I have read with some dismay, a few opinions and letters out there slamming councillor Skakun since Judge Ball came down with his ruling.
Those who call Mr. Skakun a liar obviously did not look at all the facts and intricacies of the case as he explained his actions. Those who say he wasted the taxpayer's money on the lengthy trial misunderstand that it was the Crown which chose to pursue this issue with such vehemence: for the hefty fine of $750?
As I see it, Mr. Skakun may be guilty of being naive in dealing with the media, and possibly of not knowing where to turn as he tried to get the city to address how it was dealing with some of its employees.
Perhaps he was not convinced city administration would deal with some issues, particularly with council continuously locking discussion up behind closed-door meetings. Disrespect of its employees is a term that comes to mind, as some city employees were being bullied and harassed.
It seems to me that an elected official has a duty to his electorate that under certain circumstances may supersede his duty to the city corporation. That is where the law usually gets very detailed on how it defines who is what before the law.
It appears the judge tried Mr. Skakun under the laws of Webster's dictionary - officer equates to office because of a root word connection. How he could ignore the defence council's relevant arguments from case law in one fell swoop is hard to understand. To say the city was doing everything right in this case makes one wonder which planet the judge was viewing the proceedings from.
And if the city was so happy to have the Crown pursue privacy issues one wonders why the city manager's case was dropped so handily?
When Judge Ball stated at the beginning of the proceedings that no one is guaranteed a perfect defence, one can only wonder how balanced all consideration was going to be.
With every turn, the defence seemed to be stymied by the judge, from the initial request for a broader search of evidence, to associating the credibility of one witness over another, simply by their education.
I would hope and expect Mr. Skakun will appeal such a ruling. A ruling that goes against the honesty and integrity of the councillor, and the value I know he personally places on the advocacy he practises on behalf of his electorate.
Kevin Beyer
Prince George
