1327 replies to this topic

[rmpeers]

Oh my.

From the OPCC, December of 2015:

There was no further contact from the Co-Chairs until approximately October 28, 2015, when our office received information that members of the Board had not received adequate disclosure with respect to the allegations and investigation related to Chief Constable Elsner. Our office contacted counsel for the Co-Chairs, who advised that it was the Co-Chairs’ position that the Board members were not entitled to disclosure. We reminded counsel for the Co-Chairs that this was a pre-condition for our agreeing that this matter could be dealt with as an internal discipline matter. Our office advised the Co-Chairs through counsel that I was contemplating taking action in the matter. A short time later, we received confirmation that the Board members had received adequate disclosure.

And again: The [co-chairs] did not adequately update police board members along the course of the investigation; did not tell the commissioner’s office when new allegations arose; misinformed the media about the existence of an investigation; and as the internal discipline authority in a case with obvious potential for conflict led a process that failed to meet Police Act requirements for fairness, accountability and transparency.

=====

Helps stated early on in this debacle that the board and the commissioner “guided” the investigation. But the OPCC’s initial report from 2015 clearly indicates the co-chairs withheld information from not only the OPCC, but also the board.

How can they not have resigned already, let alone having the gall to run for office again??

If they get voted in again, what kind of message does that send??

[Bingo]

How can they not have resigned already, let alone having the gall to run for office again??

If they get voted in again, what kind of message does that send??

 

Good thing they have all those bike lanes to practice backpedaling in,

[Sparky]

How can they not have resigned already, let alone having the gall to run for office again??

 

This could be a much larger problem than that.

 

Our sense of fair play in our society revolves around a duty of care. This isn't just a case of hiring the wrong contractor or looking after parks and transportation as Helps so eloquently stated, this is about elected officials making a request to the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner to oversee the internal investigation of alleged wrongdoing by a Chief of Police.

 

Once that request was granted on two conditions, the elected officials and co-chairs of the Victoria Police Board had a duty of care to perform that task not only to the best of their ability, but to perform that task with fairness and sober judgement. They hold a public office that demands trust, especially when the task at hand is judiciary. 

 

If this trust is breached...then we have a problem, especially here in Canada. Section 122 of the criminal code is quite clear.

 

http://laws-lois.jus...ection-122.html

Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

[Victoria Watcher]

i suspect both mayors will now employ some type of a stance to avoid talking at all about the case.  like a "before the courts" type maneuver.  we'll probably find out on cfax this morning.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 October 2018 - 05:35 AM.

[spanky123]

i suspect both mayors will now employ some type of a stance to avoid talking at all about the case.  like a "before the courts" type maneuver.  we'll probably find out on cfax this morning.

 

The next phase will be to blame the board and suggest that they were only doing as they were told. I am sure that the PCC has some documentation to refute that as well.

 

Helps is quoted in the TC this morning as "considering her options" in response to what she calls defamatory comments by the PCC. I guess she could file a claim and then hide behind that for the next few years until it gets dismissed. No doubt the taxpayer will even foot her legal bill.

Edited by spanky123, 02 October 2018 - 06:50 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

i suspect both mayors will now employ some type of a stance to avoid talking at all about the case.  like a "before the courts" type maneuver.  we'll probably find out on cfax this morning.

 

and right on cue:

 

“At this point, I’m considering what my options are going forward,” Helps said Monday. “I’m going to have someone look at the report carefully and see if it’s defamatory. It feels defamatory.”

 

so she will likely not talk about it until at least after the election as it's now "with her legal team".

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 October 2018 - 06:53 AM.

[spanky123]

 

and right on cue:

 

“At this point, I’m considering what my options are going forward,” Helps said Monday. “I’m going to have someone look at the report carefully and see if it’s defamatory. It feels defamatory.”

 

so she will likely not talk about it until at least after the election as it's now "with her legal team".

 

 

Helps has been in hiding since the election cycle started. No way to ask her anything or make any comments on her policy statements. If she shows up on CFAX then she doesn't take questions. She is trying to completely manage the message which is why the PCC is such a thorn to her. 

Edited by spanky123, 02 October 2018 - 06:57 AM.

[Mike K.]

Helps was very big on community feedback driving her priorities as mayor. Remember how City Hall supppsedly expanded its outreach to the community with Helps as mayor, but then we looked into the numbers and saw the pool of respondents to any one issue was very, very small and it did not identify who was and who wasn’t a CoV taxpayer?

