The lawsuit that has been filed by former Vancity senior vice-president David Berge against his ex-employer is hard to fathom, pitting, as it does, people who have normally been part of a small world unified in their aim to approach business, development and the environment in a different way from the usual corporate capitalist model.
Now Berge, who is renowned in certain circles for his pioneering work on social-venture funds, is suing Vancity to get it to live up to a commitment he says they made when they hired him: investing $10-million in another social-venture fund they were going to be jointly involved in.
My story in the Globe provides only the most basic elements of the suit, which I’m attaching in full below. It also doesn’t begin to explain the close relationships among many of the parties involved.
One that I omitted: both David Berge and his former boss, Tamara Vrooman, were both advisors to Joel Solomon’s Renewal2 operation. Another that I couldn’t squeeze in: Berge, at Vancity, helped the City of Vancouver, aka Vision Vancouver, with financing for a couple of projects dear to their civic hearts, the Olympic Village co-op and a energy-retrofit program.
I know that those who delight in the whole Tides Canada Foundation conspiracy story will make hay of this (although the Tides connection arose in a strange way in the lawsuit).
But it seems to me that there’s a deeper story at play here, one that this lawsuit doesn’t really get at — one that’s more about the difference in culture between Vancity and the American social-venture movement possibly? Or something else beyond that?
BTW, I made a couple of errors in describing some of the many links in the story: Berge’s Underdog did not invest in Ben & Jerry’s; ice-cream maker Ben Cohen, of B & J’s, invested in Underdog. As well, although Joel Solomon’s Renewal did invest in Underdog, Underdog did not invest in Renewal 1 or 2. Instead, Berge was an adviser to Renewal 2.
57 responses so far ↓
1 Sandy Garossino // Oct 8, 2012 at 11:22 pm
This is a remarkable Notice of Claim, and I look forward to you posting the statement of defence when it comes in, Frances.
One of the extraordinary aspects of this notice on its face is the appearance of conflict of interest between Mr. Berge qua Managing Member of Underdog LLC (where he had a personal interest) and his role as VP of Vancity Community Investments, where he oversaw Vancity investments.
Tamara Vrooman was extraordinarily well regarded in her role as DM to Carole Taylor in the provincial finance portfolio, so it will be intriguing to see how she and Vancity characterize the facts.
Hopefully someone on this thread conversant in the International Financial Reporting Standards will weigh in to explain the impact of the transition from GAAP vis-a-vis reporting requirements. This part of the description of the facts is opaque.
2 IanS // Oct 9, 2012 at 6:15 am
I just had time for a quick read through (it’s pretty wordy, as Notices of Civil Claim go). The conflict kind of jumps out at your and one gets the impression that there’s a relatively small group of people working to “invest” other peoples’ money in each other. However, as between the litigants, the “conflict” (if they really regarded it as a conflict) was well known and, apart from that, the lawsuit seems pretty straightforward.
3 Frances Bula // Oct 9, 2012 at 6:54 am
@IanS. Eight hours and two literate, analytical responses already. What a pleasant surprise.
4 IanS // Oct 9, 2012 at 7:38 am
@Frances #3:
This topic actually involves my profession, so it behooves me to try to be literate, if not analytical.
5 Glissando Remmy // Oct 9, 2012 at 11:14 am
Thought of The Day
“The Vivian Krause Redemption…”
Dots…
Vision Vancouver; Tides Canada; Hollyhock; Joel Solomon; Social Engineering 500 Years Plan; Greenest City; El Gregor Robertson; Olympic Village; Fortress; Penny Ballem; Vancity; David Berg; Renewall 2; Other People’s Money; Underdog; Ka Ching, Ka Ching, Ka Ching…
Got Pencil?
When Vivian Krause the superb researcher of Tax Data that she is, was exposing scores after scores of financial transactions in the Vancouver American-Canadian-American charitable/profitable underworld, not long ago, many, including some on this thread were jumping for the jugular…
Why?
Frances Says:
“One that I omitted: both David Berge and his former boss, Tamara Vrooman, were both advisors to Joel Solomon’s Renewal2 operation. Another that I couldn’t squeeze in: Berge, at Vancity, helped the City of Vancouver, aka Vision Vancouver, with financing for a couple of projects dear to their civic hearts, the Olympic Village co-op and a energy-retrofit program.
I know that those who delight in the whole Tides Canada Foundation conspiracy story will make hay of this (although the Tides connection arose in a strange way in the lawsuit).”
How so?
When one sees day in, day out… for years, the same actors on the Vancouver scene having their bony fingers in one cookie jar after another, other people’s cookie jars I may add.
One might become suspicious after a while, right? Otherwise it would make one look either Stupid or … Dead! Right?
Anyhoo…
Just when I was about to give up on that though, here comes Frances again:
“Berge’s Underdog did not invest in Ben & Jerry’s; ice-cream maker Ben Cohen, of B & J’s, invested in Underdog. As well, although Joel Solomon’s Renewal did invest in Underdog, Underdog did not invest in Renewal 1 or 2. Instead, Berge was an adviser to Renewal 2.”
