By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: October 15, 2018
The president of a local non-profit has accused Mayoral candidate Karen Elliott of a moral conflict of interest over KristallTurm rope course in Squamish. 
In a blog post, Toby Foord-Kelcey, the president of Squamish Access Society, says Elliott didn’t recuse herself from voting on the rope-course attraction last year despite the fact that proponent’s wife had donated to Elliott’s 2014 election campaign.
He says the connection between Elliott and the proponent surfaced recently when he found out from Elections BC website that Amanda Gomes, the wife of the proponent Mario Gomes, had donated $2,745 to Elliott’s 2014 election campaign.
Foord-Kelcey says it wasn’t a legal conflict but a moral one, and Elliott should have informed the community about the campaign donations and made the ethical decision to not vote on the rope-course project across from the Squamish Adventure Centre.
He says when he pointed his concerns to Elliott, she responded through a post on her Facebook page but then deleted the post.
Elliott, however, says she did not delete the post but only moved it from Facebook to her campaign website.
In her blog, she says Amanda Gomes donated her time to develop a website for her 2014 campaign and was required to report a full-cost dollar value for her work.
“The related legislation is clear that such an in-kind campaign contribution does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest,” Elliott says.
Elliott said she believes in holding a high bar in transparency and integrity, and has conducted herself accordingly.
Toby Foord-Kelcey sees it differently.
He says when the rope course was first proposed, the access society spoke against it due to concerns about recreational parking at the adventure centre.
Council, with the exception of Susan Chapelle, disregarded those concerns and voted to move the project ahead, he says. Later, when the district announced there would be further opportunity for public input, Squamish Access Society members overwhelmingly opposed the project and spoke about their concerns about the conflict of interest in emails to Elliott, he claims.
But at the critical meeting in January 2017, however, Elliott didn’t recuse herself and in fact, went on to second a motion for the district to negotiate a lease, he says.
Foord-Kelcey say Elliott had a moral, though not a legal, conflict of interest and she should have declared it and not voted in good conscience on the rope-course project. He also claims an attempt was made to bully a local non-profit and Squamish lost its strategic public land due to this decision.
Elliott didn’t respond to specific questions from the Squamish Reporter and directed the queries to her blog.
“That is the only statement I will be making with regard to Mr. Foord-Kelcey’s blog post and I stand behind my comments,” she said.
In her post, Elliott says she would consider the feedback provided by Foord-Kelcey in future decisions where there is such a potential for conflict of interest.
She also says she had called him to discuss the issue, but Toby claims he never got such a call. He claims when he pointed out to Elliott that he had never received such a call, she deleted her Facebook post.
It’s the same Facebook post Elliott says she has moved to her campaign website. She says early on in her first term on Council, the staff ensured all of the Council had a thorough orientation to the legislation and case law dealing with conflict of interest.
“I believe in setting the bar high with regard to conflict of interest and that has never changed,” she says.
She recently recused herself at a committee meeting due to her contract with Skyridge Development.
Meanwhile, the proponent Mario Gomes, says the controversy and the timing of it seems to be politically motivated.
“As a company, we have a lot of integrity and followed a process that took many months and there was a lot of due diligence by many district staff and departments before it was recommended to and approved by the mayor and 5 other councillors,” Gomes said.
Muriel Shephard says
interesting timing. Personally, I find Karen Elliott the most credible of the mayoral candidates and best qualified to lead us forward.
John Lee says
I too believe Karen is the most credible of the candidates. This article seems sloppy to me. Why would the author single out Karen without investigating the past campaign contributions of other incumbents? The author, and Toby Foord-Kelsey both admit this is a moral conflict at worst, certainly not a legal conflict. In other words this is hardly news-worthy. Susan Chapelle and Toby are friends. Lets call a spade a spade here, the timing of this stinks.
