Penny Duperron to Board of Education of School District No. 53

 

Re: Petition to BC Supreme Court
BY EMAIL

Dear Members of the Board,

On November 23, your Chief Election Officer informed you that an error had been made during the recent by-election. At that time, she also informed you that she believed that this error did not have a material impact on the results of the election, so she, as Chief Election Officer, would not be petitioning the court for a review.

Instead, she encouraged the candidates involved in that election to petition the court if we felt justified in doing so.

After spending two weeks attempting to get the School District and School Board to “do the right thing,” and initiate its own review, I took the only option left: I petitioned the BC Supreme Court to conduct that review.

At no time did Ms. Minnabarriet, or the Board, indicate any intent to fight efforts made by the candidates to conduct this review. And that is exactly what I am asking for: an independent, impartial, third party to review the process and determine if it was a fair election.

Whatever the result of that review, I am prepared to accept it. It appears, you, however, are not.

Over the past week, I have been threatened and intimidated by your lawyer in an attempt to steer me away from proceeding with this review. Considering it was Ms. Minnabarriet who encouraged this avenue, that seems more than a little heavy-handed.

In the response provided to me, your lawyer makes no effort to defend your position the by-election was fairly and properly conducted. Rather, his arguments are limited to why my petition, which the lawyer suggest isn’t in perfect form, should be dismissed by the Court.

In short, he wants my petition dismissed on a technicality.

You, as trustees, through your support for your Chief Election Officer, have indicated you felt the by-election irregularity wasn’t significant and therefore did not support pursuing a judicial review of the flawed process.

Now, though, you are attempting to hold me to a standard higher than you set for yourselves.

A substantial technicality isn’t sufficient to warrant a review of your by-election process; a minor technicality is sufficient to halt my petition. You want perfection in the process employed to question your imperfection.

That truly is a double-standard.

Most frustrating is that if you had done the right thing after the irregularity was admitted and had sought the review yourselves, your lawyers could have ensured that proper process in court was followed. Instead they are attempting to use these supposed errors in the process to quash the review.

I have to ask: Of what are you so afraid? You have said that you are confident in your position there was no material effect on the election. Why then are you afraid to hear what a judge has to say about it?

Your position isn’t even financially prudent: your efforts to stop this review are costing the School District more than it would cost to rerun the by-election.

Except I understand you have a plan to recoup those costs.

In a letter accompanying the school district’s response, your lawyer includes the clear threat of making me pay for his time and resources if this matter goes to Court. He suggests that I “give strong consideration to agree to withdraw and not proceed further with these matters that would be an unnecessary and wasteful court attendance” and further indicates there would be “cost consequences” and that the School District would be asking the Court for an “award of costs.”

Although I am disappointed, I am not surprised that you’re taking this position.　I had hoped that once this process was in motion you would welcome the opportunity to prove in an impartial forum that the outcome of the by-election was sound.

I know there are good people on this school board. I know there is integrity and a proper sense of fairness.

There are steps that can still be taken to bring this to a less adversarial end.

There is a provision — (Rule 1-2 (3)) under the rules of the BC Supreme Court — that allows for all parties to agree waiving some, or all, of the rules. In other words, both parties can agree to let some of the very minor mistakes made in the petition — using Form A, for example, instead of Form B — be accepted in a mutual quest to resolve a much larger mistake.

I respectfully ask that you direct your lawyer to consider doing so instead of simply relying on a minor procedural misstep to have this matter dismissed. Since there is case law and precedent, the judge can choose to not summarily dismiss the case and proceed, in which case there has been no evidence presented defending your position and your lawyer may be asking me to waive some of the rules so he can present this evidence.　 This is a two-way street.

We should all want the same thing: to know that this by-election was fair and legal. I can see no advantage to the School Board to have this cloud of doubt hanging over its head. If you are sure that you are right, what is the harm in having a judge review it? If you aren’t sure you are right, shouldn’t a judge be reviewing it?

Please consider this request. I think that all of you, like me, would want to know that any election you ran in — or, in the future, will run in — is fair and legal. Is that really too much to ask?

Sincerely,

 

Penny Duperron