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot … WTF is that?
Mental juggling?
Hmm, after sending it for proofreading, to the wise guy I know from my Lower Manhattan’s Little Italy days, he called and asked me:
“Uncle Vittorino wants to know, can they teach us how to do that, paisan?”
…
Oh, mille scusi… non vorrei fatte male a te. Questo mio atteggiamento e stato cosi solo perche… mi dispiace. Sono propria confusa… Te voglio tanto bene…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
6 teririch // Oct 9, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Odd how a lot of the ‘key’ players involved with Solomon/Renewal/Endswell/TIDES are Americans (transplants)
****
David Berge is the President of Underdog Ventures, a company which provides customized community venture capital funds, integrating socially responsible investment, community development finance and philanthropic components. Through his previous retainer-based consulting firm, David advised high net worth individuals and social venture institutions, while providing one third of his work on a pro bono basis for community development organizations. David also is the Chairman and founder of the Underdog Foundation, which provides both community investments and philanthropy. Previously, David was the Director of Vermont National Bank’s Socially Responsible Banking Fund, which he grew from $38 million to $203 million in targeted deposits, creating flexible loans in the areas of affordable housing, education, sustainable agriculture, conservation and the environment and socially responsible businesses. David also worked as the Senior Loan Officer at the Institute for Community Economics, a community loan fund providing financial and technical assistance to community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives and other grassroots organizations around the United States.
7 waltyss // Oct 9, 2012 at 1:38 pm
At the moment, all we have are the allegations from a party starting an action. When Vancity files its statement of defence, we will have a better sense of what the issues are/were.
While this is largely speculation at this point, it appears that either Berge somehow fell afoul of the CEO and/or the Board or that he was not what he was cracked up to be or with the change in accounting rules, they decided that the relationship between Berge as a senior VP and investments in his fund was no longer sustainable. I have trouble believing that an organization as large as Vancity and subject to tight scrutiny by the provincial government and Central 1 would not have considered whether the agreed to relationship when Berge was hired constiuted an acceptable conflict of interest. However, you never know.
If they paid him out his severance, as Berge alleges, then it is likely that either Vancity could not establish that he was in violation of their initial agreement or alternatively that proving a violation would cost more without a guarantee of success than simply paying the agreed upon severance.
@Frances #3, you spoke too soon.
8 Sandy Garossino // Oct 9, 2012 at 2:37 pm
@Waltyss–I think you have this right.
It’s notable that Berge relies on agreement terms that may not be written, which already puts him in a tenuous position.
It’s somewhat hard to imagine that Vancity (or indeed Berge) would enter into a comprehensive C-suite employment contract that also contemplated corporate partnership of some kind without papering the whole deal. Though I may be reading too much into this.
Another wait and see moment…
9 jenables // Oct 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Please download the pdf of vancity’s 2009 annual report, and look at the cover. Or research their “ethical funds”. I’ve always felt therewas something sinister beyond the constant prattling of their “good deeds” in the community the bank act MANDATES them to do.
10 teririch // Oct 9, 2012 at 9:46 pm
@jenables #9
You do have to apprecaite the word’mandate’. Seems to be quite popular amongst a certain group of persons these days.
‘We were given the mandate when….’
11 jenables // Oct 9, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Haha, when i think about it, it sounds more like something you’d do for a boyfriend for them, but wouldn’t otherwise. “I’m not really into that, but i was mandated into it.. It makes Steve so happy!” Of course, most men need to have time with the guys, or “mandates”.
12 waltyss // Oct 9, 2012 at 11:03 pm
@jenables and teririch: Forgive me for intruding with some facts. I know, I know, facts are for losers but bear with me.
The Bank Act does not apply to Vancity which is not a bank; it is a credit union subject to provincial legislation.
Even if it were subject to the Bank Act, jenables, maybe you could point out where the Bank Act mandates (sorry, MANDATES) a bank to do. You could also look at the provincial Credit Union Act and see if you can find it there. I am dying to know.
And jenables, if you could just look up from the 2009 annual report, maybe you could tell us what is so sinister about ethical funds. There are simpy a category of funds that eschew certian industries or invest in certain other types of industries. No-one is forced to purchase them. However they appear to be quite popular because many if not most of the mutual fund providers provide a variant of them
No one restrains you in any way from investing in cigarette or arms manufacturers, companies that treat their employees shabbily (Caterpillar for example) or casinos and the like. To repeat, why is it “sinister” (your word), if people choose to invest according to their own principles, just as you do yours?
Vancity, owned by its members and very profitable offers a product that its members choose to purchase? Sinister?
