Dear Editor:
A week ago the "Report to the Board of Education on the SD40 Business Company Examination" was released by the school district.
Let's review some of the findings in the report of the Auditor General.
1) Agency Relationship Risk: The need for separation of the two organizations was made quite clear. To minimize the risk to the school district of being found liable for the acts of the business company, the business company and the school district must operate independently.
What then can be said about the propriety of the endorsement of five trustee candidates (Ewen, Janzen, Campbell, Phelan and Richmond) by Brent Atkinson, the CEO of the business company in the November election and the cheerful and appreciative acceptance of the endorsement by the five candidates?
To be fair, at the time of the endorsement only Atkinson, Ewen and Janzen had crystal clear knowledge of the Agency problem. Clearly these arrangements weave the organizations together and bring in to question whether they are independent.
2) Governance: The schooldistrict has an important governance responsibility and the business company must provide the schooldistrict with financial information and information on risk. The level of disclosure goes beyond the annual audited financial statements.
This is the information that parents and several trustees had been requesting for years only to be stonewalled.
The lack of information left trustees Cook, Graham and myself no alternative but to vote against cash advances.
The crisis was created by the CEO when he could have followed good corporate governance (as suggested in the report) and provided trustees with enough information for them to fulfill their fiduciary duty.
Instead Atkinson chose the familiar pattern to vote in conflict of interest, covering one bad behavior with a second bad behavior.
3) Conflict of Interest: The report found instances where Trustee Atkinson and Trustee Ewen had an undeclared conflict of interest due to their dual roles as business company directors and trustees.
For decades the same trustees have been denying that there was a problem while they participated in hundreds of discussions, debates and decisions while they were in a conflict of interest due to having spouses and/or children working in the district.
Now a second type of conflict of interest in relation to the business company has been revealed which finds these two involved again.
Ewen and Atkinson continue to deny, deflect and distract attention from their violations.
They purport to accept the Auditor General report and want to move on.
However, they state that they disagree with the findings of their individual conflict of interest without any credible rational and never is there a hint of contrition or ownership for their actions.
Trustees Ewen and Atkinson disagree with the Auditor General's findings and suggest altruism or some greater good to justify the poor behavior.
Can the ends justify the means? Sadly there is no indication that the pattern will not be repeated.
This is the second report on problems with the operation of the business company and the second time that conflict of interest has been pointed out and denied by certain long standing trustees.
If we are to move on it cannot be with the status quo. It is time that the issue of conflict of interest is addressed by a comprehensive policy.
In addition to looking for direction from the School Act, the BCSTA, the Hibbins report, the Auditor General Report and the Municipal Act, we must consider election campaign donations and election endorsements.
The public must be confident that the manner in which future decisions are made.
Trustees must then excuse themselves if the item being considered is of interest to: a trustee's family member who is employed by the district, district unions or corporations with which the trustee is affiliated, significant financial supporters of the trustee's election campaign, political parties or politicians or others who provide significant endorsement to the trustee's election.
Finally there must be a different attitude about abiding by the rules. In spite of current guidelines and their oaths of office, the Auditor General's report represents a scathing indictment of actions of the school district's appointed representatives to the business company, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Ewen.
Hopefully a third report or third incident will not be necessary for individual trustees to model zero tolerance for such behavior, from this day forward.
Jim Goring, former New Westminster school trustee
