Here is a link to a video clip of the Union Bay Improvement District Board Meeting July 20, 2011.
http://news.webshots.com/video/3027679570028483358ACnsMWChair Carol Molstad explains the intent of indemnification under the Local Government Act. (Note: the new Board opened the previously closed public meetings and allows recordings).
At least $118,000. of taxpayers money was spent by those who supposedly believed they had the authority. Well, they were wrong.
It's pretty simple. They must pay the money back.
ADDED JULY 22/2011
The Union Bay Walk of ShameTrustee Cleve Goldswain brought indemnification to my attention late Nov. 2010 or early Dec. 2010. He knew coverage was only in the case of 'being sued' NOT 'initiating a lawsuit'. Trustees Goldswain and Bruce Livesey were unable to stop the spending of taxpayers money as they were in the minority when voting.
These same two Trustees were aware of the Dixon vs Powell River case in late Nov. 2010, due to Cleve's wife, Goldie (a very intelligent woman) researching defamation.
These two Trustees appealed to Government Departments, lawyers, MLA, etc. No one would assist. That is why our community is in dire financial straits.
Every single person who was involved with the spending of taxpayers money initiating a lawsuit MUST pay that money back and here is why:
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
unjust enrichment n. a benefit by chance, mistake, or another's misfortune for which the one enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically should not keep. If the money or property received rightly should have been delivered or belonged to another, then the party enriched must make restitution to the rightful owner. Usually a court will order such restitution if a lawsuit is brought by the party who should have the money or property. (See: constructive trust)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
The Three Stages of AnalysisFor a claimant to establish a successful unjust enrichment claim, three conditions must be fulfilled, namely there must be:
1. An enrichment to the Defendant;
2. A corresponding deprivation suffered by the claimant; and
3. No juristic reason for the enrichment.
Hopefully, the money will be paid back voluntarily. If not, these folks are looking at a mounting debt defending a case that they'll no doubt lose, and then face court costs and special costs. Could be one hell of a bill.
$118,000. Legal fees
15,000. Settlement with Mary Reynolds
10,000. estimate of legal fees resolving above issue.
$143,000. Estimated total to date divided by 8 = $17,875. each Fantasy versus reality.