And so Vancity enters into a deal to invest in a fund operated by a man with a lot of experience in the field, who commands what may seem to some to be an exorbitant slice for his efforts. Is the deal out of line that the more middle of the road fund charges? I don’t know; do you? I know that Canadian funds tend to charge high fees and this one was no different. However, can you tell me why someone managing ethical funds should charge less for his efforts that the owners of Fidelity or Phillips Hager and North? In other words, jenables, because he creates and manages ethical funds, should he on that basis charge less than market? Maybe he should but I fail to see that doing so is sinister. But you tell me.
Now I admit that it seems that the arrangement with Vancity was strange and certainly open to questions over conflicts. That may say something about Berge or Vancity senior executives but I suggest that it says nothing about ethical funds which for some reason you find so distasteful.
You say we should research their ethical funds. Have you? If so, what have you found that is so sinister?
As for Vancity’s good deeds in the community, well, while anyone of us may disagree with any particular grant, only a really bitter twisted person would suggest that they have not done a lot of good in the community particularly with more marginalized groups. jenables, did you want to take a bow?
13 waltyss // Oct 9, 2012 at 11:19 pm
@jenables, I looked at the 2009 Annual Report. I imagine, in your smirking way, you are referring to the cover which states: Vancity is for the Wealthy. I guess you chose not to read the next pages which speak about wealth not just being financial. A small detail that I am sure escaped you.
I guess your smirk was so large that you missed that Vancity gave $8.3 million to not for profit community organizations and returned 4% dividends on equituy to its members. Oh, so sinister! This was the first complete year after the world wide financial meltdown. Sinister indeed.
14 F.H.Leghorn // Oct 9, 2012 at 11:29 pm
“a bitter twisted person”. yet again Waltyss fills 10 paragraphs with non sequiturs and pointless rhetorical questions, all the while complaining that other posters avoid fact-based discussion.
In his view, only his own opinions are valid. That’s what makes his posts so tedious and repetitive. Just more ad hominem time-wasting from a pompous jerk.
Remember Bula fans : wStuffer. A free download from the Google store. You’ll never have to ignore waltyss again, this app takes care of everything.
15 jenables // Oct 10, 2012 at 12:55 am
Weird, i thought the bank act applied to financial institutions. Ethical funds was a cutesy feel good way to sell the same mutual funds as everyone else, including tar sands/oil etc, it’s just that everyone else wasn’t calling themselves ethical while doing it. And of course i read on past page one. “vancity is for the wealthy” (turn thick fancy page) we’re redefining wealth blah blah health blah blah community good deeds blah blah. Obviously you don’t find it offensive waltyzzz, but i happen to. This is my hometown and i feel like I’m on a different planet sometimes, surrounded by uptight, nimby-ass people just clutching their pearls, and finding things to make unacceptable. If the cover of that annual report didn’t offend you, you obviously are wealthy and overjoyed that this city is for YOU! But why can’t it be for everyone?
16 waltyss // Oct 10, 2012 at 10:12 am
@jenables, at the risk of another insult from Foghorn Leghorn, the simple truth is that if you don’t like them, don’t deal with them. Obviously many people disagree with you but each of you is entitled to take your business where you choose.
I might add that, even though i happen to use a bank for my personal banking, I know of no bank in Canada that contributes to the community proportionate to its assets.
The cover of the annual report is hardly offensive, unless you are simply waiting to be offended (I suspect when it comes to anything that may be perceived as centre left, you are). As stated, the point of the cover is they were for everyone regardless of how a member’s wealth is measured. That was the point that the cover was trying to make: Vancity and Vancouver is for everyone. YOu don’t seem to understand and then choose to be offended. So be it.
Back to facts: the Bank Act, as its name suggests, applies to banks. Vancity is not a bank.
The Financial Institutions Act, which is provincial legislation applies to financial institutions like credit unions and trust companies but not to banks.
Now jenables, I believe you are tossing out another lie. Show me a Vancity ethical fund (or any ethical fund, for that matter) that invests in the tar sands. You have an unfortunate tendency to throw out, well, utter garbage without any foundation. I asked you some legitimate questions. Rather than responding, you fling out more unsupportable bs. Try to have some basis ffor your utterances.
I will refrain from picking up on your comment about you being from another planet. Too easy!
Okay, Foghorn Leghorn, what insult are you going to hurl at me today?
17 teririch // Oct 10, 2012 at 10:14 am
@jenabales:
I wonder if Waltyss has yet realized, we were ‘joking’ around…..just a little bit.
‘Mandating myself back to work’… LOL!
18 teririch // Oct 10, 2012 at 10:19 am
@waltyss:
This is for you my friend – since you mentioned ‘Caterpillar’. It is quite incredible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=BFTj0hM3DHM
19 teririch // Oct 10, 2012 at 10:35 am
@jenables #15:
I was under the impression that the ‘Febderal Bank Act’ applied to Credit Unions as well…so I Googled it:
‘The Bank Act is the primary legislation governing banks and federal credit unions1 in Canada. FCAC is responsible for administering sections of the Act designated as consumer provisions, in addition to monitoring the financial institutions’ compliance with voluntary codes of conduct and public commitments.
20 West End Gal // Oct 10, 2012 at 11:04 am
Waltyss…
Excuse me?
