells what would happen after the May 8, �Community informationMeeting� ( the one at issue). They want us, the people, to believe that �Communications withStakeholder will continue� until August 2014, after which time we should shut up on the RAR.This is ont true, of course. I can testify to that because they carried on censoring my�communications� during that period, just as they had done before and after.

Infographic No. 10: �Help us put together the RAR implementationpuzzle�

The tenth �handout� in Cermak�s list of Reference Documents is not an infographic, it isa �fact sheet�, or rather a �disinformation sheet�, humbly titled:

�Help us put together the RAR implementation puzzle (A new Development Permit Area).

Workshop Introduction POTENTIAL BYLAW COMPONENTS�

It is a call for people to help, the humble Trust concoct a better RAR. It manifest theirreadiness to hear from the people, to have with us a �two way dialogue�, which is how the Staffcharged with researching and implementing a system of open governance, reported to the LTC.

Magistrates often see themselves as the guardians of the �public good�, bearing theburden of protecting us, the people from our own folly. Mindful of this burden but compelled bylaw to listen to the people, the Trust sought to make it doubly safe that the people do not hurtthemselves by telling the Trust the �wrong thing� at the public hearing. To that end, they, theTrust who had fought tooth and nail to prevent the people from seeing the specifications of the�pilot� RAR mapping, and everything else about it, prepared a glorious �Information Sheet� toguide the people in telling the Trust what the Trust wanted to hear, so as to protect us againstfaltering which, they know, would be to our detriment.

They made this information sheet available to attendees at the May 8, 2014 RAR event

197

to complement the �Infographic posters� and the warming-up speeches to the comers byTrustees and Staff. They timed it with �refreshments�, and gave participants 75 minutes to eatcheese and digest the information sheet.

What is significant is that this document conveys mostly the same message the nineinfographics conveyed. More than that really, it is designed to solidify the message and to helpthe Trust micro-tune the PRopaganda in the time remaining to do the RAR. This handout wasplaced on the round tables to guide the participants to say what the Trust wanted to hear,thereby creating the impression of the Trust having listened to pubic contributions.

Celebrating Success � For the RecordAfter the event at the Artspring gathering Planner Cermak triumphantly reported to the

LTC the success of the information event in a Report dated June 5, 2014, titled �Riparian AreasRegulation � Interim Report�. He presented that report to the LTC at its meeting on June 24,2014. It is now available from the Trust Website, lodged in the �RAR Reference Documents�,which by now should be familiar to the reader of this book. I will copy it here for the readers�convenience.

�On May 8th, 2014, the Salt Spring Island Local Committee hosted a Special BusinessMeeting to communicate the rationale, value, and implications of the Riparian Areas Regulationon Salt Spring Island and to engage community members about RAR implementation options.Approximately 80 people attended the open house, 60 people stayed for presentations and theworkshop. Approximately 40 people stayed till the end of the workshop. Food was providedafter the presentations.

The event was facilitated by Salt Spring Island LTC planning staff and used the followingmethods of engagement:

Open House. Nine posters [�the infographics] were on display conveying informationabout what the RAR is, how it is applied, some key definitions, the proposed approach toimplementing the RAR, the Development Permit Approval process and next steps. Twomaps were also on display, one of all streams mapped for implementation of the RARproject and another showing the proposed 30 |15 |5 approach applied to the mappedstreams. Staff were available to answer questions, engage in discussion, and to provideresources.

Presentations. Trustees welcomed the public, explained why the project is a top priorityand clarified some of the �made on Salt Spring Island� approach. Trustees also outlinedtheir vision how the implementation of the RAR may be complemented by the futurework of the Salt Spring Island Water Protection Authority (SSIWPA) in protecting waterquality. Audience members were invited to ask questions at the end of thepresentations.

Workshop. Participants were grouped at tables with approximately 6 � 8 people. Eachtable was asked to document answers to questions based on the purpose andobjectives of the meeting. Participants were also provided an �ideas pond� where theydeposited thoughts, concerns, or questions not otherwise considered in the meeting

198

materials. Each table reported key findings back to the group as a whole.�

Evidently, Cermak�s account of what transpired at the May 8, 2016 RAR event, is vastlydifferent than my rendition of that event. The typical aspects of the Trust�s methodology forsurviving the �nuisance� of interaction with the public is evident throughout the Cermak�rendition of the event. His version contains not a single word of what the Trust told the publicand not a single word of what the public told the Trust. It does not even give a count of howmany �Feedback Sheets� were returned to the Trust. As if the purpose of the meeting was justto have a party!

