There has been a considerable amount of interest in the happenings at the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District (SQCRD), in particular with recent controversy involving the Seafood Development Office (Seafood) and the Marine Biotoxin Program (Biotoxin), The SQCRD board has chosen to respond via a paid press release because recent weeks have seen a well-orchestrated campaign carried out that has contained inaccurate and untrue allegations. We wish to present the facts from our perspective.
Part of the confusion is caused by the fact that the Seafood contract and the Biotoxin contract are completely separate programs[1]. Seafood was established on July 25th. 1997 when Bylaw #332 was adopted by the SQCRD. At that time the North Coast Seafood Advisory Committee was struck. whose goal was to oversee the Seafood Coordinator. The coordinator. Shiela (sic) Dobie (the sole contract employee) was to be "vigorously and cooperatively working towards the accomplishment of the goals and objectives," (As capsulated below,)
a) growth and diversification of the north coast seafood sector through strategic planning, technology
transfer. identification of opportunities. project development,
b) The development of program proposals aimed at enhancing the north coast seafood sector,
c) Participation in ongoing relations with regional. provincial and federal agencies.
d) The evaluation of new enhancement, harvesting and processing technologies.
e) providing technical and administrative assistance to potential investors
f) Establish and maintain a network of public and private contacts
g) Keep abreast of provincial and federal fishery resource management policy and trade Issues,
h) Develop new strategies for the harvest and processing sectors.
i) SECURE. and SOLICIT ALTERNATIVE FUNDING in a period of DECLINING BUDGETS.
At the time this bylaw came into effect the board was very clear in what its role was and how this project was to be funded. The SQCRD's role was to administer the funding for this contract. The SQCRD's relationship was and continues to be at arms length.
The SQCRD board was adamant that they would continue to support this project if the SQCRD financial commitment did not exceed a maximum of $20,000 in kind contribution, They were keenly aware, that the core funding was coming from the federal and provincial sources, which were not secure. This was clearly understood condition of continued support.
The SQCRD board was adamant that they would continue to support this project only if the SQCRD financial commitment did not exceed a maximum of $20,000 in kind contribution. They were keenly aware, that the core funding was coming from the federal and provincial sources, which were not secure. This was clearly understood condition of continued support.
The division (sic) to discontinue the Seafood Contract, on December 31, 2001, was made over a number of months. The board considered the change of the contract co-ordinator[2], the effectiveness of the program and whether this was a good expenditure of taxpayers money. Prior to making this decision a search for alternative funding sources was unsuccessful.
As stated above, when the SQCRD decided to administer this program in 1997, the Seafood was expected to raise its own funding. Failure to do so, outside of the $20,000 in kind from the SQCRD, would put the project at risk.
A Seafood Budget and Operation Plan for 2001 was presented to the SQCRD board. The option supported by the steering committee would in debt the SQCRD to the $20,000 in kind contribution and an additional
$20,000 in cash, for a total contribution of $40,000. The total 2002 budget for Seafood was $80,000 (including SQCRD's in kind contribution). What concerned the board was tl1at the remaining $40,000 was
to come from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
'Terri Klausen, who assumed some of Sheila Dobie's duties in July of 2001, in her verbal report to the SQCRD board, requested long-term funding[3]. What wouid happened jf we agreed to her request and the government funding dried up? Would we be responsible for the entire $80,000? At the end of the day, the board made the decision to withdraw from the program--- a decision that was made cautiously :prudently and with the taxpayer's best interests in mind. We also made a commitment to work to try to secure another home for Seafood. To date we have held discussions with the people at the Prince Rupert Economic Development Commission and another local organization.
The Biotoxin has also been a much-discussed topic. The SQCRD’s relationship with the Biotoxin contract is also at arms length. A steering committee, not the~ SQCRD, diress (sic) its sole contract employee. On or about October 15, 1999, the SQCRD agreed to administer funds for the Northcoast Water Quality and Biotoxin program. This agreement was between the SQCRD and the Pacific Northwest Community Futures. The contract completion date was December l3th, 2001.
During a recent review of contracts entered into by the SQCRD, it became apparent that the Biotoxin contract was to shortly expire. After discussions with Community Futures, it was apparent that an extension had been requested and agreed to without the SQCRD board endorsing this new arrangement The responsible decision that we took was that until the board approved this extension by motion, the contract would expire on the December 13th, 2001 date, as per the contract. In order to avoid any misunderstanding of our contractual position, a memo was given to tile Biotoxin contractor stating the same.
At the September 24th, SQCRD meeting a motion was passed to extend our contract to September 30, 2001 and Community Futures have been notified.
There has been much misinformation circulated and letters of condemnation directed at the SQCRD board on the biotoxin issue:. Why? Because the SQCRD board absolutely refu3es to condone or participate questionable practices and followed our established board polity. From where we sit, just plain, good old
fashioned. common sense.
In closing the SQCRD board Is keenly aware of the dismal economic condition in the North Coast region, which if you listen to the politicians will get even worse before they get better. We are also aware ,that our funding source. the landowners within our Regional District, are being forced to make financial
decisions that they would.rather not have to take. In recognition of that we have also put the SQCRD's expenditures under a microscope. The board is making decisions. that are sometimes unpopular, to avoid having to make even bigger decisions in the future. .
Thank you.
Contact person:
Bill Beldessi -Vice Chair. Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District
Phone.: (250) 637-2226
Fax: (250) 637-5625
Thursday October 11. 2001
[1] Do different origins necessarily mean presently “completely separate” as argument implies. I am told fall under same budget items. A close reading of the relevant bylaws would be necessary
[2] Presumably from Sheila to Terri, effective in July (see below in text).
[3] I have heard the rationale that the Feds are more willing to contribute to a project if believe it has own legs and will survive into the future