Possible Conflict of Interest with Multiple Vail City Councillors

Every voter in Whistler needs to contemplate just how vulnerable the RMOW would become having multiple Vail employees elected to city council.

Whenever any councillors are removed due to conflict of interest, it means the voting power falls to fewer people. Recently, Jack Crompton had to recuse himself when the issue before council dealt with Nester's Crossing, as he rented space in one of the applicant’s buildings. Not only was he not allowed to vote, but he also had to leave the chambers during all proceedings, leaving the council without his keen insight on the subject. That vote was a contentious 3-3 tie, the Mayor ending it by using her veto power to kill it. That was with just one councillor recusing himself.

To be clear, I’m not speaking against Vail candidates, but my concerns are that having too many of them on city council is not good governance. With only six RMOW city councillors positions, we are at severe disadvantage if there are multiple councillors elected who are connected with one organization.

On page 4.7 of the “RMOW Governance Manual” it speaks about a councillor not being in a position of conflict, real or apparent, between their own private interests and the best interests of the Corporation. “Private Interests” included any real or tangible interest that personally benefits the councillor, a member of their household, or an organization with which the councillor is affiliated.

Courts will readily overturn any decision of council when law or matters of ethics are pulled into question. Recently, I had an issue with the RMOW, and I greatly appreciated that Jack and the Council were able to help me. My lawyer had told me ahead of time not to worry because, if the decision I was fighting had been passed, “we will be before a judge in a matter of days and their decision will be overturned." Any court can easily rescind a council vote with any reasonable complaint. He explained that the matter would then be returned to council, usually with a clear directive from the court regarding conflict and influence.

There are some serious issues ahead that I believe any councillors who are Vail employees must step away from. If any Vail-related issue is presented, they must recuse themselves–and the web of Vail has strands in almost every part of our resort. It has a host of agreements in place with all parties of significance, ongoing negotiations and complex agreements with the BC government through the CRA , MDA and royalty payments, the First Nations and with the RMOW as a developer, the largest operating business, and perhaps the largest single residential renter in the valley.

If a conflict of interest is not disclosed and is discovered at a later time, any council decisions could effectively be reversed, perhaps even months or years later. Anyone—any entity, person, First Nation developer, or group that may not have Whistler’s best interest in mind may successfully overturn a council decision if they could prove conflict of interest.

For the RMOW, each and every voter needs to consider how important it is not to put ourselves in a position where there is the potential for multiple councillors having to recuse themselves, leaving only two or three councillors to decide issues of vital importance to Whistler. Or where one day down the road, council decisions are overturned due to a revealed conflict of interest.

We as voters can accomplish this by electing a balanced, carefully chosen, and diverse city council.

Lance Bright
Lance@LanceBright.com
604-388-4545