Compare this to my analysis of the Trust infographics.

Need I say more? I do not know if I need, but I will anyway. I will quote from an epistleChairman Luckham addressed to the Government of BC, telling then the DOs and DOn�ts ofconducting meaningful public hearings. I decided to quote for it manifests that the way theTrust conducts such meetings is an antithesis to everything Chairman Luckham tells the BCgovernment to do.

This is an important document, not necessarily for being thorough, but because of whatit tells about the piousness of the Trust. In the aggregate, he tells the government of BC, to notconduct itself like the Trust conducts itself because that is bad; and urges the senior government of BC to conduct itself like the Trust steadfastly refuses to conduct itself! Have asampling:

�...support town hall style meetings to support democratic dialogue and to allow forquestion and answer periods to be heard by all participants, rather than just the �penhouse� format. I�e heard that the current open house format results in the proponent�representatives surrounding and overwhelming individual members of the public. Townhall style meetings would allow citizens to hear each other� perspectives.�

�Public information sessions/town hall meetings should be hosted as early as practical inthe process�

�To address community concerns that members of the public do not have the same ability as the proponent to provide expert reports, the EAO should: ...provide funding topublic interest interveners to hire qualified experts to interpret and verify the proponent�information and ensure that there is a formal avenue for submission of public evidence.�

That is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

I include the Luckham� letter in all its entirety in PART VIII � Testimonials.

199

Introduction to PART VIII -Testimonials

A Comment on Ad Hominem

This is Latin for �don�t shoot the messenger�, or �don�t bark up the wrong tree�; haveyour pick. Ad hominem is an old powerful PRopaganda tool, known about the Agora on Athensin Pericles and Plato period as �sophistry�; the Romans renamed it �ad hominem�. Magistratesof Czarismatic disposition hurl it at their critics so as to deflect accountability and revengecriticism.

This is how it works: A person called to account for something, respond by attacking some attribute of the critic which is irrelevant to what the accused is called to account for,seeking to drive attention on that aspect of the adversary and away from the criticism, therebyevading discussion of pertinent aspects of the intercourse.

Such were the Liberal�s attacks on Joe Clark, insinuating that because an airline lost hisluggage, he was unfit to govern Canada; and so was Trust Chairman Luckham insinuating thatI was a �pornographer� when I quoted CBC news of that day, seeking to divert attention awayfrom my calling on the Trust�s duty to prevent the demise of Booth Canal. But it is no adhominem if one criticizes Grams, Groves and Malcolmson for having done a bad RAR in adiscourse about the RAR. The former are examples of ad Hominem the latter is fair comment.

The Trustees, past and current, have been no shy in using ad hominem. Equallyfrequently, they demand that citizens addressing them talk in the abstract; that we discussideas and leave the perpetrators of malfeasance out of it. For example, they want us to discussthe �virtues of frugality�, instead of calling them to account for spending quarter of a millionDollars of public money to �yoke� us with the RAR...

But so it is while so it must not be...

Grams RAR Testimonials and More

What I do in this book is observe that George Grams, Peter Grove and SheilaMalcolmson have saddled us with a bad RAR. And I do it in the hope of causing areconsideration of the RAR, on Zero Basis. That is to say, if we are to discuss it at all.

And I do this book true to my citizenship duty to expose the transformation intoextension of the tRust buraucracy of the two good men we elected Trustees for Change in2011, all in the hope that we develop checks and balances to help us avoid recurrence of such transformation, all for the sake of the health of our Democracy.

I include three articles published in 2011 by then ordinary citizen George Grams beforehe was elected a Trustee at the November 2011 election; and an epistle Chairman Luckham ofthe Trust addressed to the Government of BC. I reproduce them here because they areconstructive to understanding the SSI RAR, with which the LTC has �yoked� us.

