On April 26th, CAPSC Executive, sent separate letters to Pat Cochrane, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Trustee Carol Bazinet and Trustee Sheila Taylor. These letters asked for clarification around events that occurred at the public board meeting on April 19th. CAPSC has included the text of the letters sent and the responses received.
Dear Chair Cochrane,
We had hoped that the April 19th, CBE budget/board meeting would bring some valuable debate amongst our elected Trustees regarding the budget. We were concerned to hear both Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor invoke pecuniary conflict claims and as a result remove themselves from the entire budget debate.
We are anticipating that you can provide some clarification for our members as to the reasons that their elected representatives chose not to take part in the debate about the budget. The media is reporting conflicting messages from Trustee Taylor and from your office as it seems by some that Trustee Taylor was told by a CBE lawyer that she COULD not vote due to pecuniary issues. Others seem to imply that she was advised it was her choice and was only informed as to what the pecuniary issues were.
Our members are unclear on what Trustee’s are advised (after they are elected) as to what a ‘pecuniary conflict of interest’ is and what guidelines (policy and/or legal) they are provided with to inform themselves as to when this may arise in their public work. Members are asking why Trustee Taylor's request for pecuniary interest clarification was not added to the agenda?
We are very concerned to hear Trustee’s claim that they were provided specific legal advice from CBE lawyers that having a child attend a CBE school or having a spouse who works for the CBE precluded them from engaging in ANY of the budget discussion. This is especially puzzling given we are aware that Trustees with a spouse working for the CBE or having a child in a CBE school have engaged in past budget debates and votes. Our members are inquiring as to what information/advice the Trustees were provided during this last Board meeting. Exactly how stringent are the pecuniary interest rules....in the School Act; in Board policies/procedures?
We would expect that ALL Trustees understand pecuniary interests and that the Chair is confident that they have an adequate explanation of the consequences and risks involved.
We appreciate your time and efforts to clarify this for our members.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Dear Ms. Kelly and Ms. Newton:
Thank you for your April 26, 2011 letter requesting clarification for your membership regarding pecuniary interest. I understand that you have also written directly to Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor and they have responded to you directly.
Following each municipal election, the newly elected Board of Trustees undergoes various orientation sessions. Trustees are provided with an orientation to the Calgary Board of Education by the Chief Superintendent. Trustees are also oriented to matters including board governance, board meeting procedures, administrative and communications support, and the legal duties and liabilities of trustees.
On October 22, 2010, all trustees participated in the orientation on the legal duties and liabilities of trustees. Successive Boards of Trustees have agreed that this orientation is a core part of the overall trustee orientation. This particular orientation is conducted by CBE Legal Affairs and includes the provision of information on the School Act, Governance Policies and Administrative Regulations, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, other applicable legislation (e.g.: Local Authorities Election Act, Teaching Profession Act, Alberta Human Rights Act, etc.) This orientation also covers topics such as the role of the school board, delegation of authority, trustee liability, code of ethics, and conflict of interest with specific information regarding pecuniary interest. Individual trustees are provided with a binder of background readings, for their personal reference, that includes detailed information on items such as Trustee Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest.
Individual trustees are encouraged to contact CBE Legal Affairs at any time should they require further information or clarification. Individual trustees can, of course, at any time connect with their own independent legal counsel to seek advice.
The concept of pecuniary interest, commonly referred to as conflict of interest, is broadly applied throughout the private and public sectors in Canada and is intended to enhance public confidence by prohibiting personal financial gain or losses from affecting decisions. It is expected that anyone who serves on a governing board will scan his or her conscience when faced with voting on a matter where the outcome might have some positive or negative impact on their personal finances. That level of personal assessment is particularly important in the public sector where protection of the public purse is required. Section 80(1) of the School Act defines pecuniary interest as an interest in a matter that could monetarily affect the trustee and those individuals to whom the trustee has a deemed pecuniary interest (the trustee’s spouse or adult interdependent partner).