“…the simple truth is that if you don’t like them, don’t deal with them. Obviously many people disagree with you but each of you is entitled to take your business where you choose.”
Say again?
Have you bothered to read this in Frances post:
“Berge, at Vancity, helped the City of Vancouver, aka Vision Vancouver, with financing for a couple of projects dear to their civic hearts, the Olympic Village co-op and a energy-retrofit program.”
I don’t like them, I don’t deal with them , I don’t want to do business with them, but through some intricate schemes and connections the people who were barely elected to administer and then appointed hand picked hacks chose to do that … on my behalf!
Now the city of Vancouver is on the losing side because of the advice received by this people, do you get it? I did not choose them, they found their way in through the gang inside city hall. Ethical funds my ass. Who’s ethics, theirs? Don’t make me laugh.
21 teririch // Oct 10, 2012 at 11:27 am
@West End Gal #20:
I keep wondering if the ‘energy retro-fit’ program in Enerpro (North Vancouver) as one of their higher up managment team had connections to Solomon and Renewal.
Enerpro is the group that looks after the utility ‘billing’ for the Oly Village Social Housing – you know, the company that generates an invoice at a cost of $12.95 charged to the user, on-top of the usage costs that people could not afford to pay? I think the city appointed a (paid) ‘advocate’ to help explain the bills to social housing residents, and we, the taxpayers covered off those costs for 6 months to the tune of $110K (+).
The GS has covered it quite extensively.
Things that make you go hmmmmm….
22 waltyss // Oct 10, 2012 at 11:57 am
@teririch. Bothersome facts again. Vancity is not a federal credit union. What you call federal credit unions are a very specific institution and none of the credit unions in BC fit within that.
@ West End Gal. The City has to deal with financial institutions and for financing for some projects, they chose Vancity and dealt with the person at Vancity who would deal with those sorts of things.
The rest is just an unintelligible rant. I can virtually see the spittle through the ether.
23 Ms. Jones // Oct 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Waltyss 22
IMO both teririch 21 & WEG 20 make sense considering… there are too many coincidences since this Vision collective got into office!
Coincidences happen, but not this often and not this fast, they simply don’t.
So, I’m asking you, Waltyss, are you trying to protect… the truth?
24 IanS // Oct 10, 2012 at 1:31 pm
@teririch #19,
I believe Vancity is governed by provincial legislation, such as the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act.
25 F.H.Leghorn // Oct 10, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Only 8 paragraphs this time, thank God.
Check with Allen Garr about the NDP schemers on the Vancity board (elected by around 2% of the “members”). A real rogues gallery of what’s left of The Left, with Bob Williams as eminence grise. Off to Bologna again to learn from those hard-working, successful Italians, huh Bob?
Who really cares where Vancity invests as long as their rates are competitive? I’m prepared to cut them some slack because it’s a great workplace for women, unlike so many other financial institutions.
26 teririch // Oct 10, 2012 at 2:09 pm
@Ian #24:
Thank you.
I tried to look up a list of federal credit unions without much luck – it linked VanCity to Central 1 and at one point in 2004, Citizens Bank.
Ethical Funds have been around for decades – and if I remember correctly there was previous fallout surrounding them.
I will have to go back and look.
There is mention of one in Fed CU in Langley found in other archives.
IanS – on another note, and I think you followed me on this – I found homeless Chris (finally) – the gentleman that lived in my alley for 10+ years. On July 12 CoV workers came and took his carts. He defended his stuff, which lead to the police showing up and him being shot with a rubber bullet and taken away. Long and short, he has a no go order for Kits, but I did manage to find him (spent time afterwork and weekends walking the WE) I am happy to say he is okay…aside from being p***ed at what happened to him.
27 waltyss // Oct 10, 2012 at 3:27 pm
@teririch. You don’t believe me so maybe you’ll believe IanS. Most likely, you don’t care about facts.
A federal credit union is what in the Bank Act is called a cooperative credit society. Credit Union Central of Canada is one of these and is federally regulated. It is owned by the provincial Central Credit Unions.
In BC, the central credit union is Central one which was formed by the amalgamation of Credit Union Central of BC and of Ontario. I am not sure if it is federally regulated but I understand it is provincially regulated.
Central 1 in turn is owned by its member credit unions in BC and Ontario all of which are provincially regulated by, as IanS says, in BC the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union.
Citizens Bank is a bank subject to the Bank Act, was wholly owned by Vancity and is either being absorbed or wound up.
Ms. Jones, if you thought WEG made sense then you have better powers of discernment that me. But no matter, each to his own. My question is with your post. What truth is it that I am protecting? I don’t mind protecting truth even truthiness but I like to know what it is I am protecting.
28 F.H.Leghorn // Oct 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Should be “better powers of discernment than I”. And she does.
29 waltyss // Oct 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Sorry, Foghorn, but you are wrong (need I say as usual). It is “than me” or ” than I do”. Look it up.