As it happened, George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson who were Trustees when then

200

citizen George Grams fought them fiercely for attempting the RAR, left the Trust at the end of2011, without doing it. Then Grams who took the one of the two Trustee seats, along with PeterGrove who took the other seat, went on to carry the RAR onward and just before the end of theirthree-year term they �yoked� us with it. Grams partook enthusiastically in brutally silencing RARcritics and promoting and imposing a RAR arguably more painful that the version of it he foughtagainst when he was a citizen.

I insinuated to the metamorphosis of Grams because that �Power Corrupts� has been ofuniversal concern since Plato wrote the Republic. And because we need take notice of Gramsand his fellow trustee Grove quick metamorphoses so as to remind ourselves of our citizenshipduty to keep seamless vigilance over magistrates.

Yet, I appreciate the contribution Grams made to understanding the nature of the RAR, prior to becoming a Trustee. It is substantial and worth bringing it up now in support of aninvitation to him to join the battle to toss out the toxic RAR he partook in �yoking� us with.

Having said that, I will visit one point I am in serious disagreement with George. He seesthe RAR as been a �yoke in our neck to endure in perpetuity�. My position is that we live in ademocracy, and this means that we, the people have the power to undo what Grams says wewill have to �endure�. No George, we do not have to endure it, for we are free people dedicatedto democracy, to wit, to remain in control of our future, to full extent that we may...

Along with the aforementioned anti-RAR Grams� epistles I include a third one by him, ofthe same vintage, by which he sizes up the Trust, which he later embraced. Worse than thatreally, because Grams actively partook in escalating the very attributes of the Trust he hadcastigated before becoming Trustee.

I have also included in this PART VIII an Epistle to the Government of BC, penned byPeter Luckham, Chairman of the Trust Council and almost everything else that is Trust. Hisportfolio of chairholdings includes �Mayoring� SSI � where he is catapulted every time the LTCmeets, to preside over the governance of our Island. And we pay for that, too! Luckham wrotethat epistle of interest to instruct the Government of BC, how to do public hearings. This,coming from the �Head� of the Trust, is tantamount to pot calling the kettle black.

Dum spiro spero... Hope springs eternal... Optimism beats pessimism... Thank theForce for endowing with the capacity to �Hope�, for without it, we, for better or worse would livein caves and be without WiFil, Heaven forbid!

Grams Finds the Trust �Dysfunctional�

This George Grams� piece appeared at the April 6, 2011 issue of the Driftwood. Unlikethe other pair of Testimonials by him, this is not specifically against the RAR � it is about theTrust who did the RAR. Grams published this �Viewpoint� when he was a citizen � well, not just a citizen, but one in the unenviable position of having to intercourse with the Trust! Of coursehe was enraged when he took pen to paper, but this is pertinent too, for it evidences what Trustdoes to citizens who find themselves in the unenviable position of having to deal with the Trust.

201

The picture Grams paints is substantially true to life, or it was then, I should say. However some of his deductions are not correct, because the bases on which he built them aredisputable. Others are outdated for the worse sad to say and for this Grams should account. Yes, I deem Grams�Viewpoint� constructive, because it affords us a �Before and After� portraitsof politicians and demonstrates the absorptive power of the �corporate philosophy� of institutionsand the other forces that turn politicians into extensions of the institution they are entrusted tocontrol on our behalf.

The RAR did not happen by itself. It was imposed upon us by the people who make upthe Trust, among whom George Grams figures prominently.

�No change to Trust dysfunction BY GEORGE GRAMS [A �View Point� � the Driftwood April 6, 2011]

The headline of Linda Adams' March 30 letter to Driftwood, �Respect community'sbylaws and Islands Trust process,� is predicated on one assumption: that those who interpretand apply the law, in this case our trustees, are also prepared to respect the process andapply the community's bylaws impartially, transparently and efficiently.

During a period of 15 months as consultant to the Salt Spring Coffee Company, we putfaith and trust in that process. Over the life of the application, I became increasingly awarethat it was dysfunctionally driven by trustees who were inflicting damage on both thecommunity and the Trust.

