Municipal Affairs Dispatches Mercenaries – Kevin Robins of Transitional Solutions Inc., Michael S. Solowan of Brownlee LLP, Assistant Deputy Minister Gary Sandberg – Intentionally Mislead The Court, Frame Reeve Dan Buryn
The written submission and affidavits of Municipal Affairs contain perjurious information which directly attacks Reeve Dan Buryn. Any person of average intelligence knowing the facts would be sensibly alarmed. With the venomous content of the written materials.
Official Administrator’s Lies Republished – In Written Submission of Municipal Affairs for October 4, 2017 Judicial Review Hearing
Paragraphs  and  are blatantly false and intentionally misleading. The official henchman has fabricated this nonsense and the lawyer has republished this libel without verifying any factual basis to claims, within Henchman Robins’ report to municipal affairs. All of this venom is contained within Kevin Robins’ and Gary Sandberg’s Affidavits of March 23, 2016, in response to a court order staying the dismissal ministerial order MSL:021/16, of 3 Thorhild County Councillors.
Reeve Buryn requested a copy of all 42 applications “so that he could review them to determine if Council should interview any other candidates”. The other councillors were offered the opportunity to review all 42 applications, but only declined.
As requested, Reeve Buryn was provided with all 42 applications and advised Ms. Hurley of Davies Park that he had reviewed all 42. As noted in the March 4, 2016 Report, Reeve Buryn instructed Ms. Hurley of Davies Park to include Mr. Storseth on the interview schedule for the County Council’s interviews of potential CAO candidates. Reeve Buryn did not share this information with all other members of County Council.
Our Legal System Is Ignoring Perjury
Our lawyers from Prowse Chowne LLP received affidavits by Kevin Robins and assistant deputy minister Gary Sandberg. Both affidavits contain false and misleading information. My lay person research indicates that someone providing false information in an affidavit is committing perjury, which is a criminal code offence and poses a severe penalty of fines and up to 14 years of imprisonment.
My mind on this whole inspection situation is, that our legal system is very out of control in Alberta, with illegal and unlawful municipal inspections for over 20 years. This despotism has escalated to the point of mercenary tactics of perjury. Why frame a county reeve? If our legal experts would have dealt with these 2 affidavits containing evidence of perjury, immediately after receiving Robins’ and Sandberg’s affidavits, the
libel within paragraph  &  would not have been republished. Also this matter could have been concluded properly soon after the dismissal of 3 councillors.
This libelous trash was also republished in paragraph  of the Buryn decision, and at paragraph  of the Prowse Chowne written submission.
Buryn v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2017 ABQB 613 (CanLII)
Client Punished For Municipal Affairs’ Perjury
From my position without formal legal training in the arcane dimensions of roman civil law, I expect legal experts to safely lead their clients through the smoke & mirrors of the enemy. This situation is very concerning as our counsel failed to provide protection from the libelous perjury in the affidavits. Evidence that I provided to both lawyers was ignored and the perjury was allowed to be hidden. Why would officers of the court ignore evidence and condone perjury? Additional to this abuse I have a legal bill over $15,000?
The Barclay Report Smells Like Garlic in Alberta
On January 31, 2017 I sent the following email to lawyer Debbie Bishop, Wayne Croswell, and Larry Sisson.
Subject: Telephone conversation with R.L. Barclay Q.C. (retired Judge Saskatchewan) Conflict of Interest Commissioner & Registrar of Lobbyists-CI
I had the pleasure of chatting with Mr. Barclay this morning after leaving a message for him yesterday. His efforts in Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness I believe will destroy Farmer’s report.
On January 15th I found a SKQB case that led me to the Barclay report. When reading this report from Table of Contents through page 23 I could see my research of the CED (public inquiries) coming to life in a precedent setting report.
His report was used as evidence in the case, with the inspection and inquiry terms of reference noted in the decision. And comments about the process of inspection/inquiry are at par. 44 – 46.
The report precedent led to statutory changes from the Legislature regarding conflict of interest and I believe some other areas. Quite the big deal it is. Looks like Saskatchewan is saving us from Alberta! !
Attachments: The Barclay Report, Baker v. Sherwood SKQB
Baker v Sherwood No. 159 (Rural Municipality), 2015 SKQB 301 (CanLII)
My chat with Commissioner Barclay was most memorable. After reviewing his report I developed a theory about the inspection/inquiry procedures in relation to the municipal act and public inquiries act. Who better to ask for clarification other than the expert himself? Within a few short minutes the Commissioner clarified my theory. After this expert clarification I was especially intrigued because the report was polished with the notations of the Bellamy and Cunningham Reports. The Commissioner’s clarification of my theory verified that a gold-standard report was discovered.
Even though tangible precedent was put before Ms. Bishop she did not reply to my January 31, 2017 email. In early February 2017 my colleagues and I met with Ms. Bishop and Mr. Henriques. During that meeting I brought up for discussion the Barclay Report and Baker v Sherwood. There was no comment and I received only silence from our lawyers. The same silence continued with the county lawyer during the county judicial review process, which encouraged me to make an application for interlocutory (interim) relief May 19, 2017, and the Barclay Report was cited as an authority in that application.