With the OPCC revealing Helps had a predetermined result in mind for the Elsner situation, what else did she have a predetermined result for while pushing through various items during her term?

We know of the following:
- Topaz Park “done deal” tent city
- Biketoria, which came out of left field but which had that dubious community support Helps relied on to back the project and its massive cost overruns
- Removal of Sir John A, which she said couldn’t have been handled in any other way
- poet laureates
- artists in residence
- pot shops
- and now the Crystal Pool, a mega project on the heels of a bungled mega project

[rjag]

Helps was very big on community feedback driving her priorities as mayor. Remember how City Hall supppsedly expanded its outreach to the community with Helps as mayor, but then we looked into the numbers and saw the pool of respondents to any one issue was very, very small and it did not identify who was and who wasn’t a CoV taxpayer?

With the OPCC revealing Helps had a predetermined result in mind for the Elsner situation, what else did she have a predetermined result for while pushing through various items during her term?

We know of the following:
- Topaz Park “done deal” tent city
- Biketoria, which came out of left field but which had that dubious community support Helps relied on to back the project and its massive cost overruns
- Removal of Sir John A, which she said couldn’t have been handled in any other way
- poet laureates
- artists in residence
- pot shops
- and now the Crystal Pool, a mega project on the heels of a bungled mega project

 

You only have to look and see who she surrounds herself with to understand where that feedback comes from.   

[A Girl is No one]

Helps was very big on community feedback driving her priorities as mayor. Remember how City Hall supppsedly expanded its outreach to the community with Helps as mayor, but then we looked into the numbers and saw the pool of respondents to any one issue was very, very small and it did not identify who was and who wasn’t a CoV taxpayer?

With the OPCC revealing Helps had a predetermined result in mind for the Elsner situation, what else did she have a predetermined result for while pushing through various items during her term?

We know of the following:
- Topaz Park “done deal” tent city
- Biketoria, which came out of left field but which had that dubious community support Helps relied on to back the project and its massive cost overruns
- Removal of Sir John A, which she said couldn’t have been handled in any other way
- poet laureates
- artists in residence
- pot shops
- and now the Crystal Pool, a mega project on the heels of a bungled mega project

Don’t forget that she had also predetermined that the sewage treatment plant was going to go to Clover Point (for an extra $200M+). Her « public consultation «  on that were just fake and manipulative.

[rmpeers]

She doesn't listen and will never ever admit when she's wrong.

Amd now she's faced with public evidence that she tried to hide sexual harrassmemt, and that she protected and publicly praised a powerful man who mistreated women, she's got no good defense.

On the CFAX debate she was clearly flustered on this issue and even the well-scripted untruths began to fail her, as Hammond picked them apart one by one.

There's just no good reason for anyone to stand by her anymore.

[Stephen Andrew]

LISA HELPS CANNOT GET HER STORIES STRAIGHT - NOW TWISTING FACTS

- More evidence shows Helps knew of Chief bullying and inappropriate behaviour allegations and did nothing.

- Helps now trying to confuse voters with unfounded concerns over police report.

The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner released a letter dated November 16, 2015 proving Lisa Helps and Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins were told of allegations against the former Police Chief.

It’s there in black and white and very clear.

FACT: Look at the date. November 16th, 2015.

FACT: They knew about the allegations prior to November 16. Helps tells the Times Colonist in an October 2nd published story “When the investigator reported the bullying and harassment allegations, they (Helps and Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins) instructed their lawyer to put them in her final report.

But did they did NOTHING about the allegations.

FACT: Helps and Desjardins did not tell the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Helps is now trying to say “Their mandate was to finish the Twitter investigation”. This infers the mayors were then going to deal with the bullying and harassment allegations.

FACT: Helps and Desjardins are required to report any allegations to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. They did not.

FACT: The mayors told media that the former chief “was the best thing that happened to Victoria and Esquimalt” even though they knew the bullying and inappropriate behaviour allegations existed.

QUESTION: Imagine you are a female member of the Victoria Police Department, you experience sexual harassment, you make the courageous step to step forward with the allegations, you know the Mayors are aware of the allegations against their boss and then you hear them say “He’s the best thing that has happened to Victoria and Esquimalt”. How would you feel?

QUESTION: Why would the mayors make that public statement, in essence a statement to the women who made the allegations?