On process, Linda Adams should have on file a letter I wrote in August 2009 to theformer Trust director of local planning services, Mac Fraser. It can be downloaded athttp://www.inveresk.net /#!viewstack1=news- -links

In it I highlighted the key qualities that any land use application should possess. In acareer that spans almost 40 years and three continents, they are qualities I've witnessed asessential to ensure efficiency, accountability and transparency. These qualities are absentin their entirety from the process which the coffee company fell victim to. There is no quick fix.The problems are systemic and require that the provincial government apply legislativeremedies.

Fraser was fully aware of the island planning department's difficulties with process. Ontwo specific occasions, I wrote him letters of complaint because of the failure of that process.On both occasions he accepted the validity of those criticisms and offered apologies in front ofSalt Spring's chief planner.

So what has Linda Adams (or Sheila Malcolmson, who received a copy) donesince August 2009 to ensure any of the key qualities in my letter are now in place? I haveseen no evidence that changes have taken place. Still no documented, systematic andanalytical roadmap to guide staff and politicians through the process. Still no attempt tobreathe accountability and transparency into their procedures. Still no terms of referencedefining the respective duties of planners and politicians. Trustees still interfere with the

202

duties of planning staff. Demoralization within our planning department is still deeplyconcerning.

We still bleed planners. Still no appeals process. Still no oversight on trustees.Objectors still flood the trustees with complaints. The process is still not time limited.Still no attempt to set benchmarks for lots where rezoning applications have beenreceived, though this would permit an easier assessment of whether applicants'proposed activities would meet them.

Bylaws are necessary. We need them. The Trust has a right and a duty to enforcecompliance. But Linda Adams also needs to take a determined stand to clean up her sideof the fence, although doing so might well present her with an insurmountable problem. She isan employee. I've no doubt, like Mac Fraser, she is aware of what needs to be done for thegreater good but, like any employee, she is powerless to effect change that her employers arenot willing to countenance.

For that reason I have lodged a formal complaint with the provincial ministerconcerning trustee behaviour during the coffee company application. In that complaint Ihave detailed the specific dysfunctions I observed over 15 months. Mismanagementaccompanied the process from the outset with the result that an application that did notget past first reading cost the applicant and the community between them an estimated$350,000.

To put this ineptitude in context, 18 such applications processed the same way wouldconsume more then the whole Trust budget for a year.

Trust dysfunction is the most pressing issue our community suffers. That theTrust is more concerned with fixing its image than our core problems provides theclearest signal that our system is broken. Only at the political level can it be fixed.

The writer is a Salt Spring architect.� (Emphasis added).

That is what was �Before� Grams was elected a Trustee mandated to eliminate that�dysfunctionality�. Was he not a Trustee and was he to write that viewpoint now, he would haveto use stronger words, because the �After� is remarkably worse than the �Before�. And while I donot say or imply that Grams did all that alone, or that he alone ought to stop the steep decline,he should account for his contribution to the mess.

�Bylaw a 'fundamental assault' on local rights and freedoms�

Current Trustee George Grams was first elected in November 2011. Prior to that, he wasan �ordinary� Canadian (Ed Broadbent line) fighting the RAR and attacking the Trust for whatthey were doing. He ran in the November 2011 election and became one of the two �Trusteesfor Change� whom we, the people, mandated to stop the RAR and change the Trust. Peopletrusted him because he had been fighting the Trust.

I will reproduce next two of his polemics against the big Bad Trust doing the RAR. Thefirst of them Grams published in the Driftwood on June 15, 2011. In it, Grams paints a good

203

picture of Bylaw 449, as the SSI RAR bylaw was then numbered before it was re-branded�Bylaw 480". Here it is, enjoy it!

By the way, Bylaw 480 turned out to be markedly worse than its prototype, Bylaw No.449, the one George �criticized�.

Here is George at the podium:

�Bylaw a 'fundamental assault' on local rights and freedoms

BY GEORGE GRAMS

Hitherto I've hesitated to voice my deepest fears about the real intent of Bylaw 449.However, actions by the Salt Spring LTC and their intention to hold a public hearing onessentially the same legislation that has received broad criticism makes a duty to speak animperative.1. The Trust is ignoring an opinion by a queen's counsel that the bylaw, without accurate

mapping, is legally invalid. The Trust has obtained its own legal opinion but is refusing topublish it.