30 jenables // Oct 11, 2012 at 1:44 am
Ok, waltyzzz, so you believe this credit union (wait, can i call it that?) I mean bank (but they keep saying they AREN’T a back) uhm, financial institution (would they want me using the word institution? It has some heavy connotations outside banking..hmmn..wrinkles forehead) sublime-ly ethical handler of the peoples money and dreams investor or sehotpmadi, you are putting your ethical dollars where your good deeds mouth is and saying they never invested in tart (typo and it stays) sands or oil/gas?? Because that would be unethical to the people who earnestly want to do the right thing? I believe that was the controversy, my friend! That’s why they aren’t around anymore. Now it’s called good money. And i bank elsewhere for my personal banking, but i deal with them at work. My favorite incident was when i asked why they didn’t do post-dated deposits anymore (which was not true…they didn’t want to do them, they now charge a per Cheque fee to do them, but i was flat out told at the time they didn’t do them anymore). The manager or supervisor said “we don’t want the responsibility of having the cheques in the branch overnight” i said “but you’re a BANK! Oh wait….
31 jenables // Oct 11, 2012 at 2:05 am
Ps waltyzzzzzzzzz…”offended by anything center left”, (like an annual report entitled vancity is for the wealthy which is TACKY AT BEST, regardless of the footnotes, it is a slap in the face to many people in these times)???? You need to get off the spatial bandwagon and start paying attention to what people are saying as it pertains to the topic instead of trying to brand everyone into these camps. I’m half your age, likely, but grow up. Let me be center center.
32 boohoo // Oct 11, 2012 at 8:41 am
“instead of trying to brand everyone into these camps.”
That applies to a number of people here.
33 waltyss // Oct 11, 2012 at 10:26 am
@jenables: Look at your post #9 where you said that Vancity only did “what the bank Act MANDATES them to do”. (I’m not sure what the caps are about but I don’t want to distort your message). My response merely a factual assertion that the Bank Act (or bank act if you prefer) does not apply to them. They are a credit union and subject to provincial regulation; the Bank Act is federal.
You are now at the “oh, whatever ” stage. You still have not responded to the second false assertion in that post: that the Bank Act, even if they wre subject to it, MANDATES them to do “good deeds”. My point was that thee is nothiing in the Bank Act that mandates or even MANDATES that. I conclude that you have not answered because you don’t have an answer. You threw out a factual allegation without an iota of a foundation.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with what the thread is about: a lawsuit between Vancity and someone who in prominent in the ethical investing field. This of course became an opening for slagging Vancity, Vancouver, Vision, ethical funds, whatever. However, as Frances Bula has pointed out in the thread about the retiremen of the Deputy City Manager, this is par for the course.
And as you point out, you are free not to deal with Vancity or purchase ethical funds or do your banking anywhere you choose. Just as your employer or the City is entitled to deal with whomever the responsible people choose, regardless of your or WEG’s views.
As for the “spatial bandwagon”m, if you can tell me what WEG is saying.
You might even tell me what you are saying in the following:
It has some heavy connotations outside banking..hmmn..wrinkles forehead) sublime-ly ethical handler of the peoples money and dreams investor or sehotpmadi, you are putting your ethical dollars where your good deeds mouth is and saying they never invested in tart (typo and it stays) sands or oil/gas?? Because that would be unethical to the people who earnestly want to do the right thing? I believe that was the controversy, my friend!
Just a rant (in which case fair enough) or do you have a serious point to make?
And teririch, if you are centre centre (or center center, if you prefer), then Attila the Hun was a commie.
Foghorn, how many paragraphs?
34 Ned // Oct 11, 2012 at 10:37 am
Waltyss,
I cannot help but agree with this WEG paragraph
“I don’t like them, I don’t deal with them , I don’t want to do business with them, but through some intricate schemes and connections the people who were barely elected to administer and then appointed hand picked hacks chose to do that … on my behalf!”
Don’t tell me you don’t get it!
My reading… “I don’t want to do business with Vancity, but for Vision Vancouver friends at Vancity now that they planted lots of garrs and NDP backers, that would be a delight)
That’s what I get and I agree. Same “institution” involved in some financing at the Olympic Village… with mixed and controversial results. I Am not an investigative reporter but I tell you, this story will become more and more interesting. Hey after all it’s only money, what’s other people’s money, like the $300K+/year Ballem would love to say ‘a drop in my bucket”!
35 waltyss // Oct 11, 2012 at 11:20 am
@ Ned, just scattergun the vitriol. Ballem seems to be a favourite target of the haters. So be it. I am sure she can handle it.
I do my personal banking elsewhere but Vancity is a major finanial institution in this community. It is locally owned. Why wouldn’t the city deal with them Because people like you hate their vision?
Moreover in business, it is hardly unusual that businesses do business with likeminded businesses.
Vison ran and was elected on a progressive ( a dirty word to the haters, I know) platform that was left of centre. We can expect that they would deal with a local financial institution that shares their values. Why would they not?
