It is unlikely a city councillor’s conflict of interest declaration in relation to Sturgis North will have any impact on past decisions of council.
At Monday’s regular council meeting, Coun. Kevin Flynn explained how, after consultation with city staff, he decided that removing himself from future discussions on motorcycle rally event was the safe and proper thing to do.
He said the decision stemmed from two letters received in February from resident John McLeod, which prompted him to review and reconsider his involvement in city decisions related to Sturgis.
Flynn and Sturgis North site manager Steve Hammer are business associates, both owners of separate holding companies that each owns half of Salmon Arm Financial Ltd.
“Mr. Hammer is not the promoter of this event, he has not invested financially in this event and he does not stand to lose money,” said Flynn. “And therefore, I don’t think there’s a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. However, he is a volunteer who is not being compensated for his time at this point. But he does, potentially, stand to gain if the event is a success, just like many of the other local volunteers. Because of his involvement and our long-time partnership, I am therefore stepping out on any further discussion on this matter, in the best interest of both the event and the City of Salmon Arm.”
Asked if council would now have to revisit past decisions on Sturgis, city administrator Carl Bannister said he would be advising against it.
“It’s a bit complicated I guess,” said Bannister. “When it comes to revisiting decisions of council, that is basically a political exercise, and there’s two ways that could happen; a mayor could bring back a decision in 30 days, or a councillor on the prevailing side of a motion can try to have things reconsidered.”
Bannister said, however, that it would be impractical for council to revisit decisions Sturgis has already proceeded on (such as an application for liquor licensing, and for non-farm use submitted to the Agricultural Land Commission).
“The one exception to that might be the noise bylaw… you could argue as well that the applicant has taken that and acted on it in planning the event,” said Bannister. “I don’t think it’s really practical that previous decisions in this case would come back. Also, in reviewing the decisions that have been made in this case, I think three or four of them, there’s only been one vote that’s been 4-3.”
In November, Flynn responded to concerns raised about his possibly being in conflict.
He told the Observer that he regularly excuses himself from council discussions and voting on issues that could have any remote possibility of financial or pecuniary interest.
In the case of Sturgis, he said then there was no potential for conflict.
“I declared that when this event first came up, but have chosen to declare conflict on the basis that a reasonable person may perceive that I have an indirect or other interest, simply because of my business relationship with Mr. Hammer,” Flynn said Monday.
McLeod, a longtime Salmon Arm farmer, applauded Flynn for “doing the right thing.”
“I just can’t see how you can have a business with a partner who’s promoting this thing and sit there and not claim to be in a conflict of interest,” said McLeod, who is circulating a petition on behalf of the Salmon Arm Farmers Institute opposing the proposed use of an agricultural property for one of the main Sturgis North event sites.
McLeod now argues that council should go back to square one on any decisions made relating to Sturgis.
“If you are in a conflict of interest now, you were in a conflict of interest then, and anything you’ve said and done has had some kind of sway,” said McLeod.