2. Trust staff advised two former trustees in writing that the island was already incompliance with the province s Riparian Areas Regulation. Linda Adams now advisesthat is not the case. Who is right? If staff were previously wrong in the advice they gave,why was that not challenged at the time by Linda Adams?

3. The LTC attempted to conceal two advisory committees from the community. Who saton them, when they convened and what advice they offered the LTC was not, accordingto trustees, the public's right to know. Concealing those committees from public scrutinycontravenes the Community Charter. Only when a concerned islander threatened tolodge a formal complaint did the LTC back down.

4. The director of local planning services for the Trust, a QC and many residents on theisland have called for accurate mapping of riparian areas. The Trust has obstinatelyignored those requests.

5. Trustee Christine Torgrimson has taken a public position which in my view is contrary toher duties under the Islands Trust Act. Clause 6.1, is specific on the point: �For eachlocal trust area, two trustees are to be elected to represent the electors of the area.�

Ms. Torgrimson voiced her rejection of this duty when, as chair of the Gulf IslandsAlliance, she published the following position statement: The Trust was not intended to be 'alocal government, it was not intended to represent the interests of its residents.�

The Gulf Islands Alliance website also contains these position statements:�residents have difficulty in seeing themselves as the enemy who have wrestedpower from the local trustees and who have presided over the negative impactsthat have occurred...�

�The interests of the electorate have continued to encroach on the interests of theenvironment.�

204

The Trust �was intended to protect the 'place' for the 'people of British Columbia' largelyfrom Trust Area residents and landowners.�

�Put place before people.�

Unlike Ms. Torgrimson:* I believe that a trustee has an express duty to represent those who place her in

office.* I don't regard island residents as enemies.* I don't believe the interests of island residents should necessarily be subjugated

to those of �a place.� Both interests can be properly served. * I don't believe that my island needs to be protected from me. I love it and will

care for it dutifully.* I believe that legal opinions that shape legislation should be placed in the public

domain. * I believe that advisory committees appointed by trustees should be visible to the

community they purport to serve.* believe it is contrary to democratic principles to seek to "wrest" power from island

residents. Trustees wield their powers expressly with voters sanction and on theirbehalf.

Infinitely more is at stake here than the protection of riparian areas and the quality of ourwater, both of which are important. This proposed bylaw has been hastily assembled in amanner that serves neither the Trust nor the community. It imposes on island residents veryconsiderable financial and bureaucratic burdens that would affect the liberties of every islanderegregiously and in perpetuity. It is a fundamental assault on our rights and freedoms that cannotgo without challenge.

The least the community deserves is that the Trust takes sufficient time to answer thevery serious concerns that many in the community have raised over the legality and intent ofthis bylaw. I would ask the LTC to delay the public hearing and to exercise patience anddiligence in shaping this legislation. If they refuse to do so, I would ask that all island residentswho share my concerns attend the public hearing and voice their objection.

The writer is a Salt Spring architect.�

Grams comments were pragmatic � regrettably they proved prophetic, as well...

The real mob shows its hand

Another Grams� Epistle to Islanders

Grams delivered this epistle on the RAR to Islanders via the �The Independent�, it beinga short lived attempt at having a second newspaper in Saltspring. It appeared in the July 1,2011, issue.

Otherwise, the introduction and the commentary I wrote for the June 15 Grams Epistle,applies here, as well.

205

Last week Salt Spring residents turned out in hundreds to attend a public hearing. Theydid so twice and were prepared to do so a third time but never got the chance. Never beforehave islanders turned out in such numbers to protest the actions of those they have elected tooffice. The reason for this unprecedented show of dissent was the concern at being stripped oftheir land rights. The Trust tell us we have to give up the right on our own land to put a spade inundisturbed soil or to interfere with undisturbed vegetation. The risk to riparian areas and to ourdrinking water, they tell us, is too great.

The real reason for the bylaw and its shape lies elsewhere: a massive transfer of homeowners' powers to the Trust. But, of course, the Trust can�t ever admit that. It's revealed,however, in an early position statement adopted by Trustee Torgrimson when chair of the GulfIslands Alliance:

�residents have difficulty in seeing themselves as the enemy who have wrestedpower from the local trustees and who have presided over the negative impactsthat have occurred...�

Residents are �enemies�, responsible for all �negative impact� and so should have power�wrested� from them? Strong language indeed. Is it a coincidence that Bylaw 449 effects justsuch a power transfer?