With regard to ethical funds, they are popular with Vancity members and many other people. Maybe not you, but so what! That Vancity would recruit someone prominent in ethical investing when there is a real demand for those types of products is hardly surprising or to be condemned.
That someone in Berge’s position would demand market rates for doing what he does, is again hardly surprising or to be condemned.
The issue and the only issue (other than the opportunity it gives for people like you to slag at random) is whether a conflict of interest line was crossed in hiring Berge as a senior executive and at the same time agreeing to invest in his funds.
The courts will tell us that (although I am confident that the conspiracy buffs so prevalent on this site will find out if the judge ever banked or perhaps just visited a Vancity branch office and thereby clearly became part of the conspiracy, whatever that conspiracy may be).
Having said all of that, I don’t even know if Vancity is the financial institution the city deals with regularly or whether they simply got financing from them for what Bula called projects near and dear to Vision’ s heart. If the city deals with them, is this new or has the city historically dealt with them? Who knows? Who cares.
36 teririch // Oct 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm
@waltyss #33:
‘And teririch, if you are centre centre (or center center, if you prefer), then Attila the Hun was a commie’
***
What????
Is there a point you are trying to make or are you just throwing out another insult for the heck of it?
37 Terry m // Oct 11, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Teririch 36
It’s called a preemptive comment.
Just in case he was covering all his bases.
38 teririch // Oct 11, 2012 at 1:51 pm
@Terry m #37:
Thank you.
I guess I am too sober to understand some commentors…..
39 waltyss // Oct 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm
dear teri: you were the one that self described yourself as center cernter. You opened it up and I suggested that judging from your posts that you are , well, well to the right of centre. Your centre is most peoples far right.
Having opened up the issue, don’t give us false umbrage when someone responds.
If you stuck to discussing either opinion and sticking to facts rather than making contentions of fact without basis we might have a good debate and avoid the you are more left/right than me argument.
40 teririch // Oct 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm
@waltyss #39
You are going to have to refer me back to where ‘I described myself as centre centre…’ as I stated nothing on this thread.
So, as you put it, do try to stay on topic and perhaps try less at sh*t disturbing in order to engage reaction.
41 Frances Bula // Oct 11, 2012 at 4:10 pm
@I applaud Teri’s use of the Canadian spelling (centre centre) over Waltyss (center center). That’s all I have to say on this point.
42 F.H.Leghorn // Oct 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Far, far too many paragraphs.
43 waltyss // Oct 11, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Sorry, that was your friend jenables. It’s hard to tell you apart.
44 waltyss // Oct 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm
jenables post @31: Let me be center center.
Not my spelling, hers. i was trying to be exact.
45 jenables // Oct 12, 2012 at 1:56 am
Zzz, you are really going off! Seeing as you keep mixing up your female posters, does what i say really matter to you? You know NOTHING about me but you have me pegged in your mind as someone who thinks center centre (i use Swype for my keyboard, it is US English..i prefer the Canadian spelling) is most people’s far right. You seem to have a very oppressive way of thinking- if you disagree with certain marketing, or you question actions of or civic government, then you must HATE progressive government because you are a HATER of all noble things and AN EXTREME, SELFISH CONSERVATIVE. news to me, wealthy Dunbar homeowner. I live in a walk up on theEastside, and most of my peers and myself are left leaning. HOWEVER, I am a cynic and a STRONG believer in exposing myself to as many different opinions as possible. It is my belief that having to adopt an entire way of thinking and morals of a party, or religion, or school of thought is very detrimental to our ability to think critically, as well as impossible for some. How do you believe something you don’t believe? So label away, because I’m not worried about your assumptions. Now, my understanding was that financial institutions must put 4% of their annual profit into the community they are located in. Which is why you see them sponsoring festivals and marathons. I’m open to correction on this. The annual report left a bad taste in my mouth, and if you were in my shoes, you might feel the same. I suppose that’s not directly on topic, but it’s not irrelevant, imo. Since for several years i have been dealing with then regularly, not of my choosing, I’m bound to have other opinions based on how i have been treatedand what i have observed. Hope this is the information you were looking for.. Please take what i am saying in this response at face value.
46 boohoo // Oct 12, 2012 at 7:33 am
“You seem to have a very oppressive way of thinking- if you disagree with certain marketing, or you question actions of or civic government, then you must HATE progressive government because you are a HATER of all noble things and AN EXTREME, SELFISH CONSERVATIVE. news to me, wealthy Dunbar homeowner.”
Funny, that point never seems to be made the other way around. I like it though! Oppressive thinker. I’ll remember it.
47 jenables // Oct 12, 2012 at 10:26 am
Read on, boo, read on. The next sentence is particularly relevant to which person homeowner applies to. Whether or not it is made the other way round when we ALL know that it is seems irrelevant.
48 boohoo // Oct 12, 2012 at 10:31 am
I’m just having fun jenables, the 4-5 people here who just bicker are ruining it for everyone else. But it is kinda funny when people call out waltyss for doing the exact same shit they do–No?
