Colwood council working to clean up voter perception on campaign donations

On Sept. 9, Coun. Kim Jordison tabled a motion addressing potential conflicts of interests between Colwood elected officials, developers and other interest groups. Her motion requested that elected officials “recuse themselves from any and all discussions, city planning activities, meetings, decisions, and voting processes related to any matter of potential value to a developer if that elected official has received any monetary or non-monetary benefits totaling more than $25 from the developer, or any closely associated individuals.” 

The motion was unanimously referred by council back to staff for revision. 

When she tabled the motion, Jordison said, “I've seen some shady things happen in the past, and again, this past municipal election that I think we as a council need to address. In the past, some developers have even gone to the extent of having their family members make the donation on their behalf or the company staff to disguise the donation and their names, and I just don't agree with it.”

Jordison is referring to some facts around the contentious 2022 Colwood mayoral election. 

In that election, multiple members of the Mann family–of Don Mann Excavating—contributed to former mayor Rob Martin’s campaign. Steve Mann, past president of the company, CFO Trevor Mann, CEO Colin Mann, and Cherie Mann, the wife of COO Jordan Mann each contributed $1,200 to Martin’s campaign. The family’s contributions alone represented roughly 30% of Martin’s total campaign contributions. 

It is not illegal for developers to donate to campaigns. But, as Coun. Cynthia Day said, “It doesn’t pass the smell test when you have the developer, his brother-in-law and his real estate agent all coming up to the microphone, they don’t live in Colwood and don’t have an interest other than a particular project.”

And while that may sound like hyperbole, Jordison said, “It’s not even a comical thing to say, it’s the reality here.”

Coun. Ian Ward alleged, during the meeting, that it’s not just developers but other groups in the community, such as Homes for Living, who are private citizens, but have been unduly “influential in electing candidates in Saanich and Victoria.” 

Ward told The Westshore in an interview that Homes for Living will “identify a slate of preferred candidates, you should vote for these people because they'll build more homes. They are closely tied to the development and advocate strongly for the development industry.” 

Following the 2022 municipal elections, The Westshore reviewed campaign spending by two parties in Langford and determined that how much a party spent on its campaign did not translate to more votes. In that election, Community First Langford spent $143,108 on its campaign and failed to get a single candidate elected, despite having almost all of the incumbents. In comparison, the Langford Now slate spent almost $57,000 on its campaign and succeeded in getting all of its candidates elected. 

For Mayor Doug Kobayashi, it’s a matter of doing the right thing. “The impact of a developer is millions of dollars to a community,” he said. “When you are making decisions on multimillion-dollar re-zonings I think a person has to recuse themselves.” Kobayashi chose to recuse himself from one of two votes related to the Olympic View development because he had received a $200 campaign donation from Len Wansbrough, who was affiliated with the Olympic View development, in 2018.

In July 2023, the mayor joined representatives of Vancouver-based Reliance Properties and Island developer Seacliff Properties for a naming ceremony at the Beachlands.

Coun. David Grove raised a concern around the complexity of prosecutorial challenges to unseemly developer campaign donations and called for getting additional legal advice on the matter. “It’s very difficult to prosecute someone who has received funds from a developer, or outside interests.” He’s not wrong.  

In its 2021 ruling on Allan v Froese, the BC Supreme Court upheld the principle that accepting a campaign contribution from a developer, as an elected official, does not necessarily establish that the official has a monetary interest in the developer’s matters before council. In that case, arguments were made around the legal litmus test for determining whether an elected official has a conflict of interest based on sections 101, 104, and 108 of the Community Charter.  

The burden of proof of conflict, in this case, is steep because of the ways in which personal and community benefits are often difficult to tease apart. In its decision the court stated:

1. The petitioners must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the elected official had a “direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter under consideration” by council;

2. If step one is proven, the petitioners must then show that the exceptions in s. 104(1) of the Community Charter do not apply, these include showing that:

   • the pecuniary interest is not an interest held in common with electors of the municipality generally,

   • the pecuniary interest does not relate to remuneration, expenses or benefits payable to the council member in relation to their duties as a council member; and

   • a reasonably well-informed person would conclude that the pecuniary interest can reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member in relation to the matter.

Related to the interweaving in the question of personal versus community benefit, Mayor Kobayashi and Councillors Dean Jantzen and Cynthia Day all raised their concern about attending developer-sponsored and other events—events they are obliged to attend as elected officials but which may cost more than $25 per head or at which “gifts” may be distributed. 

“I dont’ think it’s a matter of adding up the number of canapés we have at any event,” said Day, however, “there is a perception that I have been hearing from residents that they are concerned that we draw a better line in the sand than we currently have about how we handle election expenses,” she added.

Jantzen felt that statutes such as Colwood’s municipal Code of Ethics and the Community Charter adequately cover the issues of concern in Jordison’s motion and already provide remedies against abuses of conflict of interest.

The Community Charter allows local governments to engage residents directly to seek elector approval to proceed with the adoption of a bylaw, agreement or any other matter in question that requires elector approval. The Charter is used most often in relation to long-term borrowing bylaws, which allow council to approve debt financing for capital projects.

Colwood’s Code of Conduct states “An employee must ensure timely and full disclosure to a client or employer of a possible conflict of interest arising from their private or professional activities. Employees must not offer or accept any financial or other inducements, including prospective employment that could, or appear to, influence or affect professional opportunities or planning advice.”

The Council Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy also establishes a minimum set of standards and expectations with respect to the conduct, decorum, and behaviour of council members. Jantzen called the motion a potential “boondoggle for a law firm” and asked for additional specificity. 

Ultimately, Colwood council decided to send the motion back to staff to revise it in the spirit of the discussion around the table. For Day, the decision to revise was about letting constituents publicly know that “their perceptions matter.”