At least one trustee has adopted a position statement that denies residents their right torepresentation. That position statement reads:

�The Trust ... was not intended to represent the interests of its residents.�

Trustees seem unconcerned that taking this position places them in a position ofdelinquency in their duty to voters. Clause 6.1 of the Islands Trust Act states:

�For each local trust area, TWO TRUSTEES ARE TO BE ELECTED TOREPRESENT THE ELECTORS OF THE AREA. (My capitals.)� [(�My Capitals�) mean Grams� CAPITALS]

Trustees who met their duty to voters would be obligated to throw Bylaw 449 in the trashand start again. But they're pressing ahead. George Ehring justifies doing so because �it's theright thing to do.� George's argument is not what I would term intellectually compelling anddoes not in any way satisfy those whose land rights are being stripped from them. Andmake no mistake. The means used to force this bylaw on us strips us not only of ourdemocratic right to representation, it removes our ability to make the most mundane ofyard improvement decisions on our own property.

With typical Canadian generosity, George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson werewelcomed into this community. They sought positions of responsibility and the communityinvested trust and faith in them. With this bylaw, trustees demonstrate that although we trustedthem, they don�t trust us. They don�t trust us to make sensible decisions about erecting agarden shed or laying some paving, planting an orchard or felling a tree for winter fuel. They, onthe other hand, are more than capable of making those decisions on our land, if we pay them$1,100 for a development permit and furnish them with a QEP report costing upwards of

206

$1,500. $2,600 to seek permission to grow fruit or vegetables or clear vegetation to forma firebreak on your own land? Is this really happening in Canada?

Contrary to the position statement adopted by Trustee Torgrimson, residents are notenemies of this island. W e can take care of our environment without having our economyruined and our democratic rights trampled. We will not tolerate Trust supporters runningaround the island stealing signs that announce a public hearing. We will not tolerate themmaking mischievous calls to the RCMP complaining about non-existent matters of public safety.We know there were no specific complaints against individuals or groups, that no fingers couldbe pointed and no charges could be brought. This disgraceful misreporting is a cynicalattempt to divert attention from the real issue: hundreds of islanders turning out toobject to the theft of their land rights through the conservationist Marxism beingimposed on us by the Trust Sheila Malcolmson tries to turn the event into one of publicsafety where those who disagree with Trust policy can be labelled 'the mob." The videorecording shows no public safety issues. I challenge Sheila Malcolmson to raise oneexample she witnessed during the course of the proceedings. If those who made thecomplaints know differently, let them come forward and press charges. Tell us who wasresponsible for inducing fear and alarm, well support you in pressing charges, and I willapologize.

I won�t hold my breath. The simple truth is that the real mob has shown its hand.They are those who refuse to represent voters who place them in office; those who loadcommittees with toadies and try to conceal those committees from public scrutiny; those whowaste hundreds of thousands of applicants' and taxpayers dollars needlessly prolongingwoefully incompetent land use decisions; those prepared to plunder our land rights; thosewho are prepared to steal signs; those who make false complaints about public safety inorder to divert attention from the real issue; those who try to intimidate a citizen fromrecording public meetings that belong in the public domain; those incomers with thebreathtaking arrogance to shout at public meetings to third generation islanders performing acommunity service that they are not wanted on island.

I have been an environmental activist for much of my professional life and will continueto work towards a green economy and for an ecologically sustainable society. We want toprotect our environment That is beyond question. But we won't tolerate such behaviour anylonger. This is our island. It�s passed time we took it back.

Georqe Grams Salt Spring island�

That was George Then; time to look at Grams as he is Now:

George? Where are you George? The people are calling... George? ...

When the Shoe is on the other Foot ...

I will reproduce an epistle Chairman Luckham authored and addressed to theGovernment of BC, telling then the DOs and DOn�ts of conducting meaningful public hearings. Idecided to include it here, as the way the Trust conducts such meetings is an antithesis toeverything Chairman Luckham tells the BC government to do.