Regardless, never mind me, carry on the bickering.
49 jenables // Oct 13, 2012 at 2:24 am
I’m including you in that four to five given your penchant for stirring the pot, lest you think you are above that.
50 Boohoo // Oct 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
I have taken a serious back seat lately because of the personal insults that get flippantly thrown around now. I call bullshit, but I’m not like brilliant or Walt or any of these mindless ‘ left vs right’ stupidities. Stirring the pot is fine. Calling ideas out is fine. Calling individuals out is not, especially anonymously on the internet.Thats pathetic.
51 waltyss // Oct 14, 2012 at 12:56 am
@jenables: What I really hate is the use of CAPITALS to YELL! Other than that I am actually pretty mellow.
I don’t think you are really a cynic or that you really want to expose yourself to different points of view. In order to do that, you have to be open to learning the facts. Unfortunately as your posts on this thread have shown, you are not particularly interested. When it was pointed out to you that unlike banks, credit unions are provincially regulated, you responded with post #30. It’s first response was in the nature of a “Whatever!”. It then became indecipherable.
You then in post #45 admitted that you did’t know where your statement that banks had to invest 4% of their profits in the community came from. They don’t and the reason banks or any other company invests in community events is because it is a form of advertising but also because in many cases they believe that being a good corporate citizen is what they should do. Proportionate to their capital Vancity has been more generous than most.
And some of it is tone. Your objection to the cover of the 2009 AR might be stated: I understand what they were trying to do but it made me feel left out because I am not wealthy. Rather, it was expressed: “If the cover of that annual report didn’t offend you, you obviously are wealthy and overjoyed that this city is for YOU! But why can’t it be for everyone?” and then: ” like an annual report entitled vancity is for the wealthy which is TACKY AT BEST, regardless of the footnotes, it is a slap in the face to many people in these times)????” Not exactly leaving room for other points of view, is it.
Yes, jenables, you should (or is it SHOULD) think critically. I don’t know about being a cynic but thinking critically and not taking anything at face value is a good way to approach just about anything. However that does not have to mean starting out by thinking the worst about everything.
As for Vancity, I actually probably agree with you that they are not very efficient. That is why I don’t deal with them. However, unlike you, that doesn’t make be believe that they are the devil incarnate.
52 jenables // Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 am
Walrus, did you get around to googling socially responsible investments, ethical funds and tart sands? Just wondering. My disgust with the annual report cover stems more from feeling like the city is trying to clean out the poors, and watching an exodus of people who can’t afford to live here despite it being their home town. And I’m not clear on where you linked to facts disproving what i said, perhaps youcould repost those links.
53 jenables // Oct 22, 2012 at 2:29 am
Federally Regulated Financial Institutions
Address of the company in Canada
Citizens Trust Company
Vancity Centre
183 Terminal Avenue
Vancouver British Columbia
V6A 4G2
Disclaimer: The information in respect to the address and official representative of the company in Canada in this notice has been provided to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) Canada by the financial institutions referenced. OSFI makes no representation as to the accuracy of that information and assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or omissions in the content. Interested persons may wish to contact the relevant financial institution to verify that the information is accurate.
(Copied from the gc site after searching vancity. http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/WebApps/WhoWeRegulate/CompanyInfo.aspx?s=1&g=2&c=UY&i=%20&LANG=E )
54 waltyss // Oct 22, 2012 at 10:56 pm
@jenables: I did not link to post saying that you were wrong. I pointed out that the Bank Act regulates banks and that credit unions are regulated by the Credit Unions Incorporation Act [I had the exact name wrong, missing Incorporation but close enough] and the Financial Institutions Act, both provincial legislation. (post 12). IanS at post 24 agreed. We have heard no basis for your allegation. Rather at post 30, we got your Valley girl, “Oh, whatever” response. I am still waiting for something to support your allegation that the Bank Act applies to Vancity.
At post 53, you have copied an undated excerpt from something listing Citizens Trust Company with the same address as Vancity corporate offices. The excerpt is undated and it si unclear when that post came from. A revoiew of Vancity reports is unclear as to whether Citizens Trust still exists. In any event, assuming Citizens Trust still exists and is federally regulated does nothing to establish than Vancity is federally regulated or that it is regulated by the Bank Act. So, last chance, show where Vancity is federally regulated , other than in your mistaken assumptions.
You also alleged (post 9) that the Bank Act required all banks and/or credit unions to do good deeds in the community. Again, I challenged you to show us where. Again I am still waiting. The Bank Act is available online.
Intent on digging yourself a deeper hole, you then alleged that ethical funds invested in tar sands (your words) just as anyone else (Tab 15). I challenged you on that and am still waiting. You said at post 45 that you believed all financial institutions were required to invest 4% of funds in the community. Show me were they are required to do so.
