A town hall meeting held at Springbank Heritage Club on Oct. 21 has called into question the potential bias of Area Councillor Jerry Arshinoff, who was reviewed by Rocky View County’s (RVC) legal counsel over the past several weeks.
According to a statement Arshinoff sent to the Rocky View Weekly on Dec. 12, the review was intended to “reduce and/or prevent” his “effectiveness” in a matter which may come before RVC council at a future date.
“Following the meeting, an attendee contacted the County,” said RVC Communications Manager Grant Kaiser.
“This attendee has a planning file that will be coming before RVC council, and they were concerned about councillor bias based on information they heard at Councillor Arshinoff’s meeting.”
Kaiser said RVC’s position is that once a planning application is received by the County, those elected officials who will be hearing the application must be “extremely careful” to avoid situations which may be perceived to be influencing their decisions, one way or another.
While not endorsed by RVC, Arshinoff’s town hall meeting involved discussions over a number of issues pertaining to the Springbank area, including proposed developments such as Gardner Ranch and the Calaway Park Outlet Mall. Speakers at the event were not developers involved with the projects, but rather concerned residents who wanted to make their voices heard, said Springbank resident Gloria Wilkinson.
“We have opinions; we are smart people,” said Wilkinson, who moderated the meeting.
“At council, we’re only given five minutes and then we are cut off. What can you say about a community opinion in only five minutes?”
According to Kaiser, once an application is received by the County, all discussion and debate pertaining to the matter should occur at official public hearings, to “ensure the transparency of the process.”
Arshinoff’s statement explained while he did invite the speakers to present at the meeting he organized, he “made no attempt to censor” anything they said. He said after being informed about the complaint, he defended the speakers’ rights to speak their minds.
“I did not know what the speakers were going to say, but I did, and will continue to defend their rights as residents to say whatever they believe,” he said.
“Apparently there are some who became most upset about that.”
According to Arshinoff, no one from RVC administration attended the meeting, nor did anyone speak to him before giving “background information” to legal counsel.
“It may be reasonable to expect that if a person found anything objectionable at this meeting, that person may choose to retain counsel for an opinion,” he said.
“It is far less reasonable that (RVC) would do it for them, thereby using your tax money to stifle your voice.”
Arshinoff admitted in his statement he did not know the cost of the County’s hired legal counsel, but said residents could “assume it is significant.”
“This is blatant example of them forgetting who their bosses are,” Wilkinson said. “One developer whines, and they jump to attention. If 100 residents did the same thing, they certainly wouldn’t react the same way. How dare a municipality try to take an opinion on what a community chooses to do for itself?”
According to Kaiser, RVC sought a legal opinion because of the public complaint about potential bias.
This opinion was shared with council, but the information remains confidential legal advice.
RVC is unable to release the name of the complainant at this time, but Kaiser said when their file is brought before council, any possible question of bias will be dealt with by council at that time.
Ultimately, the decision falls on the individual councillor to determine if a bias is present.