Charles Mckenzie says
you two (Muriel & John) must be supporters of Karen Elliot. Have you even talked to people in town about Karen? Everyone is saying she has lost all her credibility and integrity. She was legally required to disclose this conflict of interest but she did not disclose it. Yet she says she set herself a high bar? come one, who is she trying to fool?
Secondly, what makes you think she is credible after she gave the finger to 1800 people that were opposed to garibaldi springs? She went against the community and she still hasn’t disclosed her conflict of interest with polygon.
you two are out of touch with public sentiment there is a reason why CUPE endorsed Jeff, he is the most credible and forward thinking candidate. Don’t you think there is a reason why CUPE did not endorse the current sitting councillor for mayor? Everyone wants change for a better Squamish and stop these corrupt shenanigans happening at city hall.
If Karen cared about the community then she would not have sold off our greenspace for pennies on the dollar. If she becomes mayor she will probably push through the development at the estuary. It’s time for change this old council needs to go and fresh new faces need to come in that represent present day squamish, people that care about our town and wont sell it off the highest bidder.
Jason Smith says
I was going to vote for Karen Elliot but now i will no longer be casting my vote for her.. A lot of my friends have been saying that something shady went on with her and polygon with removing green space and now this just pushed me over the edge to believe them.
Karen, im sorry but i can no longer support you. and i will be letting all my family and friends know about this corruption scandal. I cannot support a mayor that has no integrity.
Jenna Rivera says
I have always heard people say there was unethical stuff happening in council, that certain developments were getting pushed through with favorable deals for the developers. I was going to vote for you Karen but you will no longer have my vote. I did not want to believe the stuff people were saying about you and polygon, but this new revelation clearly shows that you do no keep yourself to a “high bar”. A high bar would have meant that you would have disclosed this relationship and conflict of interest with the developers wife. Now thats what you call a high bar. You use a nice catchy phrase by saying you keep yourself to a high bar but that’s just all talk there no meat to that.
I am going to vote for someone that has integrity and you have lost mine and my husbands vote.
Jack Murray says
Karen you have lost my vote! I will not be voting for a candidate that has no integrity and is in the pocket of big developers! first polygon and now this???
Austin Byrd says
sorry Karen, I can no longer support you for mayor. . I cant caste my vote for you as we need a mayor that is conflict free and has credibility and integrity and I just don’t see that with you anymore with this new revelation.
Doug Race says
This is not my usual venue for responding to comment but here goes. I have served with Karen on Council for the past four years and have found her to be a person of high integrity and principle. It is one of the reasons I am supporting her candidacy for Mayor. It is therefore quite disturbing to me to read of an allegation of “conflict of interest” in this medium and in the comments attached. Conflict rules for municipal politicians are well defined in legislation and case law. This is not a conflict of interest and there is no legal obligation I am aware of to disclose her relationship with Mrs. Gomes apart from the necessary filings of campaign donations. She did that. Even Mr. Foord-Kelsey is quoted as admitting there was no legal conflict. However it seems she did not meet a moral standard of Mr. Foord-Kelsey. Hardly a crime. Councillors are elected to make decisions for our community not avoid them because of a self-invented moral standard of someone with an opposing viewpoint. Some of these decisions are very difficult and there is rarely a significant decision that does not upset somebody. Here there was a group of people who were not happy at having to share a public parking lot. They are free to express their opposition to the proposal but it would be more helpful if comments were directed to the issues and not character assassination.
It is also disturbing to read some of the comments above. Now her character is also attacked because of her vote on the Garibaldi Springs proposal. Some of the comments are based in ignorance (green space was preserved not removed and there was no sale by the District for “pennies on the dollar” or any amount – it was private land that will largely be dedicated to the District). Some of the comments are worse – being in the developer’s pocket?, conflict of interest with Polygon? Really people. There is no evidence of any of that. At the very least those comments are unfortunate.
I am still voting for Karen.
Matthew Trotter says
Doug, I don’t think anyone is arguing that there is a legal conflict of interest or that a crime was committed. The concern is that Karen received an in-kind donation of services from the spouse of a business person closely connected to the project in question. The optics are bad and while legally it is permitted, ethically it would have been much better to recuse herself on this matter.
