The problem with politicians isn’t that they’re dishonest; it’s that they’re human. As such, they have emotions; they can want things to be true that aren’t, making themselves susceptible to self-deception; and they can just simply be wrong because they can’t possibly know everything about all things. So, if an elected official says something at one time then says something different later, is it that they were lying the first time? Or did they learn something new, hear a compelling alternate opinion, or see things from a new perspective? Maybe, after some more careful consideration, they just changed their mind?

In the case of the Coleridge deception, he said things that he knew are not true and then refused to accept responsibility for that lie until forced to do so in Supreme Court. This is an unusual exception. This isn’t a case of him changing his mind or misunderstanding the facts at hand; he told people things even though he knew they were not true.

Ignorance, misunderstanding and naiveté is understandably human and tolerable. Deception is also human, but much less tolerable. But it’s not enough to demand more integrity from politicians. Deceit should be equally unacceptable for all people, not just elected leaders.

People who step up to serve as leaders in our community should not be set up for ridicule with unrealistic expectations that, upon being elected, they should suddenly become smarter and less susceptible to self-deception than everyone else in the community. The best way to raise the standard for politicians is to raise the standard within the whole community.

What is ironic about the decision is that the judge seemed less concerned about him pretending he didn’t know who sent the contentious email and making up stories to cover his tracks, it was that he was lying about being honest in his campaign advertising — he was selling himself as being someone who citizens could trust to be honest with them, all the while he was lying.

But this judgment is less about lying than it is about integrity. They are related, but there is a difference. Integrity requires that you accept responsibility for your choices. Yes, Coleridge lied, but it was his lack of integrity — his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his incorrect and misleading statements — that cost him his office. In reading the judgment, it sounds like, had he enough integrity to admit his error when he had the chance (before I filed a petition in Supreme Court to force him to do so), he probably would have escaped this consequence.

There are some things we are pre-wired for. From birth, we know how to eat and have a fear of falling — nobody has to teach us. Our brain structure is set up in such a way that emotions can easily take command of our reaction to something before we’re even consciously aware of it. Even smiling is thought to be evolutionary because it seems there is no culture or society, no matter how isolated, that does not understand what a smile means. These shared traits were established within our neural circuitry before groups of Homo sapiens struck out on their own (which was relatively recently) to discover new lands, eventually forming new races and developing unique cultures.

Unfortunately, it seems we also share a less constructive human condition. We have a tendency to form assumptions based on almost no information and to try to escape responsibility for things that go wrong. It seems more important to have a complete explanation than for the story to actually be true. So, when faced with a lot of unknowns, we just fill in the blanks ourselves. Likewise, impulsively at least, figuring out whether a mistake was made isn’t as important as avoiding responsibility for it. This is witnessed frequently, daily.

Consider for example, an everyday scene for driving commuters in which a truck driver switches lanes and cuts off the car behind him. The car driver reacts with anger to the danger. Immediately, assumptions are made about the truck driver’s intelligence, disrespect, lack of compassion, etc. — perhaps muttered or shouted with hand gestures. There could be an endless list of reasons that would explain the truck driver’s actions, but instead, a story is created questioning his morality or cognitive capacity. And without considering any possibility that he could have prevented the situation himself, (are his headlights on? was his travel speed consistent?) blame is assigned to the other driver thereby rejecting any responsibility.

There are also endless examples of this kind of behaviour in public decision making. When confused by a public official’s decision, many people decide they are victims of selfish power fiends with vested interests, compromised morals, and questionable intellectual potential. In my experience, just a few pieces of new information and a moment of rational thought is usually all that is required to disprove this cynical knee-jerk response.

In reacting this way, a person is lying both themselves and the people around them; it is deception and self-deception.

It seems curious to think that we could all have a default setting to lie. It might be that the feeling of unknowingness (fear of the unknown) is worse than any dissatisfaction from a bad-case scenario. And maybe the toxic emotion of anger is easier to throw at someone else than to accept the self-inflicted guilt or disappointment that would come with accepting responsibility for a mistake. It could have been that those mired in endless analysis, self-doubt, or depression simply were not as successful at survival in the primeval world.

So then, how can we trust each another enough to make better decisions as a community now?

We need to look beyond our righteous liar-witch hunts. There’s really no point to proving that anyone is or isn’t a liar. We need to accept that some degree of deception is inherently human, as explained in the previous post, we’re all liars. Instead, we need to focus on integrity. A lie is not necessarily abhorrent simply because it exists, but a lie without integrity certainly is.

This might not have been nearly as important when our ancestors were living short lives in very small groups in a hostile eat-or-be-eaten world. While a tendency for self-deception might have made it easier for some Homo sapiens to face each new the day and stay motivated to survive in primeval times, it now threatens not only our modern civil society but the health of the planet. To live in peace and make good decisions as a community — despite our primal deceptive tendencies — we must each act with integrity.

Integrity demands that our instincts or ignorance not be used as an excuse for harming other people; that we think about the impact of our choices and take responsibility for them. To ensure the survival of the integritous, we each must make a conscious effort to recognize and overcome our deceptive instincts. No one is exempted in a modern civil society.

