Crimes against Carnegie? Or Crimes against Democracy? You be the judge!

May 22nd, 2008

 On March 6th, 2008 the Carnegie Centre Association Board of Directors sent me a letter asking me to resign. They gave no explanation for their reasoning. For 2 months I have been trying to learn why they made this decision so I could defend myself. Finally, I made a motion which was passed at the last Board meeting, May 1st, 2008, that the Board write me a letter, telling me their reasoning. I’ve been told the draft was made for it that very night, but then somehow forgotten about. Instead, three weeks later, I was given this document I copy below, which is dated 3 months ago, from 2 weeks before I received my letter asking me to resign, strangely enough. As well, it was just put in the minutes May 22nd, 2008. There is no salutation on this letter, but it does seem to be an actual letter, on Carnegie Centre stationary. I don’t know what the purpose of this letter is, if it was not for me, and also apparently not for the minutes. I’ve asked who it was sent to, but I have received no reply.

This letter’s reasoning in asking for my resignation is flawed throughout by: 

a) a glaring lack of actual evidence

b) The fact that so very little of what the Board presents as my “offenses” are actually against any rules.

 Here is the letter, interspersed with my refutation. (All mistakes in the CCCA Board’s grammar, spelling, punctuation, misuse of words, and my name, are from the original.)

 February 22nd, 2008

 The Executive of the board is concerned about certain actions and statements of board member Rachel deVlaming. We refer to the following:

Dec 27/7, Jan5/8, by e-mail: letters to Capilano College (various recipients including media) noting (Carnegie Centre) business; accusing a Learning Centre staff member of malicious behaviour; an inferred threat to Capilano College; writing on behalf of the CCCA; etc.

I did not accuse a Learning Centre staff of malicious behavior. Likewise I did not "infer" a threat to Capilano College, (nor did I imply one, if that’s what is meant.) You’ll notice that my emails are not quoted to provide evidence for this claim. The Board wrote to Capilano College to apologize for my email to them, they did not mention either of these things that they are accusing me of. If I really had written those things, that would be a certainly be a gross oversight on the part of the CCCA Board.

Feb 13/8, at Education/Library Cte meeting: after having said she would bring copies of the emails she sent to Capilano College to this meeting, she refused.

Yes, I changed my mind. I did not want to facilitate an apology to Capilano College because I did not feel I had done anything wrong to them or their employee. No one had told me I could not give my status as a board member when I wrote someone, without allegedly “implying” that I represented the whole board. (Though I did apologize to the board for my lack of knowledge, but, honestly, they should have been the ones to tell me this rule before hand!) I did, however, give both Ethel Whitty and Lucy Alderson permission to give my letters to the Board if they wished. (I had sent copies of this letter to both of them at the same time I sent to Capilano College) At the meeting, however, Ms. Alderson said she didn’t have my email on her computer anymore, because she had “forwarded it all”.

 Her behaviour at this meeting is seen to be obstructive to the good relationship of the CCCA with the Learning Ctr/Capilano College.

Once again, where is the proof? How was I obstructive? Was it because I didn’t give the committee the letter I wrote to Capilano College? In that case, it follows that Lucy Alderson was also obstructive to the good relationship between the Learning Centre and Capilano College. Or perhaps she felt it wasn't necessary, she did say that she thought the relationship hadn't been harmed. The minutes of this meeting describe an ongoing negative discussion of me (speaking to persons, not issues) after I had to leave to get my kids from school, but there is no mention of what specifically I did wrong at this meeting, except my having to leave early because the posted meeting time was an hour earlier

 Has since sent correspondance of CCCA Board members to the media.

And where is the evidence of this? And what about Jeff Sommers telling me at the Board orientation that Board emails could be sent to “Anyone in the world” What about the others on the Board sending things on to non-board members? That has been done repeatedly. Am I to conclude that it’s only media that is to be not allowed to know CCCA Board business?

 Ongoingly infers negative intentions to the motives of staff, CCCA Board members, and CCC volunteers, breaking with rules of procedure (which is to speak to issues, not of persons)

Again, where is the proof of this? How does the CCCA Board know what I infer? Perhaps the Board means the word “imply”, but again, where is the proof? I know of many times when I have been accused of negative intentions, including this very document, and in the minutes of the previously mentioned Education/Library committee meeting, and in the Newsletter, to name a few different places, but I would like to see where and what and who I am being accused of maligning here. Not just these completely general and unproven statements.

 Jan 17/8, by e-mail: charges editor of CCCA newsletter of libel.

Feb 8/8, at Publications Cte meeting: R deVlaming says “I take it back”, but no apology made. Accuses editor of newsletter of with-holding volunteer tickets for submissions, suggesting [fraud?]

(Brackets and question mark are in the original. If a word is so dubious that it needs a question mark and brackets, then it has no place in a legal document) What I actually asked the editor was “you get over 4,000 tickets a year to hand out*, where do they all go?” I never mentioned fraud. So the reality is that this is a fraudulent accusation of an accusation of fraud! I found it upsetting at the time that a board member called it an accusation of fraud, but I never expected that outrageous interpretation of my simple question to be carried further, I will point out that this alleged “accusation” of mine is not in the minutes of that meeting (I asked the question of the editor because I’d submitted numerous times to the newsletter without ever being told that I could get tickets for it. It turned out other board members at that meeting had the same experience) It’s my job as a CCCA director to ask questions like this, I should not have to suffer these kinds of accusations, let alone suffer the public humiliation of being asked to resign, for asking a question about how volunteer tickets are distributed.

*The actual number is more like 6,000

 Feb 6/8, by mail: letter from the Law Dept of CoV, informing the CCCA that R deVlaming e-mailed a Carnegie staff member regarding confidential matters outside of her powers as a CCCA Board member, and without the authority of the CCCA.

Yes, I wrote an email to an employee, one I felt I had a personal relationship with. The subject may have been outside my “powers as a Board member”, but then, I didn’t say I was a board member, and I wasn’t writing to her as one. The City Law Dept. let me know that I was not allowed to “take off my board hat” when writing to their employees on “sensitive” employment issues. They wrote a letter to the CCCA Board and suggested that they should better educate their new board members of the rules. That sounds excellent to me. They did not instruct the Board to ask me to resign, neither did they state or imply that there should be any actions taken at all, except better education of Board members.

 To be clear, the Executives’ opinion is not based on R deVlaming’s cause(s), but by statements made and actions taken.

What is this supposed to mean?

 We believe that the above clearly demonstrates that R deVlaming has not:

 a)    acted honestly and in good faith and in the best interests of the CCCA, and

b)    exercised the care diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person, in exercising the powers and performing the functions as a director.

 After much consideration, the Executive Cte requests that Rachel deVlaming tender her resignation as a CCCA Board member.

 Margaret Prevost,

President, CCCA

 Since I have refuted some of the Boards reasonings and alleged facts, explained myself, and pointed out where the CCCA Board has committed the same offenses (in writing, and in minutes) that they accuse me of, without any proof, and pointed out how few of these alleged actions and or words of mine are actually against any rules (as far as I can see, just two of my actions are against rules, those ones pertaining to writing while saying I was a board member, and, conversely, writing while not saying I was a board member, and as I said before, I was not told about those rules beforehand, so it was an honest mistake) perhaps the Board would like to apologize to me for the public humiliation they have caused by asking me to resign. I, for one, and a significant portion of the membership, sincerely hope so.

Sincerely,

Rachel Davis, 

Member of the Carnegie Community Centre Board of Directors

 But not representing them in their entirety