I doubt I will get an answer from my dear friend who claims to be interested in different points of view. However, as somebody apparently more than twice her age, I will throw out some advice which jenables will undoubtedly ignore: don’t post stuff after midnight. My own experience is that when I post after midnight, the post is a mishmash and not particularly articulate. Review the time of your posts and ask yourself (you don’t have to tell me] if you suffer from the same problem.
55 jenables // Oct 23, 2012 at 2:47 am
I’m a true night owl, waltyss. They say that changes over the years buti think since i don’t have kids it hasn’t. If you tried googling socially responsible investments, or ethical funds like i suggested, you would have easily found the truth. Since you refuse, I’ll give you some links.
“What does oil have to do with responsible investing? Almost all Canadian responsible investment (RI) funds have stocks in oil sands, mining, and various other resource industries that comprise Canada’s worst greenhouse gas offenders.
“Counterintuitive, isn’t it? We hear from folks who are quite surprised to hear that socially responsible funds invest in oil sands because they don’t necessarily understand the lack of diversity in the Canadian market,” says Dermot Foley, Strategic Analyst with Vancity Investment Management.
It’s a necessary evil—for mutual funds to be as risk-free, or as financially secure as possible, all financial institutions with RI mutual funds must invest in “dirty fossil fuel production.””
http://www.corporateknights.com/report/2011-responsible-investing-guide/putting-r-responsible-investment
http://www.pathslesstravelled.com/2010/12/how-ethical-are-ethical-funds.html
http://www.change.org/petitions/vancity-credit-union-withdraw-all-funds-and-support-related-to-enbridge-alberta-tar-sands
(i believe in August vancity did drop enbridge. suncor, on the other hand..)
https://www.vancity.com/Investing/InvestmentsAndServices/MutualFundsStocksAndBonds/ProfitWisely/
Can you retract this statement yet, or do you need more?
“Intent on digging yourself a deeper hole, you then alleged that ethical funds invested in tar sands (your words) just as anyone else (Tab 15). ”
I’m not digging myself a hole, i just really, really dislike greenwashing, fake sustainability (tbh I’ve come to hate that weird) and excessive self congratulation. I told you that information above is from the government of Canada website and posted the link. I’m not sure if you can actually accept the information i give you; its not that i want to see the world as horrible, its just that whenever you scratch the surface you get disappointed. There are a lot of good, honest people here, and many do their banking with vancity because they believe their money is doing greater things that benefit everyone. Sometimes it is. sometimes it is doing what every other bank is doing. It doesn’t have to be so black and white. If they give me a sinister feeling, so what? I can’t deny their marketing is effective (well except for that short-lived, post apocolyptic sepia tone theme they had about a year ago) but to me, this in your face moral high ground approach raises suspicion. That suspicion could come from the annual report, it could come from Tamara vrooman and her background, it could come from being told they didn’t want the responsibility of having cheques in the branch over night. It doesn’t matter. The good people aren’t always the ones making the decisions.
I notice vancity belongs to this, i also notice the rockefeller foundation is a strong supporter. Just sayin, doesn’t have to mean a thing.
http://www.gabv.org/about-us
Anyways, it is now actually getting late and its a lot of sifting through extremely dry material, so to speak, to find any information at all on who regulates them and what that entails. I hope this doesn’t incite a snide response from you. I’ll keep looking. thanks!
56 waltyss // Oct 24, 2012 at 12:09 am
@jenables. I will grant you that I was in error about ethical funds investing in the oil sands. You were correct; they do. I actually found the articles interesting.
As for whether Vancity is a bank subject to the Bank Act, you are wrong. That in many respects it functions like a bank (taking deposits, making loans, providing mortgages, etc.) does not make it subject to the Bank Act (which was your allegation). Not one of the links you provided suggests otherwise. It belongs to organizations that also include banks and the Rockefeller Foundation. That tells us nothing about whether it is subject to the Canadian Bank Act, a piece of federal legislation.
You also provided a link to a federal website that was undated and made reference to the Citizens Trust Company, which is (or was, it is not clear that it still exists) a wholly owned subsidiary of Vancity. That the trust company or Citizens Bank, another wholly owned subsidiary of Vancity are federally regulated under the Bank Act does not make Vancity subject to the Bank Act. I am now repeating and have nothing to add here.
Moreover, you also have not responded with proof of your claim that banks (or credit unions or trust companies) must invest a certain % of their profits in the community. Again, that would mean looking in the Bank Act (available online) but either you haven’t or have not found it if you did.
Anyway, jenables, this is going nowhere. I doubt that there is anything that I can say that will convince you. Believe what you want. Doesn’t matter to me.
57 jenables // Oct 27, 2012 at 8:55 am
Waltyss, the only thing you have said to me this entire time is that i was wrong about everything, with the exception of your last reply. We both seem to be having a hard time finding the relevant info, and it’s not made any easier by the nature of the topic. I didn’t know i had to post dates with my links, but may i suggest actually clicking on them to investigate? That is the point. Also, you are correct- telling me I’m wrong repeatedly with no supporting information isn’t going to convince me.
Leave a Comment