A River Never Sleeps

Some disgruntled staff members working for the Habitat Restoration Corp., put together a lengthy, detailed (and probably libelous) report that made a scathing attack on Mr. Burns.

The report, signed by Doug McCorquodale, operations manager, Karen Blinkie, the financial manager, and Brenda Bauer, business development manager, alleged that Mr. Burns was not only mismanaging the Habitat Restoration Corp., but was also misusing funds.

They then proceeded to catalog everything from reports on cell phone bills, to gas receipts for a Society truck that Mr. Burns drives.

They claimed that Mr. Burns had “minimal” involvement with the HRC, and therefore was receiving compensation that was “grossly disproportionate to his involvement.”

Their report went to the board of directors of the Steelhead Society and the Habitat Restoration Corp. - and it had predictably explosive results.

The directors of the Habitat Restoration Corp. demanded Mr. Burns’s resignation, but the Steelhead Society directors subsequently overruled them. Mr. McCorquodale, Ms. Blinkie, Ms. Bauer and several other staff members quit in protest, and three HRC directors, including John Fraser, a former federal fisheries minister, resigned.

For a period, the Steelhead Society’s offices stood virtually empty, except for Mr. Burns who was devastated by the attack upon his credibility.

Depending who you talk to, the McCorquodale/Blinkie/Bauer missive was either a damning report of mismanagement, or a shockingly brazen attempt by a few staff members to turf Mr. Burns and take over the increasingly successful Habitat Restoration Corp. themselves.

One of those close to the scene, who agreed to be interviewed only if he wasn’t named, said the staff report raised some serious questions, in end the directors felt Mr. Burns was worthy of support.

“Dan Burns may not be a good manager of people,” he said, referring to the staff revolt. “But it was his imagination and drive that got the Habitat Restoration Corporation going. If he was sloppy and didn’t play by the rules - well, that wasn’t right, but it could be fixed.”

He said the directors hoped to patch things up and carry on, but before they could, the staff resigned.

“We might have been able to get through it if the employees would have worked with us,” he said. “But they wouldn’t.”

In a letter Mr. Burns sent to the board of directors (we obtained a copy not from him, but other sources) he defended himself, point by point from the staff attack. He said much of the information in the memo was simply wrong and accused the writers of deliberately misrepresenting facts.

“Its contents are false,” Mr. Burns said of the report. “(It’s) a repetition of falsehoods, misrepresentations, omissions and facts dressed up to be something that they are not.”

He noted that both a private and a government audit had been done, and the Society books were in good shape.

“Perhaps the most telling aspect of this unfortunate matter is the complete absence of any prior concern being expressed to me regarding any of the allegations. . .A quick e-mail or note could have easily dealt with any of the concerns expressed if that were the intention,” he wrote.

When all was said and done, the allegations in the staff memo remained unproven - but the Steelhead Society was left badly damaged by the controversy, especially when copies of the staff complaint began to circulate in plain brown envelopes.

At one point the directors hired a lawyer to investigate the allegations. The result was a detailed report that dismissed some of the claims as “unsubstantiated or unwarranted”. But it also concluded “there are significant allegations that have been substantiated which require close consideration by the directors.”

In deciding to stand by Mr. Burns, the directors concluded that whatever shortcomings he might have, his overall contribution to the success of the Steelhead Society was overwhelmingly positive.

In a recent interview, Mr. Burns said he appreciated the support of the directors, but admitted the storm had been difficult to weather.

He felt the Steelhead Society had survived the ordeal, however, and was on the road to recovery.

Mr. Burns said the controversy unfairly deflected attention from all of the good things the Steelhead Society has done.

“Nobody’s writing about all the habitat that’s been restored by us, and that’s a shame,” he said. “We’ve produced half-a-million adult salmon in the past few years. I think that’s pretty amazing.”

He also notes that the Steelhead Society’s Habitat Restoration Corp. has provided a model for tackling watershed renewal. Few people realize, he adds, how difficult it has been to take a volunteer organization, and turn it into a semi-professional agency doing million dollar projects.

“The obstacles in this kind of undertaking are huge - just working through the labyrinth of government is agonizingly difficult. But we’ve done it. I mean, just look at the (watershed) projects we’re doing and ask: ‘Is this valuable?’”

Ehor Boyanowsky, a Society director and staunch defender of Mr. Burns, said the staff memo was an attempt to sabotage a president who’d brought a dramatically different style to the organization, and whose role wasn’t understood or appreciated by the complainants.

“The directors, when they saw the allegations, were outraged,” he said. “They thought it was just b.s.”

He said the directors feel Mr. Burns has done a remarkable job, modernizing the Steelhead Society, and driving it to the forefront of the habitat restoration movement.
“It’s just been unbelievably hard to deal with all this and keep going,” he said. “It’s been an almost Herculean effort.”

One of the problems the Steelhead Society faced was finding out after the staff resigned that somebody had wiped out computer files related to several restoration projects.

Mr. Burns, and those who stayed with the Habitat Restoration Corp., had to go back to original field data to reconstruct the reports, which had to be turned in as part of the contract with government.

Mr. Boyanowsky said it was a clear act of sabotage by someone, and illustrates what Mr. Burns was up against.

“It’s fascinating how much damage a few ill intentioned people can do,” he said.

Mr. Boyanowsky said he almost quit the Steelhead Society because of the controversy.

“You know,” he said, “it is tempting to say to hell with all this and just go fishing or start other ventures.”

But in the end he decided 30-years of work was too much to walk away from.

“You have to remember why you’re there - for the resource,” he said.

The Steelhead Society, he said, will carry on.

“We’re just going to go slowly and do what we’ve done best - just demonstrate that we do good work,” he said.

The Steelhead Society would like to undertake five major watershed restoration projects in British Columbia this year. At the moment, however, funding is frozen. The government, unsettled by the controversy, is taking a close look at the Society’s projects with a performance audit that will be completed soon.

Only then, perhaps, will it be clear if the proud Steelhead Society will continue to play a leading role in habitat restoration.