I mean “patronage” in the best of ways. As in, why hasn’t Peter Dhillon been asked to resign yet, seeing as how he’s apparently broken the patronage rules?
You may remember from yesterdays posting and front page stories that Peter Dhillon was/is Kash Heed’s “money guy,” as in, to quote Barinder Sall’s e-mail to Global reporter Catherine Urquhart, “Kash would not be SG today if it hadn’t been for some key people behind the scenes. There were truly three people that played a major role: Me, Peter Dhillon, and yourself and Kash knows this. Peter was the money guy, I’m the brown tanned James Bond strategy girl chasing guy, and you were like the communications director… your stories, coverage and timing gave Kash a lot of profile and built him a following from day 1.”
And here’s what the “money guy” is alleged to have done for soon to be ex MLA Heed – this from the CTV report on Kash Heed: ”
“Police allege Dhillon’s companies, Richberry Farms and Pitt Meadows Farms, paid cheques worth $7500 to North American Mailing to print anti-NDP pamphlets that authorities say broke a number of election rules.
But the warrant also alleges Dhillon’s companies didn’t declare the contributions as donations to the campaign, and that Dhillon didn’t make those contributions to Heed’s financial agent, which they claim would be a violation of the Elections Act.
Police claim that in an interview, Dhillon said the $7500 was actually paid to North American Mailing to pay for brochures for the cranberry industry, although police say those cranberry brochures were never actually printed.
Dhillon also is also alleged to have told police that he was not involved in the campaign to elect Kash Heed because he is an NDP supporter.
But police allege a picture taken on election night that shows a smiling Dhillon, Heed, and Heed’s campaign manager Barinder Sall proves a relationship with Heed.
“I do not believe that Peter Dhillon’s statement was truthful… I believe that Peter Dhillon contributed to the strategy for the campaign,” wrote RCMP investigator Sgt. John Taylor.
And of course Mr. Dhillon will likely have his day in court. But right now he’s a government patronage appointment. Mr. Dhillon was appointed to SFU’s Board of Governors February 11th, 2oo8.
There are, of course, ethical rules for government appointees. Section one of the rules is all about complying with the law. In fact it’s called COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. While all of the section appears relevant to Mr. Dhillon’s appointment, Sections 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 appear particularly relevant:
1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
1.1 Directors should act at all times in full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of all applicable laws.
1.4 Falsifying any record of transactions is unacceptable.
1.5 Directors should not only comply fully with the law, but should also avoid any situation which could be perceived as improper or indicate a casual attitude towards compliance.
If the rules mean anything, shouldn’t Mr. Dhillon be suspended or even fired, more or less immediately?