The continuing silence that I witnessed taught me something. It eventually became evident to me as a first term rookie councillor, that I had been skillful in the importation of high quality garlic from Saskatchewan to Alberta. And, that the vampires in Alberta didn’t want to talk about the high quality garlic. Who knows what might happen if Ms. Notley gets a whiff of the high quality Saskatchewan garlic? She and her Edmonton based soviet-contraption, might boycott the Barclay Report.
Official Henchman’s Lies Exposed – By Reeve’s Paper Trail
Two background notes:
- At  of the respondent’s written submission: “The Applicant, Councillor Croswell asked why Brian Storseth had not been included on Davies Park’s short list.” In actual fact, it was Councillor Sisson that raised awareness to the down grading of Mr. Storseth as a candidate, not Councillor Croswell.
- Since the Davies Park shortlist contained only recycled and regurgitated CAO candidates I requested to see the resumes of all applicants. Elizabeth Hurley was not pleased with my request and did not respond well. It was necessary to make it clear to Ms. Hurley, that as a councillor I was entitled to this information according to MGA s.153 just the same as any other councillor and that my request should not be denied. I also brought to her attention MGA s.203 & s.205 and by these sections it was Council’s prerogative in choosing a CAO, not the prerogative of a recruitment firm.
Email Highlights 1
On January 13, 2016 I sent the email noted below to follow up on the request for recruitment info. The email exchange concludes with Acting CAO Pat Vincent notifying council that the recruitment info was received and available to all councillors. This email record differs greatly from the written lies of Henchman Robins.
From: Dan Buryn
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:09 PM
To: Pat Vincent
Cc: Elizabeth Hurley; Kevin Grumetza; Larry Sisson; Shirley Moerman; Shelly Hanasyk; Wayne Croswell
Subject: CAO recruitment information
Was wondering if you received the CAO recruitment info for council viewing? Would like to view Friday as cheques will be ready for signing. Thanks. db
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:51, Pat Vincent wrote:
Good morning Dan,
I haven’t received the full file of all of the resumes yet from Davies Park. I will check and see if they could send those out by courier today so that they are in the office for your review on Friday.
I do have the binder that Council had Tuesday afternoon for review and that would be a good start if the rest of the material has not arrived.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Dan Buryn wrote:
Are they able to send an electronic file for printing at county office? db
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Pat Vincent wrote:
Great idea! I will follow up and ask them if they could do that.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Pat Vincent wrote:
Good morning Dan,
Please to advise you that we have received all of the resumes from Davies Park Executive Search. I have printed out all of the material and book it into a three ring binder for the ease of review.
When you come into the office today to sign checks we will have the binders available for you to sit down and review at your leisure.
See you later today.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Pat Vincent wrote:
To: Council; Janelle Cornelius; Shirley Moermon
Good Morning Reeve & Council,
We have been in receipt of digital copies of all the resumes from candidates who had submitted their applications in the CAO recruitment. A hard copy has been printed and this information is now assembled in two binders which has being securely stored at the County office.
Anyone who wishes to access this information may do so and is invited to make arrangements to come into the County office to view the material at your leisure.
Email Highlights 2
The below email exchange records these points: A consensus of council in writing. 3 of 5 councillors expressed their interests to interview Mr. Storseth. The Acting CAO Pat Vincent was asked to contact Mr. Storseth to check his availability for an interview, not Elizabeth Hurley. The CAO stated that council was not restricted in expanding the list of CAO candidates for an interview. Once again an email record differs greatly from the written lies of Henchman Robins.
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 6:08 PM, Dan Buryn wrote:
To: Council; Pat Vincent
Subject: Some thoughts about CAO search
Catching up on some emails after ASB. 3 of 6, 50% of short list candidates had undesirable issues. Two culled by our Acting CAO and the Administrator, one culled by council because of his overbearing attitude when showing up at a council meeting with resume and wanting to speak with council.
I don’t know why we would need the consultant present for the interviews. Her presence will create more costs and the conflict with the administrator’s presence was not a concern to her and partner for some strange reason, crosses all professional lines. I have faith that council is more than capable of interviewing and choosing their only direct employee.
Candidate information is restricted, was only able to view this info briefly one day and shocked at how Mr. Storseth was downgraded as an applicant. In my research and opinion he is over qualified for our our CAO position and could easily aquire a position above the $250,000 salary mark. I think it is very unwise to dismiss an applicant of such potential, especially when we have worked with him recently as a strategist. I would like to interview him.
What are your thoughts?
On Sat, January 23, 2016 9:46 PM, Larry Sisson wrote:
I couldn’t agree more, with all points that you mention.
I was totally surprised that Elizabeth Hurley didn’t think that it was a conflict for Kevin Robins to remain in the Council Chambers during CAO discussions when they are direct competitors. I also agree that Elizabeth has performed her duties by bringing these candidates to us and the hiring is now up to us. We could perform that duty without her being present and save some cost in the process.
I believe that interviewing Brian Storseth is a great idea. And I thought that there was 2 other candidates that we might extend that courtesy to. We could discuss that possibility on the 27th.
