Fire Trustees have heated debate on publication of correspondence

Derek Kilbourn

Sounder News

The Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District Trustees have decided against having correspondence to the Trustees published in their regular agenda packages.

This decision came with a heated exchange of words at the regular Board meeting on Dec. 3, where Chair Erik Johnson told Trustee Wayne Mercier to, “shut the fuck up.”

Mercier called a point of order on Johnson’s language, saying, “that is improper. It is on the recording. You are attempting to stifle the right of a Trustee to speak in an open meeting.

“That is objectionable in the extreme.”

Johnson immediately replied, “on behalf of the position I hold, I apologize.”

Mercier accepted the apology.

Trustee John Moeller had on the agenda a proposed Correspondence Policy for the Board to discuss.

Within the policy was Section 4 (listed below), which stated that corresponence would not be published in the agenda package, with some exceptions. Moeller said he had concerns with defamation risks to the District, as a third party can be found responsible if it republishes or otherwise shares defamatory materials. His concern was if the Board was publishing correspondence in whole in the agendas, that is found to be defamatory, that could lead to the District being found responsible for the spreading of that defamatory material.

Moeller said there is no need to put the actual correspondence into the agenda, and that there are other places for people to publish those letters, such as social media or the newspaper.

“Our agenda is the wrong avenue for that….for us to publish it all, we’re taking on a liability.”

He questioned whether some of the correspondence is something people want in the agenda for the Board to respond to, or just to publish something.

Trustee Erik Johnson said he didn’t want the correspondence and agenda to be weaponized against staff.

“If you want to insult our staff, we should not allow that.”

Mercier asked, “what if someone wants to write to us, and says, the Fire Chief is doing a crappy job?”

A suggestion was made that consideration of the policy not be considered until the board obtains legal advice on content.

Mercier suggested that rather than a blanket ban on all correspondence, the board create a rubric (with a lawyer advising) to provide guidance on what correspondence could be published, without risking defamation.

Johnson said, “every single letter would need to go before a lawyer.”

Mercier said that wasn’t what he was suggesting, but rather, that the board receive instruction on how to make the right distinction, and that could be made via a rubric, so that the corporate officer or communcations committee can make a decision, “other than our feelings.”

He said this would allow the board to have that legal outline present, before the Board took actions that would stifle landowners ability to address the public body of which they pay.

Moeller said there’s a distinction between addressing the board, and publishing correspondence.

“All the correspondence will still come to us….what I’m saying is we’re not going to publish them all.”

Mercier said it matters if the actual letters are published, otherwise, “we are restricting the public from engaging in a public conversation that may be critical of this organization.

“If no one can criticize this organization publicly through the mechanism of democratic discourse then how does anyone to know if there is a movement in the community?

“If people can’t stand up to their elected officials and say, I think you are doing a crappy job in this particular way…and have that reported to the community that no one has any means to know that that critical discussion is taking place.”

Johnson said, “The distinction is between the intake of whatever, even hate speech. I suppose we’re going to [receive] hate speech.

“We’re not going to rebroadcast it. What you’re talking about is, apparently anybody would say anything about trustee or chair or whatever.”

Mercier said, “that’s explicitly not what I’m saying.”

Johnson, “so you say it’s ok for us to reprint diatribe against us?”

Mercier said, “if it’s not defamatory, yes.”

He reiterated that his motion was that the the communications policies not be considered until the board obtains legal advice about how to distinguish between content which offers legitimate criticism and content which is defamatory, and that a rubric for making such a decision be included in the policy.

This, he said, would ensure a poilcy whch works to prevent the Board from republishing defamatory material.

“Because right now, there is a wide range of feelings about what constitutes legitimate public criticism of the staff, and some people feel that any legitimate that any criticism of the staff, is illegitimate and hurtful. And some people feel that strong public criticism of staff, of the improvement district is permissible, so long as it does not stray into the into defamation.”

Moeller said he didn’t think the District’s agenda is the right avenue for people to publish things.

“What Trustee Mercier is proposing is to publish full correspondence in the agenda.

“We shouldn’t be publishign full correspondence in our agenda.”

Johnson asked for someone to point out any government agency that reprints correspondence.

When City of Nanaimo was stated, he said they have a filter.

Mercier said, “I’m proposing a filter.”

A lengthy discussion then occured around what lawyer, if any, would need to be consulted, who would specialize in defamation matters.

Moeller said if his draft policy passes, “then we don’t need that lawyer, because we won’t be publishing the full correspondence anymore, there won’t be a risk of defamation.”

Moeller had suggested that rather than printing an entire piece of correspondence, the Board could instead publish summaries of correspondence in the agenda.

A member of the public said that as someone who had written a letter recently, they would absolutely have an issue if the Board took it upon themselves to condense their letter into a summary.

As multiple Trustees then  started to speak, some attempting to ask the member of the public a question, Mercier called point of order saying, “the chair has just cursed at me, I object strongly to that. The chair just told me to shut the fuck up. That’s improper.”

When the vote was called for Mercier’s motion to have a lawyer consulted and a rubric created, Johnson, Moeller, and Diana Moher voted against it, with Mercier, Oliver Bussler, and David Chorneyko voting in favour.

Ray Appel was absent from the meeting.

The motion was defeated.

Moeller then had the draft proposal put forward for approval. That motion was defeated, with Moher, Johnson, and Moeller voting in faavour.

Before moving to the next item on the agenda, Johnson spoke to his outburst.

“I apologize to the audience and viewers at home for having spoken like a construction worker.

“I put up with an awful lot of screaming and yelling here, not so much this meeting, but other meetings we have been at. This is the kind of stuff we put up with. So I don’t expect you to forgive me, but in context, as they say…I just about had it. I’ve heard the most outrageous nonsense, particularly in in camera meetings. I rest my case.”