Squamish Chamber of Commerce officials have set next Monday (Dec. 5) as the date for a general meeting of Chamber members who are seeking answers to questions surrounding the purported removal of a director from the organization and dissolution of the group's economic development committee.
Mike Quesnel of Stuntwood Enterprises, one of approximately 500 businesses that belong to the Chamber, on Wednesday (Nov. 23) said he believes both actions were not carried out according to the Chamber's bylaws and that they are there therefore null and void.
The person at the centre of the matter, meanwhile, told The Chief that he has sought legal counsel and believes he may have grounds for a lawsuit against the Chamber board of directors. But he was quick to add that he hopes to see the situation resolved without either side resorting to legal action.
At the man's request, his name is being withheld to avoid unnecessary harm to his reputation.
Quesnel said the Chamber board took both actions at a closed-door meeting of directors on Nov. 14. Several Chamber members who are not on the 12-member board of directors showed up on the premise that it was to be a "special general meeting" that all interested members could attend. However, they were told the meeting was only for directors and asked to leave, he said.
The actions taken at the meeting raised several "red flags" for Quesnel and others, he said. However, since the meeting members of the board have declined when asked to clearly explain the board's actions, he said.
"The economic development committee was dissolved. Economic development is such a big issue in this town. Why was it dissolved?" Quesnel asked.
Under the Chamber's bylaws, only the Chamber membership has the authority to remove a member, as long as at least five per cent of the members are present and the vote to remove is at least 75 per cent of those in attendance, Quesnel said. The board of directors can't remove a member or dissolve a committee on its own, he said.
Chamber director Ron Anderson last week said the confusion over who was allowed to attend the Nov. 14 meeting likely arose because of two separate Chamber bylaws dealing with the calling of "special meetings" for directors only and "general meetings" that are open to all interested members. One or more of the notices that went out to members may have misstated the type of meeting being called, he said.
"Everybody's a volunteer, right? So when they put it out, they may have called it something a little different," Anderson said.
An official notice that went out on Nov. 9 indicated that information from a Chamber economic development survey, conducted in the spring, had been "compromised," and that therefore the survey should be "considered null and void."
Quesnel, though, said directors have refused to answer questions about what was meant by "compromised." A Nov. 16 notice to members indicated that the director had declined to turn over raw data from the survey by a pre-set deadline of Oct. 18 and that the board was still trying to obtain the information.
"At this time, we are not aware of the survey information being made public," the notice said, adding that board members didn't know why the director had refused to supply the data.
Said Anderson, "What was meant by 'compromised' was that we had no control over it, that it was lost to the Chamber board and therefore we couldn't access it."
The person at the centre of the matter said he was out of town when notice of the Oct. 18 deadline was communicated and was unable to respond by that time. He said after the notice stating that the information had been "compromised" went out, the only way for him to prove that it wasn't compromised was for him to keep it.
Quesnel said he and others collected signatures calling for a general meeting for members to receive clarification about the reasons behind the decisions. On Thursday (Nov. 24), Chamber officials issued a statement saying that the meeting in response to the petition will take place Dec. 5 at 6 p.m. at the Sandman Hotel, 39400 Discovery Way.
