Assault isn’t an indictable offense–indictable offenses being things such as homicide, rape, etc. Before you take the time to dig up our election laws you might want to look up a few of the hard words.
As for him being in jail, of course he won’t be able to hold office in that case. As it is, he has not been convicted and therefore can RUN. If he IS sentenced to prison, he’ll have to step down.
I’ll also say: I don’t know who broke this up as a “vote for Briglio” thread. I think that talking about a single incumbent falls into the “which candidates for council” tread. However, being separated, I’m not necessarily encouraging people to “vote for Briglio” just because I don’t think he should be judged by his worst day.
Should Anna Ashley not be allowed to run because she committed a crime when she went on strike a few years ago? It’s a bad example–is that someone we want representing us? Of course she should be allowed to run, and of course she might be someone we want representing us.
You’re right, I should have been specific in that Assault is a hybrid offense–if found guilty the chances it WON’T be a summary conviction is extremely low. He didn’t use a weapon and he was very intoxicated. Either way, he’s either been indicted, or he hasn’t. They can’t indict him at the end of a trial. That said, I highly doubt that the chief elections officer for Prince Rupert would forget one of the main regulations. Therefore, I would be surprised beyond belief if Tony Briglio has been indicted.
Well there’s the route, Conflict of interest…as he voted on the land deal at the Anchor Inn and his family benefited from his position on council…Would that count???
I heard that was a deal with profit, was there not someone else with Tony on that one? People have mentioned to me about a letter which was posted on the window of the store or gas station. Very good point which you have brought up Wee-smack
His (Briglio’s) sister owns the Anchor Inn and he voted yes on a land deal that added to the size of the anchor’s lot size,hence the conflict of Interest, as it increased in value…or am I wrong on conflict Part?.. the Gas station is another thing and that was the letter left by the old owner Lee…and he is an honest guy (Lee).
You’re indicted when charged–and he hasn’t been indicted. Therefore, the crown must be pushing for a summary conviction. I thought I said that in my reply to Sockpuppet.
yes the Anchor Inn did buy extra land from the city but once an offer was tendered for it anybody could have put in a counteroffer for the same land the city advertised it as was required by law, as for voting for it do you have the voting records to show that?
Unless there is a conviction there is no real recourse as far as a councillor, Mayor or candidate being held back from serving or standing for office.
It may not be particularly ethical to serve while under a long running cloud of suspicion, but near as past precedence has shown, there’s no actual mechanism in place to remove or to stop a candidate from seeking office, merely while in the accused state.
Recently a Mayor of one of the Lower Mainland burgs, Port Coquitlam or Maple Ridge I think had been charged with assault, he was attending court while serving out his duties on council at the same time. The council down there was up in arms over it but the drama played out through most of the year.
Until the Judge throws down a sentence I suspect that all members of council would have the right to continue on with their normal municipal duties and to seek out elected office.
Of course if all the drama of court appearances is of concern, the electors always have the right to skip over that box with their X when it comes time to vote.
He asked how trustees would prevent the provincial government from doing to local school boards what it has done to local health boards.
A great question that really brought out some well thought out responses, in my opinion. It showed how a couple of candidates really saw the big picture.
Tina Last’s response showed her experience and her view of the “big picture.” She said that the government wouldn’t think of getting rid of local school boards, because then there would be no shield for their actions – there would be a direct link between the government and closing schools, for example. Right now, local school boards take all the heat for unpopular decisions.
If you can show me where I said I “knew” he hasn’t been indicted, then I guess I’ve contradicted myself. However, given all that we know about the situation, the chance that he’s been indicted is extremely low–am I incorrect?
[/quote]