207

I will move aside now to let the Chairman expose how the Trust would like not to betreated and to contrast to the ways the Trust treats the public � the two being identical!

Join me in a warm welcome to Chairman Luckham.

�May 26, 2015 File No.: 0420-20Environmental Assessment Office (EAO)PO Box 9426 Stn Prov GovtVictoria BC V8W 9V1

Dear Environmental Assessment Office reviewersRe: Improving public participation in environmental assessment

On behalf of the Islands Trust Council, I am writing to provide input to BC EnvironmentalAssessment Office�s (EAO) consultation on ways to improve the participation of the public inenvironmental assessment. I understand that the EAO�s intention when seeking public input isto ensure that all potential environmental, social, heritage and health effects that might resultfrom the proposed Project are identified for consideration as part of the assessment process.In recent years, Islands Trust trustees and staff have engaged in environmental assessmentprocesses relating to the proposed Raven Coal Mine Project, the proposed BURNCOAggregate Mine Project and the proposed Woodfibre LNG Project. Drawing on theirexperiences, I�ve heard the following suggestions for improvement:

* Public comment periods should always be a minimum of 60 days, and thesedates should be well-advertised at least 10 days in advance of the publiccomment period start date in traditional and non-traditional (e.g social media)ways.

* The EAO website should be improved so that it is easy to do keyword searcheson public comments on applications. This would allow members of the public tosee not only what the proponent has to say but also what others have to say inorder that they might be properly informed on the spectrum of opinion and ideas.

* The EAO should support town hall style meetings to support democratic dialogueand to allow for question and answer periods to be heard by all participants,rather than just the �pen house� format. I�e heard that the current open houseformat results in the proponent� representatives surrounding and overwhelmingindividual members of the public. Town hall style meetings would allow citizens tohear each other� perspectives.

* Public information sessions/town hall meetings should be hosted as early aspractical in the process and should be hosted in affected communities selectedby the EAO. In the case of projects that involve marine shipping, affected coastalcommunities should have the same opportunities to learn and comment ascommunities close to the proposed facilities.

* There should be more training available to local government staff and electedofficials to help them participate effectively in EAO working groups. Trainingcould include examples of how other local governments have structured andfunded their participation.

* Working group meeting minutes should be taken by EAO staff and postedpromptly to the website.

208

* The EAO should formally advise local governments of new environmentalassessment processes in their regions through correspondence or notices thatcan be placed on public meeting agendas. There should also be notices toadvise of each public consultation opportunity as well as opportunities toparticipate on EAO working groups.

* The EAO should consider the principles and best practices within the AuditorGeneral of British Columbia� 2008 report Public Participation: Principles and BestPractices for British Columbia as it reviews its public consultation andengagement methods.

* To address community concerns that members of the public do not have thesame ability as the proponent to provide expert reports, the EAO should:

hire the expert consultants and charge the proponent for the consultingcosts, and/orprovide funding to public interest intervenors to hire qualified experts tointerpret and verify the proponent� information and ensure that there is aformal avenue for submission of public evidence.

* The EAO should ensure that projects within or adjacent to the Islands Trust Areaboundary specifically acknowledge the Islands Trust� provincial mandate topreserve and protect the region.

The Islands Trust Policy Statement is a statutory document founded in extensivecommunity consultation and approved in 1994 by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. In theIslands Trust Policy Statement the Islands Trust Council holds that public participation shouldbe part of the decision-making processes of all levels of government, and that economicopportunities should be compatible with the conservation of resources and protection ofcommunity character.

The Islands Trust Council is a federation of local government bodies representing25,000 people living within the Islands Trust Area and about 10,000 non-resident propertyowners. The Islands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environmentand amenities of the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, developmentmanagement, education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The areacovers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern VancouverIsland. It includes 13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,Peter LuckhamChair, Islands Trust Councilcc: Islands Trust CouncilBowen Island Municipal Council;Lisa Gordon, Director, Trust Area Services � Islands Trust website�

If one would turn this around and address it to its author (the Trust), it would make nomore than a mild condemnation of the way the Trust contact public hearings and the means ituses to suppress public input at variance with for the official Trust Truth.

That is what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

209

Behold the IslandsTrust.