Jody Miller says
Doug, it’s not surprising that your coming out to protect Karen. You both are in bed with developers. On Oct 20th, WE, the people will show both of you the door out of city hall for once and for all. Just watch. Enough is Enough. you both and patty are responsible for over developing our town.
Pam Kozdrowski says
Doug, please explain, from behind your cloud of arrogance and ignorance on environmental issues, how putting 310 homes on wetlands, environmental sensitive and ecologically valuable land “protects” and maintain green space in our community.
Cari Bird says
I’d like to point out that Karen has posted a video about the multifaceted decision on Garabaldi Springs. Please inform yourself rather than making assumptions based on rumours about “something shady” going on. You can watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqHipABBlk&fbclid=IwAR1nXh9cOEKiZWRxmITG7S4O33_YxXEH5NdHGrgC_LFKp7xdxMzC9jGgvno
Erica Kuepfer says
My mind is boggled that Karen Elliott is being singled out about this, and worse yet, that people are basing their decisions on tabloid-style reporting! In the interest of journalistic rigor, the Squamish Reporter should have investigated campaign contributions for all candidates re-running. He would have found that Susan Chapelle’s largest donation in 2014 totalling $2,000 was provided by a company owned by Mike Bosa, VP of Solterra Development, the biggest developer in Squamish at the time. Like Elliott, Chapelle did not recuse herself from at least one council decision involving Solterra. To be clear, I am not saying that what either of these councilors did was wrong, simply that if we are going to judge one candidate on certain criteria, we should be judging others using the same lens. And more importantly, the Squamish Reporter should be doing this before going to print.
Charles Patrick says
Erica-its interesting to see how you deflect from the main point that Karen elliot has a conflict of interest and failed to recuse herself from voting on the development. You continue to deflect and point your finger at other councillors when the story is about Karen.
The reporter wrote a story about Karen because there is a story to report on. There is no story for other councillors. It seems like Karen has put you up to defend her just like she has Doug Race to come to her protection, which brings me to my other point why is she not defending herself? is she afraid to engage the public? Is she afraid to open herself up to scrutiny? Everyone knows that Karen Elliot has not engaged the public over the last 4 years, she has never been active in any of the facebook groups and now just because there is an election she started to engage us all online. Seems like she is just an opportunist looking to get votes.
Since this story broke I have convinced 31 of my friends not to vote for Karen anymore because she is not trustworthy and is in the pocket of developers. Karen is no longer the right choice for our town.
Christine Elliott says
Charles, I don’t get to go to many events, but I did attend the documentary, Us & Them that is about homelessness held at the United Church downtown. The Film Maker was present along with a panel and it was presented by Helping Hands. Karen was present at that and I believe helped bring it to Squamish. Not everything people do to help others is in the lime light.
Erica Kuepfer says
Charles, can you explain the differences between these situations and why one is a story and one is not? In both cases Councillors did not recuse themselves from decisions relating to their biggest campaign contributors. One could argue that the Chapelle situation has a bigger impact given the permanence of real estate development versus a temporary lease. I am honestly trying to understand! It is perfectly legitimate to debate the level of engagement Karen Elliot has with people, or even if moral conflict of interest is something that needs to be tackled more rigorously in a general sense. It is not fair to promote incomplete one-sided information that singles out a certain candidate, especially when the allegations are so grave. I will also clarify that I have absolutely no connection to Karen Elliot – I have never met her or had any contact with her of any kind. My only motivation is fairness as I see it. I have no attachment to who people vote for, only that facts are being fairly represented to those who are interested in them so that they can make an informed decision.
David Kenney says
It is one thing for a friend of another candidate to write an innuendo-ridden partisan hatchet job. It is quite another for a “newspaper” to write an article propagating the bs. I guess it gets clicks but it sure doesn’t increase confidence in the professionalism or independence of the press!