Section 83 of the School act sets out how a trustee shall manage a pecuniary interest in a matter before the board, any committee of the board or any commission, committee or agency to which a trustee is appointed as a representative of the board.
The decision of whether or not to objectively determine and perhaps declare a conflict of interest is purely a personal trustee decision. No one does and no one can direct that decision for a trustee.
Should a conflict of interest arise, boards are able to maximize trustee participation provided trustees alert the Board Chair to the existence of the conflict sufficiently ahead of time so that administration can take steps to present matters or budgets in a way that isolates conflict issues, thereby enabling trustees to participate in all other ways. The School Act specifically contemplates that these limited situations may arise and has specific provisions allowing a board to take votes even when quorum is lost because one or more trustees have declared a conflict of interest.
As you may appreciate, there is much work that occurs prior to public board meetings. Trustees are made aware of agenda items for meetings three to four months in advance so all trustees are well aware of items and therefore, individual trustees have the time to explore, determine and declare pecuniary interest. The determination of pecuniary interest should be made as soon as possible after receiving the agenda and meeting package. The individual trustee can then approach the Chair in advance with this declaration. Advance notice permits the Board Chair to work with administration to develop a plan for dealing with relevant agenda matters, as well as any potential quorum issues prior to the meeting. Again, if individual trustees require assistance with making a determination about whether he or she has a pecuniary interest, the individual trustee should consult with CBE Legal Affairs, or his or her own independent legal counsel.
Without waiving the privilege associated with the advice provided to the Board, I wish to offer the following background pertaining to the specific instance where Trustee Bazinet and Trustee Taylor each declared a pecuniary interest, for different reasons, at the April 19 public board meeting.
On April 15, 2011, all trustees were provided with further legal guidance which was consistent with earlier advice. I have come to learn that advisors generally suggest that if an individual, after careful study and consideration, has any doubt, the individual might want to choose a conservative course of action – especially, as in the case of the School Act, where ignoring a conflict of interest can result in disqualification.
In addition to the legal advice offered, all trustees were afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter further, with both internal and external legal counsel present, to clarify any personal questions and, in particular, to discuss the procedure for ‘dividing the question’ so that a trustee might vote on the part of an issue where there is no conflict, but abstain on the part where he/she has declared a conflict of interest. Trustee Taylor and Bazinet declined to participate in this information meeting. No person or persons stopped either trustee from discussing or voting on the Resource Allocations to Schools – Early Spring Staffing report. Both Trustee Taylor and Trustee Bazinet declared a conflict of interest and the School Act, therefore, states that they shall abstain from voting.
Informed by administration, other sources and their own experience, individual trustees are expected to make decisions for themselves and to be exclusively accountable and responsible for taking those decisions.
I am confident that individual trustees received clear and accurate information about their duties and responsibilities concerning conflict of interest matters. It is each trustee’s personal responsibility, following review of his or her own particular circumstances as to whether he or she has a pecuniary interest in any and all matters that come before the Board.
Yours truly,
Pat Cochrane, Chair
Board of Trustees
Dear Trustee Taylor,
At the public meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, April 19th,you recused yourself from the entire budget debate based on legal advice indicating that you had a pecuniary interest related to this issue. On behalf of our membership, we are asking you what precipitated your decision to recuse yourself from a vitally important public discussion? Is it the case, that you were advised that being a parent to a CBE student precluded you from discussing the CBE’s budget? The entire budget?
Is it your understanding that you received specific legal advice from CBE legal counsel that this was the case? Parents want to understand how their elected school board officials can be induced to recuse themselves from an entire budget debate solely on the basis that he/she has a child attending a CBE school. The public is aware that in prior budget debates trustees who were also parents of children in the CBE participated. Where is the pecuniary conflict and how did it translate into the whole budget debate becoming verboten to your participating?
The reasons for your decision are extremely important to parents. We have had many inquiries. There seems to be some conflicting messages in the media, some indicating that you were told you could not vote on the budget due to the conflict and other comments seems to indicate that you were advised there ‘could’ be a pecuniary issue?
