Companies allowed no say in Upper Clearwater survey

Companies excluded because the regional district does know who has signing authority on behalf of that business

Editor, The Times:

The headline for Carol Schaffer’s letter “Upper Clearwater survey is a democratic process for all” is not accurate. Neither is the statement in her letter, “The purpose of the survey is to get full representation from Upper Clearwater….”

Perhaps Ms Schaffer is not aware that only individuals are allowed to vote. My wife received her survey for the land she personally owns, but no survey came to the Neave Family Trust, which owns the rest of our 310 acres through Wells Gray Tours.

When I enquired about the missing survey with Carolyn Black at the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, she said companies were excluded because the regional district does know who has signing authority on behalf of that business.

This is a feeble excuse. I would be surprised if the TNRD does not have access to BC Registry Services, which maintains the database of all B.C. companies and organizations, including their officers.

I would like to be allowed to respond to this survey, since our family is one of the largest landowners in Upper Clearwater. Kelly Ferguson’s letter last week referred to the undemocratic voting practices in the past, and it looks like the TNRD is going to allow it to happen again.

Roland Neave

Kamloops, B.C.

 

Editor’s Note: When asked to comment, TNRD corporate officer Carolyn Black said, “It is true that the TNRD did not send surveys to businesses or organizations – the surveys were sent only to properties registered in the name of a person/persons. We wanted to make sure that no person was able to express their opinion more than one time and if a person owned a property in their own name and in the name of one or more businesses that would allow for multiple surveys.”

She said that TNRD did not check with BC Registry Services to see who the officers of the company are because this is a survey (not a legally binding process).

The surveys were not provided to any business or organization that was not registered in a person’s name. For example, a survey was not sent to the Upper Clearwater Farmers Institute, the owners of Upper Clearwater Hall.

 

If and when a petition assent process is initiated to decide officially if the hall’s grant-in-aid is to continue, then, in accordance with the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, only properties that are subject to the service area tax would be included in the process.