Embarrassing times at the TN film commission

Roland Stanke, the affable mayor of Clinton, TNRD director, and chair of the Thompson-Nicola Film Commission, found himself in a political jackpot today over the awarding of a $9,000 contract.

Some members of the TNRD board expressed concern about the fact film commissioner Vicci Weller awarded a contract to Stanke for photography work. Stanke, as chair of the commission, is, more or less, Weller’s supervisor.

It doesn’t quite work that way in practice, but here’s the situation. The film commission is a creation of the regional district. Though the film commission board is made up mostly of community volunteers, the key positions of chair and vice-chair are rotated between two TNRD directors appointed by the regional district board.

By tradition, one of those two TNRD reps on the commission is from Kamloops, the other is from somewhere else. Currently, Stanke is chair and has been for the past three or four years. Mayor Peter Milobar of Kamloops, who is also TNRD chair, is vice chair of the commission.

Weller was hired by a committee of the commission and approved by the TNRD board. She reports to the TNRD board through the commission chair, who reads her notes to the regional directors at their monthly meetings.

As commission chair, Stanke takes part in Weller’s annual employee evaluation.

Weller has the authority to directly award certain contracts without going to tender. She says she gave Stanke the photography job — he also has other employment in Clinton but has also worked in photography for many years — because he was the best qualified.

Is it a conflict of interest?

In the realm of civic politics, you’re not allowed to take part in debate on, or vote on, decisions that would result in a direct benefit to yourself. For example, Milobar routinely excuses himself from any Kamloops City council discussion involving anything to do with liquor, because he’s in the liquor-sales business. John O’Fee, when he was on council, left the room whenever a matter came up on which any member of his law firm was providing advice to a participating party. 

Other councillors have often declared a conflict of interest, so it’s not a rarity. Many times, they have no legal conflict at all, but are extra careful to avoid any suspicion of impropriety.

Stanke does not appear to be technically in conflict because he didn’t make the decision that awarded him the contract, but it’s surprising indeed that he and Weller didn’t play it safe. Weller, had she been on the ball, would not have put Stanke in an embarrassing position, and Stanke, had he been smart about it, would have refused the contract when offered.

As for the TNRD board, they could have slapped Stanke on the wrist with a censure, or, at the least, passed a motion recommending that in future such situations be avoided. Instead, they almost unanimously approved of the way it was handled. Some of the directors who supported it have, on occasion, declared conflicts of their own on lesser grounds.

And though Stanke and Weller defend what happened, they both should have known better.