It may be that further discussions are needed with the Government to amend/clarify the School Act as well as the Board regarding its policies so that this does not occur again. We feel that it is vitally important that all Trustees participate in the budget debates.
Your prompt attention to clarifying these questions would be greatly appreciated by our membership. We look forward to posting a response on our blog as soon as possible and also invite you to speak to our members at our next CAPSC meeting on May 18th.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Co-Presidents of CAPSC
Dear Eryn and Leslie,
Thank you for your email regarding pecuniary interest and your questions. I understand that your members are expressing interest in this issue and I am happy to comment.
As noted in a recent CBE news release:
"The decision to declare a conflict of interest falls to individual trustees. It is a personal decision and a personal declaration related to specific matters before a board. No one else can make that declaration for a trustee."
The board received legal advice which prompted me to declare a pecuniary conflict of interest with respect to the budget at the public board meeting on April 19th, 2011. My decision was based on the fact that I have a child attending a CBE school and I am eligible to pay school fees as a parent.
This issue and the CBE advice related to pecuniary interest falls under the heading of "legal". At the public board meeting on April 19th, I brought forward a motion to discuss the legal advice related to pecuniary interest as it applied to the RAM and budget during the public meeting. This motion was defeated and as a result the legal advice was not discussed in public. Therefore, because this issue falls under "legal" and since my request was defeated, I am not permitted to share any detailed information with you or other members of the public.
Please encourage any CAPSC members who reside in Wards 11 and 13 to contact me if they have input they would like to give on the budget and I will let them know how their views can be represented.
I will be in attendance at the next CAPSC meeting but since I cannot discuss legal advice the board received in detail, it does not seem necessary to put pecuniary interest on your agenda for that night.
Thanks again for your email.
Regards,
Sheila Taylor
Trustee, Wards 11&13
Dear Trustee Bazinet,
At the public meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, April 19th,you recused yourself from the entire budget debate based on legal advice indicating that you had a pecuniary interest related to this issue. On behalf of our membership, we are asking you what precipitated your decision to recuse yourself from a vitally important public discussion? Is it the case, that you were advised that being married to a CBE staff member precluded you from discussing the CBE’s budget? The entire budget?
Is it your understanding that you received specific legal advice from CBE legal counsel that this was the case? Parents want to understand how their elected school board officials can be induced to recuse themselves from an entire budget debate solely on the basis that he/she has a spouse working in a CBE school. The public is aware that in prior budget debates trustees who had spouse’s working in the CBE still participated. Where is the pecuniary conflict and how did it translate into the whole budget debate becoming verboten to your participating?
The reasons for your decision are extremely important to parents. We have had many inquiries.
It may be that further discussions are needed with the Government to amend/clarify the School Act as well as the Board regarding its policies so that this does not occur again. We feel that it is vitally important that all Trustees participate in the budget debates.
Your prompt attention to clarifying these questions would be greatly appreciated by our membership. We look forward to posting a response on our blog as soon as possible and also invite you to speak to our members at our next CAPSC meeting on May 18th.
Sincerely,
Eryn Kelly and Leslie Newton
Co-Presidents of CAPSC
Dear Eryn
Thank you for your email regarding pecuniary interest. As noted in a recent CBE news release
"The decision to declare a conflict of interest falls to individual trustees. It is a personal decision and a personal declaration related to specific matters before a board. No one else can make that declaration for a trustee."
The Board did receive legal advice which lead me to declare a pecuniary conflict of interest with respect to the budget.
Please encourage any CAPSC members who reside in Wards 12 and 14 to contact me if they have input they would like to give on the budget and I will let them know how their views can be represented.
Thank you for your offer to address the upcoming CAPSC meeting. Unfortunately I have another event that evening and will not be able to attend.
Thanks again for your email.
Carol Bazinet
CBE Trustee, Wards 12 and 14
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment