Shortchanging Democracy

Mayor & Council

Thank you, Councillor Au, for your years of service to Richmond and congratulations on your election to Parliament. I trust you look forward to focusing fully on federal priorities.

But today, we need to talk about shortchanging democracy and accountability—because both are at risk.

In 2021, Councillor McPhail rightly said: “We can’t shortchange democracy” when the City considered holding a by-election. Yet here we are, with an elected official choosing to remain in two public offices, drawing compensation from both, while admitting he cannot fulfill all the responsibilities of his council role. This is what’s commonly called double dipping.

Even if a salary is donated to charity, the issue isn’t just money—it’s about duty, conflict of interest, and the erosion of public trust.

This comes at a time when Richmond residents are already questioning the City’s leadership.

Just recently, we learned through the media that investigation has indicated more than $290,000 in gift card purchases remain unaccounted for through the City’s employee recognition program. A forensic audit has been initiated. The RCMP is involved. And taxpayers are left wondering: how did this happen under council’s watch?

These are not just accounting errors. They reflect deep failures in financial oversight, internal controls, and governance—exactly the areas where we expect a fully present and engaged council to exercise vigilance.

Let’s be clear: when a high percentage of gift card transactions over a few years cannot be verified, when cards are distributed without logs, and when spending policies are so lax they go undetected, this is not a minor hiccup—it is a systemic governance failure.

And who is ultimately responsible?

In any municipal organization, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is the top staff person charged with operational integrity. The CAO is accountable for implementing sound administrative systems, ensuring transparency, and safeguarding taxpayer funds. Council, in turn, is responsible for holding the CAO accountable.

So where was the oversight? Where was the leadership? When councillors are only partly present—or distracted by duties in another level of government—these are the consequences.

Some have argued that a by-election is too expensive. But a by-election amounts to just 0.1% of the city’s $600 million budget. Democracy is not a budget line item to be bargained away. If Richmond’s budget were a 600-page document, the cost of a by-election would be less than one paragraph.

More importantly, strong governance demands that residents get what they voted for: full representation.

When Kelly Greene was elected MLA, she stepped down. When Ernie Klassen was elected MP in White Rock, he stepped down. Why? Because they understood that public service means making hard ethical choices—not convenient ones.

Choosing to double-dip sets a concerning precedent and erodes public trust. While it may be legally permissible, the ethical implications are clear: just because one can, doesn't mean one should.

Council must set the standard. The CAO must be held to account. And taxpayers deserve elected leaders who are fully committed to the job they were chosen to do—not a part-time substitute cloaked in legal loopholes.

Jerome Dickey