On Sun, January 24, 2016 10:14 AM, Pat Vincent wrote:
Good morning Reeve & Council,
I hope Council will not see my joining this conversation as an intrusion and unwelcomed; I thought I could add some insight and comments which you perhaps could take under consideration and would prove to be of some value and benefit.
Thorhild County was able to successfully negotiate a fixed fee contract with Davies Park Executive Search for the CAO recruitment which contract was at a reduced cost from what the firm would normally charge for their services. There will be no cost savings realized should Council decide not to include a representative of the firm as part of the interview process as this service is included as part of the contract.
An executive firm has the responsibility to develop a list of the best possible list of potential candidates for the position to which they are recruiting based on the position profile that had been developed and approved by the client. I have included a copy of the CAO Profile which was developed and submitted for review and approval by Council for your ease of reference.
Based on that profile the consultant submits a list of potential candidates for Council to consider for inviting to an interview. This by no means limits or restricts Council prerogative from expanding that list to include additional candidates they wish to invite to an interview.
Something Council might want to keep in mind is that any decision on making an offer of the position will need to be made through a resolution of Council which I think you will recognize will have to either be allowed or disallowed by the official administrator.
One of my primary responsibilities as your Acting CAO, as I have mentioned on previous occasions, is to protect Council collectively and individually to the best of my abilities. I would be remiss and negligent in my duties if I did not point out the potential risk and exposure Council might place themselves if the process of recruiting is not completed in satisfying Ministerial Order No. MSL: 119/15 – in particular Directive # 5 e) which states, “I direct (emphasis added)that council engage the services of a reputable recruitment firm to assist with the recruitment of a replacement chief administrative officer.”
It is certainly possible for the Minister and department (though I have not discussed this matter with them) to view that this directive had not been fully met and complied with should the recruitment firm not be part of the interviews. As part of a recruitment it is the norm for a recruitment firm under the provisions of their contract (which is the case in their contract with Thorhild County) to be included in this aspect of the process. I want to ensure I safe guard the best interests of Council from the possibility of being in breach of the Ministerial Order and this specific directive, and Council proceed with a great deal caution to prevent the Minister and the department from having grounds for the dismissal of the Council.
Finally, it would not be appropriate for the Official Administrator to be in the room during the interviews from my perspective and I have been advised by the Official Administrator that they do not intend to be present during any of the interviews which are being conducted by Council.
I hope the foregoing might be of some assistance to Council as you move forward with the recruitment process in hiring your new CAO.
On Sun, January 24, 2016 3:23 PM, Wayne Croswell wrote:
I agree with Larry and Dan’s comments. My confidence in Elizabeth has been compromised by her recommendation of 2 candidates with outstanding legal issues. I also could not understand her lack of concern in allowing a competitor remain in the room and be privy to confidential information trusted in her care.
I had planned on reviewing the resumes last week, but didn’t get a chance due to fighting a cold. I will try to review them before Wednesday. I would be very interested in having an interview with Brian Storseth.
On Sun, January 24, 2016 10:49 PM, Dan Buryn wrote:
Unfortunately I am saddened and deeply disturbed as I write this.
In your lengthy reply there is no mention or concern of professional lines being crossed, rather, an emphasis of councillor disqualification.
Are you suggesting councillors disregard their oaths of office and continue working with a consultant, that engaged in illegal activity along with the Administrator, which could bring council and the corporation negative legal consequences?
Were provisions of the FOIP Act breached?
Is this to be kept a dirty little in camera secret?
By oath I believe we have no choice but to ensure the matters of concern are dealt with properly. Perhaps legal should be consulted?
We have been provided applicants by a consulting firm, according to the directive, and are at the point in the process, where council can take over from here. And interview individuals that could become council’s direct and only employee.
I believe council has the right to speak freely during the interview process without any interference by another party, especially a party that has crossed professional lines.
If there is a list of question compiled by the consulting firm, council might want to use those?
Also, please contact Mr. Storseth and check his availability for the 27th.
Any thoughts anyone?
Email Highlights 3
Robins’ Exhibit “8” – Excerpt of email exchange between Pat Vincent and Elizabeth Hurley.
On Thur. Jan.14, 2016 4:00 PM, Elizabeth Hurley wrote:
”Please alert the Reeve and other Council members that when they are reviewing the resumes, they should also refer to our comments on the spreadsheet with respect to each candidate.”
Robins’ Exhibit “10” – Excerpt of email exchange between Pat Vincent and Elizabeth Hurley.
On Mon. Jan. 26, 2016 5:25 PM, Pat Vincent wrote:
”Just to let you know Council has added one additional interviewee – Brian Storseth – to the list for tomorrow and he has been scheduled for 3:30 PM. At their direction I had contacted Brian to make those arrangements – definitely not looking at taking over your job! (smiley face) If you need I can photocopy his resume for circulation to members of Council.”
Robins’ Exhibit “11” – Excerpt of email exchange between Pat Vincent and Elizabeth Hurley.
On February 3, 2016 8:00 PM, Elizabeth Hurley wrote:
“Council’s addition of Brian Storseth to the short list was certainly Council’s prerogative.”