Skip to content

Letter: Why was trustee asked to leave in-camera meeting?

Re: Article “The strange case of the Gibsons,” which appeared in the Oct. 2 edition of Northern Life. I attended the Sept. 23 board meeting, and while the details provided in the above noted article are disturbing, there is more to the story.
Re: Article “The strange case of the Gibsons,” which appeared in the Oct. 2 edition of Northern Life.

I attended the Sept. 23 board meeting, and while the details provided in the above noted article are disturbing, there is more to the story.

During the meeting, the board went in-camera twice (i.e. no public allowed). It is my understanding that during both sessions, the issue of the trespass ban for Dylan and Anita Gibson was discussed. During both sessions, trustee Larry Killens was asked to leave the room by Chair Doreen Dewar.

Afterwards, I contacted Killens and asked why Dewar required him to the leave the room. Killens advised me that the rules are clear that he was not allowed to share the contents of the discussions in an in-camera meeting; however, he was able to explain the following: “I was asked to leave when I refused to answer a question asked of me by the chair.

I did ask for a reason, no specific reason was given, other than disobeying a rule of the chair. I asked which rule and the demand to leave was repeated. I complied. I chose not to disobey the rule of the chair as there are tools to do so in another venue. I do assure the electorate I did not violate any rule of conduct, that I am aware of, that you would expect of your trustee.”

Now, why is this so important? As the article states, trustee Robert Kirwin put forth a motion to have the trespass ban rescinded. Killens was going to second that motion, which would then require a vote be taken.

By removing Killens, it effectively ended any chance that the motion would move forward (as no other trustee seconded the motion).

You may ask, if only trustees Kirwin and Killens were prepared to support the motion, isn’t it a foregone conclusion that the motion to rescind the trespass ban would have died at the vote stage?

And that’s probably correct, but I also suspect that vote would have been a recorded poll vote (i.e. each trustee’s vote is recorded).

Wouldn’t it be very informative to know where each trustee stands on this trespass issue, especially with an upcoming election?

Kirk Dopson
Sudbury