April 12, 2001

To Bruce Hallsor
Rebuttal to Kroll Linquist Avey Avidavit.

Bruce, upon review of the affidavits of Kroll Linquist Avey, Elections BC auditors (KLA), particularly those of Jenny Chan, members of the party board are unanimous in moving forward in court to exonerate the party from over spending.
Some of the questions that are being asked are:

• Why did KL`A not consult with all of the principal officers of the party, and include Shirley Abraham who was and still is the party secretary in their meetings? She and Dan Tate should have been included in order to have balance from a representatives who could speak to the conflict of interest of Delaney and VdZ and their desire to relegate Reform to the “trash bin” so they could develop their new Unity Party.? Is this a point to be made by affidavit or by argument in court? Elections BC were completely aware of these conflicts.
• Why did KLA accept the decisions to move campaign expenses over to the party from Chris Delaney when he was no longer a principle officer of Reform?
• Why did KLA and Elections BC accept the decisions to move campaign expenses over to the party from Delaney, Vander Zalm, McQuarie and Wray knowing that there were conflicts of interest between them going to a new Unity party?

In item #47 Chan refers to the need to have both financial agents present at the next meeting yet neither were present at the Jan 4 meeting. Is this really “due process”?
#56 Chan et al acknowledge they concluded the expenses should be moved entirely as a result of the insistence of Delaney and VdZ. What is their professional opinion based on the authorizations by the responsible agents and the payment process? Obviously these were a factor in their initial decision that they were campaign expenses as noted in items 26 and 27
On page 11 and again on page 12 Nola Western refers to considerable intermingling of transactions between the party and the campaign as if to imply some wrongdoing by this activity. Should this be challenged?
Going now to Wray’s Affidavit and attachments: Attach F, the letter from Elections BC to Wray dated Mar 1, 2001 states “ By providing for two separate election expense limits, Elections Act clearly does not anticipate that political parties and candidates can arbitrarily allocate election expenses.” This flies in the face of Chan’s affidavit items, 26 & 27 which state that the KLA professional conclusion was certain expenses belonged to the campaign, and then goes on in item 70 to state that these same expenses were arbitrarily allocated to the party because of the insistence of Delaney and Vander Zalm.

Sincerely yours
Ron Gamble
President, Reform BC