Fort Langley MLA Rich Coleman and Langley MLA Mary Polak did nothing wrong when they endorsed seven candidates running in last November’s race for school trustee in the Township and City.

Sonya Paterson filed a complaint with the RCMP alleging that Polak and Coleman may have violated the Local Government Act which, she claimed, requires people to register if they campaign or promote a candidate.

Her complaint extended to Parents for Independent Trustees who, like Polak and Coleman, endorsed incumbent trustees Alison McVeigh, Hattie Hogeterp, Rod Ross and Steve Burton.

They also endorsed Kari Medos, the former president of the Langley Secondary School PAC, Aaron Fedora and Diana MacNeil, former president of the District Parents’ Advisory Council. Medos ran in the Township, while Fedora and MacNeil both ran in the City.

The conversion of H. D. Stafford from a secondary to a middle school was the central issue over which the election was fought. McVeigh, Ross and Burton, who supported conversion, were re-elected. Hogeterp, who also backed reconfiguration, was defeated. Incumbent Stacey Cody, who opposed it, was re-elected in Langley City, and the two newcomers to the board also had a strong connection to Stafford: former principal Wendy Johnson was elected in the Township, while Rob McFarlane, whose children were then students at the school, was elected in the City.

Paterson herself had been a school trustee. She did not seek re-election, opting instead to run for Township council. She lost.

Paterson, who also opposed Stafford reconfiguration, stressed that the action she took “had absolutely nothing to do with that issue.”

Her allegations were investigated by the RCMP’s E Division Commercial Crime Section. A letter signed by the section’s acting officer in charge, Insp. Lesley Bain, details the responses to Paterson’s claims:

1. Paterson said it was “unfair politics” for a minister to endorse a school board trustee. The RCMP said it is restricted to the investigation of criminal conduct and will not comment on fairness or ethics.

2. Endorsing the trustees represented value and should have been declared a campaign contribution, Paterson said. The RCMP called in lawyers from the Justice Department and other agencies who gave the opinion that endorsing a candidate “does not have fair market value.” The RCMP concurred.

3. Paterson alleged that the list of registered voters was improperly used to conduct mail-outs. This is not illegal, the RCMP stated, noting that this is consistent with the use of the list suggested by the Ministry of Community Development.

4. During the campaign, an e-mail was circulated stating that Cody had missed 28 board meetings. Paterson charged that the release of personal information was improper. The RCMP said it was not a crime and that she should direct her complaint to the school district.

5. Parents for Independent Trustees augmented the campaign of trustees and failed to make statutory filings as required by the Local Government Act, Paterson contended. She was also concerned that Burton paid for some of the ads in which Polak and Coleman endorsed trustees. That would not be illegal. The first ad, which ran in The Times, did not say who paid for it, but subsequent ads stated the name of the ad sponsor. However, the RCMP said that Burton paid for one ad and, as he was required to do, declared that as an election expense.

But the Parents for Independent Trustees fell afoul of the rules by not notifying the chief electoral officer that they existed. They also failed to file certain information within the required time after they spent more than $500, the RCMP found.

That violation left the group open to a number of penalties, including a maximum fine of $5,000 and a jail term of up to one year.

However, there were a number of mitigating circumstances, not least of which was that the group did file, albeit late.

Bain's letter noted that many of the provisions of the Act came into effect only six months before the election.

“Thus while ignorance of the law is never an excuse for an offence, the relative novelty of the Act is a relevant consideration,” she said.