In his election campaign he made up a slate of other candidates and labelled it the “Real Estate Slate.” He said the City loaned Bosa money, certain candidates were heavily financed by developers, and others advocated outlandish development schemes. These were all lies; Coleridge made it all up, just like his bizarre stories about the email’s source.

But he’s been a known liar for many years. I’ve heard stories of other dishonourable dealings, but the one for which I have seen documented evidence took place in 1999 and was also an issue of public trust. So, how could he continue to be elected to public office?

That’s a good question. Here’s some for the people who helped him cover up his lies and get re-elected…

Jean Kromm and the CPR executive
Jean Kromm et al played a key role in Coleridge’s 2002 campaign. I suspect she heard the stories of Coleridge’s misdeeds and witnessed some herself. I would be surprised if she didn’t walk out of that experience knowing that he’s a liar. And being active as a council watcher, certainly she must have noticed his disrespectful, truth-twisting antics. So then, how could she endorse him during the 2008 election? Why did she not warn others that he has a track record of lying? Is it that she, like Coleridge, was so desperate to win this election that she turned a blind eye to his untrustworthy behaviour, despite running a campaign to “restore public trust?”

Members of the 1999 City Council
City Council refused to allow Coleridge’s previous ethics entanglements to be disclosed. After being caught attempting to use public funds to coverup a rendezvous with a mistress, he broke down in tears and blamed his moral deficit on stress due to his wife’s miscarriages. Sound familiar? He used the same line in court last week.

This soap opera script has remained locked in confidential documents in City Hall for 10 years. City councillors and city staff have have been sworn to secrecy all this time. Why? Because when City Staff brought it to City Council’s attention, some councillors walked out of the meeting and broke quorum – there wasn’t enough people left in the room to legally allow the meeting to continue, thereby preventing the information from being released to the public. Why did those members (only Doug McLean remains) hide Coleridge’s transgressions?

The Peace Arch News
None of Coleridge’s tall tales are news to the Peace Arch News. They’ve known the stories and had proof of his scams. While they’ve not had a problem printing political damnations from fictitious people and jumping on the James Coleridge bandwagon on numerous issues, they’ve backed away from writing about his own nefarious activities. Why? The excuse given is that there isn’t enough proof. That would make sense if the same test were applied to accusations from Coleridge about other people. It appears there has been a double standard. When Coleridge presents his assumptions about other people’s motivations as fact, the Peace Arch News prints it. But when others point out evidence of Coleridge’s integrity deficit, apparently absolute proof is needed.

Is this wilful blindness, Stockholm syndrome, fuelling controversy in order to guarantee a steady supply of amusing headlines, or a lack of courage to stare down defensive legal threats in search of truth? Whatever the reason, the result is that the local newspaper has enabled Coleridge to continue abusing the public’s trust.

The White Rock electorate
It appears that, for some citizens, the desire to believe Coleridge’s lies was so strong that they chose to ignore the volumes of facts and logic to the contrary. This is exactly how Coleridge rationalized his lies; he knew what he wanted to believe, looked for evidence to support it, and dismissed anything that undermined his belief. Coleridge’s creative truthing should have been obvious to anyone paying attention. How many voters wanted so badly to believe that there is a conspiracy to pillage White Rock that they willingly adopted his delusion, joined the cynical faithful, and became blind to any other explanation?

Coleridge needed a lot of help to get himself elected over and over again despite a growing wake of deceit behind him. Hopefully the community will learn from this experience. The integrity of elected representatives should be a higher priority in the polls. In this election, “listening” was something being demanded from candidates. The election of James Coleridge proves why it is so important for citizens to also be listening, and not just for what they want to hear. Politicians like Coleridge (thankfully, there aren’t very many of them) get elected by plying voters’ emotions to short-circuit critical thinking.

I am asking the judge to remove James Coleridge from the office of Councillor for the City of White Rock due to particular actions he conducted during the election. The Local Government Act requires an unusual, expedited process. Evidence cannot be entered by affidavit; all witnesses must appear in court to provide their evidence verbally.

The hearing will begin at 9:45am in Vancouver and could take up to four days.

Please note: I have given notice of my intent to enter evidence provided by others, however, I am the sole petitioner. Glenda Bartosh and Mary-Wade Anderson are just providing facts regarding incorrect information that was said about them during the election — they are not arguing for the petition, they are simply stating facts to set the record straight.

The current site is difficult for the group to update. Consequently, they almost never do. The idea behind the new one is to make it as simple as possible to post pictures, updates and information about the community events and initiatives in which they are involved. Hopefully it will make it easier for the members to keep themselves organized and also be informative for the community about their activities.

If you’re curious, the trial site can be viewed at wrya.matttodd.ca. The current site (that is being replaced) is at wrya.ca. When the new site is thoroughly tested and polished, it will be moved to the wrya.ca location.

Now that I have a month of hindsight, hopefully I’ll have to some time soon to write about my thoughts on why I lost the election and what that says about our community, and what to expect from the new council and what impact to expect it will have on White Rock.