Helps now says “One of the most upsetting elements of this whole situation is the insinuation that I would protect a man engaged in bullying and harassment. I have been working on women’s issues and women’s rights since I was 15 years old. To suggest we were planning to ignore the allegations brought forward by female members of VicPD is simply untrue. It makes no sense. And to those who know me, it’s just not plausible.”

The facts say otherwise. It’s implausible for Helps to expect the women to have trust in her ability to handle the matter.

It’s why the members of Victoria Police Union voted unanimously to express a lack of faith in the Mayor’s investigation and handling of the allegations.

FACT: The Victoria Police Union informed the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner of the bullying and inappropriate behaviour allegations.

I am astounded that Helps and her supporters and now trying to revise history.

I cannot see how Helps’ comment that the report is a “character assassination.

It may be inconvenient that this information came out as she is trying to be re-elected. It may not fit her narrative she is a supporter of women. And it may not fit her version of truth.

But the report clearly lays out a fact pattern that is indisputable.

Try as she might to confuse voters,
I hope this post shows holes in her statements.

www.stephenandrew.ca

[rmpeers]

The latest talking point seems to be "It's hurtful/slanderous to say that I would (insert thing that appears to be a documented action she took.)"

I saw one of her supporters on Twitter decrying the actions of the "deep state" OPCC. They're going full Trump/Bannon/Breitbart now.

[thundergun]

I did some professional work years ago with the OPCC and had multiple meetings with Rollie Woods and Stan Lowe. They are extremely professional, capable and reasonable people. I have nothing but positive things to say about their characters and would take their word over any politician's without hesitation. Not that any of this was in question, but thought it was worth sharing. 

[Nparker]

...I am astounded that Helps and her supporters and now trying to revise history....

I'm not. They've shown that to be part of their modus operandi multiple times since Lisa Helps became mayor.

[A Girl is No one]

^^you beat me to it!!

[rmpeers]

Also I don't think that voters who do any research at all will buy the argument that newcouncil are conservatives. To me, they sound like decent, honest people who might actually be able to do some real good for the city, and might actually have a chance to reduce homelessness and make things better on many other fronts.

I've been trying to keep an open mind but, after the cfax debate today, Hammond appears to be the clear choice.

Edited by rmpeers, 02 October 2018 - 01:55 PM.

[spanky123]

She doesn't listen and will never ever admit when she's wrong.

Amd now she's faced with public evidence that she tried to hide sexual harrassmemt, and that she protected and publicly praised a powerful man who mistreated women, she's got no good defense.

On the CFAX debate she was clearly flustered on this issue and even the well-scripted untruths began to fail her, as Hammond picked them apart one by one.

There's just no good reason for anyone to stand by her anymore.

 

 

Good to hear Adam Stirling call her out after the debate on her comment that there was nothing new in the OPCC letter. That is factually another lie.

[spanky123]

Further to my earlier comment about Helps blaming the police board for the decision on Elsner and that she was just following their instructions, here is a post of mine from 2016 which covers that topic.

 

 

1. We know that Helps and Desjardins spoke with the PCC about the allegations against Elsner and that one of the requirements that the PCC made was that the board co-chairs talk with John Doe and get his permission to limit the scope of the investigation. We also know that the board co-chairs met with John Doe and we were told that he did not want an external investigation conducted. What we didn't know prior to the affidavit was that when the co-chairs first spoke with John Doe he stated that he wanted to speak with his wife before he decided on a course of action. The co-chairs then went to Elsner and told him about their discussion with John Doe and the potential investigation and Frank Elsner then went and had his own meeting with John Doe.  It was after Elsner met with John Doe and the co-hairs had a follow up meeting that John Doe then decided he did not want to proceed with any investigation.

 

2. In her affidavit, Barb Desjardins make reference to having informed the board of the investigation of Frank Elsner in September and having received confirmation from the board in writing that they were satisfied in October. In fact a letter from the chair of the governance committee in October can only fairly be described as a full dressing down of Helps and Desjardins. What Desjardins refers to as 'informing the board' is called a 'disciplinary matter described in only the vaguest of terms' by the committee chair. I think that any reasonable person reading the letter would come to the conclusion that the board's satisfaction had nothing to do with the investigation and only dealt with Helps and Desjardins agreement to follow process as directed. There is no way that the board could have blessed any investigation of Elsner as the investigation wasn't completed until more than two weeks after the chair letter.

