Dear Editor, The Record:
The more closely I look at the $3,580 in expenses claimed by Trustee Michael Ewen last year, the more questions I have; particularly with respect to the $238 that Ewen claimed for a March 6, 2012 trip to Victoria on the same day the BCTF held a major anti-Bill 22 protest rally in front of the Legislature in Victoria.
Ewen claims he had no interest in the BCTF protest rally taking place that day despite being an active BCTF member with a clear personal financial stake in the affairs of the union -- including a personal stake in the financial ramifications of Bill 22 which ended the BCTFs job action vis a vis the unions wage and contract demands.
Ewens ostensible rationale for travelling to Victoria on March 6th -- which he trumpeted loudly and suspiciously over social media that day -- was to meet with New Westminster MLA Dawn Black to discuss Bill 22 and the school districts capital projects.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that Ewens trip to Victoria to meet with Dawn Black was not carried out at the direction of the board and was not authorized by the board. And ignoring the fact that his trip had no real purpose that can stand up to public scrutiny. Ewens involvement in a discussion of Bill 22 in his capacity as a school trustee strikes me as a clear conflict of interest.
As a private citizen, and as a BCTF member, Michael Ewen is well within his rights to discuss any topic with whomever he chooses. But as a school trustee, Ewen is bound by the requirements of the provinces School Act and by the oath of office prescribed under the Act.
Mixing personal interest with board business, as Trustee Ewen has clearly done by discussing Bill 22 in his capacity as a school trustee, is inappropriate and bears further investigation.
As Ive said, the more I look into the expenses claimed by Trustee Ewen, the more questions I have and the more issues it raises. For example, who travelled over to Victoria in the car with Ewen on March 6th and what was the purpose of that other passengers trip? The ferry receipt indicates that there were two passengers in the vehicle.
Ewen did not bill the school district for that second passenger, but shouldnt that second passenger have shouldered half the cost of the ferry trip to Victoria and half the cost of the $78 in mileage claimed by Ewen?
Regardless of what that second passenger was doing in Victoria on March 6th while the BCTF protest was taking place, they appear to have benefitted at the expense of the school district which seems completely inappropriate to me if they were not there on official board business and free of any personal interest.
Patrick OConnor
New Westminster
