Letter - David and Goliath

Letter to the Editor

While some media outlets attempted to capture the facts of last night’s council meeting, I want to ensure my comments are shared in my own words. The 7-4 vote was about high-level governance issues, but the public narrative has drifted into a "David and Goliath" story that ignores the actual facts.

Right now, some seniors are being made to feel like their housing is at risk, and that simply isn't the case. These residents should not be used to score points through a trial by media. It is a poor choice that creates unnecessary fear for people who deserve to feel secure. They are not going to lose their homes, and the claim that there is an intent to demolish the North Tower is a scare tactic without evidence. In a housing crisis, no one is going to let a viable building go to waste.

The public deserves the facts behind the decision. During my time on the Casselholme Board, I was there when we decided to transfer the North Tower for $1.00. The intent was to use Castle Arms, a sister organization, to create more housing units because they had more opportunities to leverage funding. The Cassellholme Board made that decision because we believed that Castle Arms was under the same governance structure and municipal care and control as the municipal home itself.

However, only months after the board agreed to this $1.00 asset transfer, the decision was made in late 2021 to separate Castle Arms from Casselholme. This was done with the lowest possible number of board members present, without notice to the member municipalities, and with nothing forcing them to do it. When new municipal appointees showed up for their first meeting, they discovered through a board resolution that they were no longer on the board. This history explains why any municipality would be cautious about the current governance structure and the lack of public oversight. It is also confusing why members who were part of that separation are now questioning how they were given no notice. The Board was following the bylaws that were created with legal counsel oversight at each meeting, with these same members at the helm.

My position is not a personal attack. I have been a strong advocate for a review of these governance challenges for years, including tabling a motion for an independent review in January 2023, just two months after this council took office. Last night, I attempted to move an amendment for a temporary cooling-off period for these two members while they dealt with the active litigation between the two organizations. This was intended to be a without-prejudice move to provide a neutral path forward until the legal issues are resolved. Procedurally, I couldn't add it as a formal amendment because it wasn't considered germane to the specific motions on the floor. If I held a personal grudge, I wouldn't have spent this term working collaboratively with these same members on other city priorities. I base my decisions on facts, not personalities.

The idea of replacing board members isn't a "new attack" ; it’s a playbook that has been used before. In late 2021, a public statement was made by one of the very individuals currently questioning the process, expressing intentions to bring forward a motion to remove a board member using these same bylaws. It is hard to understand how the fairness or correctness of these rules is being challenged now, when there is a documented history of those same individuals planning to use them in the exact same way.

The real issue is that two organizations are currently in a legal battle. This creates a potential or perceived conflict of interest when leadership roles overlap and are in active litigation against a municipal asset. This is what has caused the current deadlock. If there is a true belief in a Campus of Care model, it requires these organizations to resolve their differences and move forward together, rather than continuing this legal infighting.

My comments last night were about the facts. We need a governance model that actually functions. I voted against these motions because the Council Chambers should not be a stage for unproven claims that frighten residents.

The 7-4 vote was about finding a path toward long-term stability. It is time to look at the governance structure currently in place and show the residents that their security and well-being come first.

North Bay City Councillor Tanya Vrebosch