 

3. Despite having been directed in writing by the governance committee of the board to inform them of any investigative result, conduct an in camera meeting to discuss the results of such a report, and have the full board decide on any final disposition with Elsner, it appears as though two weeks later, after the investigative report was received,  Helps and Desjardins again acted on their own without any board discussion or resolution. Helps and Desjardins seem to be trying to further the argument that since the original source of allegations against Elsner were a 'concern' and not a 'complaint' then they were not required to follow the procedures outlined in the board policy or disclose anything to the board itself. 

 

4. As early as October 28th the PCC stated that he was concerned that Helps and Desjardins had not followed his orders and had not kept the board informed of the matter with Elsner (at that time he wouldn't have known about the John Doe problem). Despite being warned by the PCC, it appears as though Helps and Desjardins continued to avoid disclosure to the board. 

 

In her affidavit, Desjardins makes the argument that they (her and Helps) lacked experience and relied on the opinions of others. It is pretty obvious however that they ignored the advice of the chair of their own governance committee and the OPCC so I don't know who they actual relied upon. Clearly the relationship between Desjardins/Helps and the remainder of the police board is dysfunctional. That appears to have translated into dysfunctional policing policy and no doubt the problems we are observing in the downtown core now.

 

There is some "deep throat" at work here. It appears as though the OPCC was tipped that Helps and Desjardins had not informed the board and we know that someone had tipped the media about the investigation report.  My guess is that there is a lot more coming out.

Edited by spanky123, 02 October 2018 - 02:46 PM.

[rmpeers]

Further to my earlier comment about Helps blaming the police board for the decision on Elsner and that she was just following their instructions, here is a post of mine from 2016 which covers that topic.

1. We know that Helps and Desjardins spoke with the PCC about the allegations against Elsner and that one of the requirements that the PCC made was that the board co-chairs talk with John Doe and get his permission to limit the scope of the investigation. We also know that the board co-chairs met with John Doe and we were told that he did not want an external investigation conducted. What we didn't know prior to the affidavit was that when the co-chairs first spoke with John Doe he stated that he wanted to speak with his wife before he decided on a course of action. The co-chairs then went to Elsner and told him about their discussion with John Doe and the potential investigation and Frank Elsner then went and had his own meeting with John Doe. It was after Elsner met with John Doe and the co-hairs had a follow up meeting that John Doe then decided he did not want to proceed with any investigation.

2. In her affidavit, Barb Desjardins make reference to having informed the board of the investigation of Frank Elsner in September and having received confirmation from the board in writing that they were satisfied in October. In fact a letter from the chair of the governance committee in October can only fairly be described as a full dressing down of Helps and Desjardins. What Desjardins refers to as 'informing the board' is called a 'disciplinary matter described in only the vaguest of terms' by the committee chair. I think that any reasonable person reading the letter would come to the conclusion that the board's satisfaction had nothing to do with the investigation and only dealt with Helps and Desjardins agreement to follow process as directed. There is no way that the board could have blessed any investigation of Elsner as the investigation wasn't completed until more than two weeks after the chair letter.

3. Despite having been directed in writing by the governance committee of the board to inform them of any investigative result, conduct an in camera meeting to discuss the results of such a report, and have the full board decide on any final disposition with Elsner, it appears as though two weeks later, after the investigative report was received, Helps and Desjardins again acted on their own without any board discussion or resolution. Helps and Desjardins seem to be trying to further the argument that since the original source of allegations against Elsner were a 'concern' and not a 'complaint' then they were not required to follow the procedures outlined in the board policy or disclose anything to the board itself.

4. As early as October 28th the PCC stated that he was concerned that Helps and Desjardins had not followed his orders and had not kept the board informed of the matter with Elsner (at that time he wouldn't have known about the John Doe problem). Despite being warned by the PCC, it appears as though Helps and Desjardins continued to avoid disclosure to the board.

In her affidavit, Desjardins makes the argument that they (her and Helps) lacked experience and relied on the opinions of others. It is pretty obvious however that they ignored the advice of the chair of their own governance committee and the OPCC so I don't know who they actual relied upon. Clearly the relationship between Desjardins/Helps and the remainder of the police board is dysfunctional. That appears to have translated into dysfunctional policing policy and no doubt the problems we are observing in the downtown core now.

There is some "deep throat" at work here. It appears as though the OPCC was tipped that Helps and Desjardins had not informed the board and we know that someone had tipped the media about the investigation report. My guess is that there is a lot more coming out.

Hope so. Every voter needs to hear this story.