To the Editor:
Recent advertisements in the Creston Valley Advance (page 8, Aug. 1 issue) inform everyone in Creston and Regional District of Central Kootenay areas A, B and C that the RDCK plans a special annual tax upon them to support the Creston Pet Adoption and Welfare Society (PAWS) unless at least 980 persons indicate objection by signing a special form in opposition. PAWS is a charity that looks after unwanted animals, comparable to the SPCA but without the euthanasia option. Like other local charities, it needs funding to keep going and publicly campaign for funds. I don’t know much about its workings but accept it as a good charity for our area. The ads are to allow the RDCK to later claim the public approved the new tax before it was levied.
I am very uncomfortable, however, with the way the RDCK is arranging for ongoing support of PAWS out of public funds. It is normal practice when levying a new tax to first have it discussed publicly and/or hold a referendum. Yet the alternative approval process (AAP) that introduces this tax to claim public approval only gives everyone less than six weeks notice and assumes that if enough people don’t formally object in that time then the voter majority must be in approval. This process is similar to “negative option billing”, which the federal government banned in 1999 for businesses. That practice, which involved companies arbitrarily adding new services to existing customers and charging them while claiming that the consumers ordered the services because they were given the chance to opt out but didn’t respond in time, is underhanded and is listed as an unfair practice by B.C.’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. It is not illegal in the case of the RDCK, as regulations say governments can do it.
The RDCK’s Creston Valley services committee arranged the tax in May 2013 but it wasn’t made public until late July, when most people were on holiday and unconcerned with local political activities. Less than six summer weeks, ending Sept. 9, were allowed for negative feedback.
Negative response to the tax requires at least 10 per cent (980) of eligible voters make the effort during their summer period to obtain, sign and submit a special form — this from a community where less than 30 per cent of voters normally turn out for well-advertised municipal elections.
The required form may be downloaded from the RDCK website, if one knows how to find it, or obtained from the RDCK office beside the Creston and District Public Library, both methods requiring especial effort by a dissenter. The form does not say how or where to submit it.
The above requirements indicate to me that this new tax for ongoing yearly support of a private charity is clearly intended to be passed without any public discussion but with claimed prior public approval to answer any later objections.
The financial cost of this tax to most of us will not be great. Whether all taxpayers, agreeing with PAWS activities or not, should be forced by special taxation to support them without having a fair chance to object is one question. A more serious question is the use of the alternative approval process to pass such taxes. If an AAP technique is considered acceptable in this instance, it will probably be used for increasingly larger projects in the future. Please sign one of the forms to register any discontent with this RDCK action and return it to the RDCK office beside the Creston library or mail it to Manager of Administrative Services, RDCK, Box 590, 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson, BC, V1L 5R4.
W. Allen McLaren
West Creston