Islands Trust Governance Review, Final Report, Great Northern Management Consultants, February 2022. Hired by Islands Trust Council.
The Trust hired reviewers to check itself.
In 2021 the Islands Trust hired outside reviewers. Their job was to look at how the Trust runs itself, and to grade it. The Trust picked the reviewers and paid for the report, so this is not an outside attack. It is the Trust’s own report about the Trust. It came out in February 2022. Here is the sentence that sums it up, printed exactly as the reviewers wrote it.
Put simply, good governance is the art of setting and navigating the course for the institution. Current Trust Council practices, however, do not meet the requirements set by good governance principles.
In plain words: good government means setting a clear course and steering it well. The reviewers said the Trust does not do that.
Nine problems, in the reviewers’ own words
The reviewers checked the Trust against five big rules of good government. Under those rules, they found nine specific problems. This is their scorecard. The left side is the rule. The right side is what they found, word for word.
| Rule | What the reviewers found |
|---|---|
| Legitimacy and Voice — informed leadership selection | “leadership selection process is flawed, impairing informed choice and buy-in” |
| Legitimacy and Voice — partners have standing | “key partners, most notably First Nations and representatives of province-wide interests, are absent from decision-making” |
| Legitimacy and Voice — consensus-building | “Trust Council practices, proceedings and committee structure do not foster the development of consensus” |
| Direction and Purpose — a shared vision | “persistent divisions around the meaning of the Preserve and Protect Object, and the measures necessary to uphold it” |
| Performance and Stewardship — best use of resources | “significant concerns regarding efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as timeliness” |
| Performance and Stewardship — resources match priorities | “inadequate demonstration that financial and human resources are allocated commensurate with Islands Trust priorities” |
| Performance and Stewardship — oversight of the chief executive | “Trust Council has virtually no role and very little information as to performance targets and assessment of CAO” |
| Accountability — meaningful performance metrics | “real performance measures, as opposed to workload measurements, are largely absent. Consequently, performance targets are virtually non-existent” |
| Fairness — impartial application and enforcement of rules and requirements | “processes are obscure and overly bureaucratic” |
Slow, and stuck
The reviewers did not just find problems. They found a pattern: things move very slowly, and some things never move at all.
At another level, administrative and procedural practices are often unduly cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly, in terms of both financial and human resources. Initiatives are mired in processes that take much too long, contributing to a sense of inertia and the widely-held belief that the Trust is unwilling or unable to respond effectively to pressing concerns.
In plain words: Getting anything done takes too long and costs too much. People are left believing the Trust cannot act, even when it needs to.
The statement has been left unamended for 25 years.
In plain words: The Trust's main policy document has gone a quarter of a century without an update.
It has become a dramatic example of Trust Council's collective leadership deficit.
In plain words: The reviewers said that one unchanged document shows the whole Council struggles to lead as a group.
Similarly, many of the LTC's OCPs have not been reviewed or updated in decades, partly because of the time and resources needed to do so. Reviews of each of the 21 OCPs, with each review typically taking multiple years, could quickly overwhelm an organization of the Islands Trust size and budget, while leaving the plans unamended can result in policies no longer aligned with contemporary realities.
In plain words: Local land-use plans for the islands often go decades without a review, because a review takes so much time and money.
After nearly 50 years, they still don’t agree what their job means
Despite the Trust's “Preserve and Protect” Object being essentially unchanged since set out in legislation nearly 50 years ago, there is a remarkable lack of consensus among Trustees as to what that Object means and entails.
In plain words: The Trust's main job — written into law almost 50 years ago — is to ‘preserve and protect’ the islands. The reviewers said trustees still do not agree what those two words mean.
Trust Council's challenge is to set an agenda for reform that modernizes a governance structure. The structure has not changed significantly in over 30 years.
In plain words: The reviewers said the way the Trust is built has barely changed in 30 years, and it needs to.
What the reviewers said the Trust does well
The same report that found these problems also said good things about the Trust. Both belong here, in the reviewers’ own words, before anything else.
Trustees and senior staff are unequivocal in stating their commitment to the Trust and their belief in its potential to safeguard the area's unique physical environment and enhance the quality of life of its residents.
In plain words: The people who run the Trust believe in it and want it to work.
transparency and accessibility to both information and Council proceedings meets the standards set by the Government of British Columbia
In plain words: The Trust is open about its information and its meetings. The reviewers said that openness meets the standard the province sets.
every reason to believe Islands Trust's financial records and practices meet the standards set for a public agency
In plain words: The reviewers found no reason to doubt the Trust handles its money properly.
By any measure, the Local Trust Committees (LTCs) have done a very good job at public engagement and representing their communities' interests.
In plain words: The local island committees are good at listening to their own communities, the reviewers said.
What happened to the report
The report came out in February 2022. Here is what the Trust did with it, step by step, from the Trust’s own minutes and letters.
2021 — Trust Council commissions a governance and management review and sets its scope.
Source: Scope of Work: Governance and Management Review of the Islands Trust
February 2022 — The consultants deliver the final report: current practices “do not meet the requirements set by good governance principles”.
March 2022 — The report is presented to Trust Council (agenda package pages 33–105).
June 2022 — Trust Council resolves (TC-2022-071) to ask the Province to review the Trust's mandate, governance and structure, and strikes a new Governance Committee.
Source: Trust Council Regular Meeting Minutes, 21–23 June 2022
September 2022 — The Minister of Municipal Affairs declines to commit to a review and points the Trust back to “actions the Islands Trust can take within its existing authorities”.
Source: Minister Cullen response re: Request for Provincial Review
9 November 2023 — The Governance Committee records that the report was presented to the previous Council “but not thoroughly discussed”, and that “the Province wants to know how the response to the Governance Review is progressing”. It recommends a specially dedicated session in 2024.
24–26 September 2024 — Trust Council asks the Province for the review a second time, carried 22 in favour to 3 opposed (TC-2024-066).
3 December 2024 — Council moves (TC-2024-107) to review the 2022 report “in 2025 in a specifically dedicated Committee of the Whole session”.
11 March 2025 — Reviewing and implementing the accepted recommendations of the 2022 report is made one of the highest priorities of the 2025–2028 strategic plan (TC-2025-009).
13 May 2025 — A Committee of the Whole finally works through the report's 15 recommendations — three years and three months after it was delivered. The chair opens by noting the review “was commissioned by a previous Trust Council”. The outcomes are requests for staff and a working group to review things further.
Source: Trust Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
May 2025 — The Province refuses. The Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs writes that he is “not in a position to consider a review of the Islands Trust Act prior to the next general local elections”.
Source: Minister's response, circulated in the Executive Committee agenda
13 August 2025 — The Governance Committee records that “Trust Council has not had a [discussion on the] topic and has not provided specific priorities or direction to Governance Committee”, and that the May request for decision “is complex and could be improved in how it was presented in order to avoid confusion”.
9 September 2025 — A local trust committee chair confirms the report “is on the upcoming Trust Council agenda for consideration of next steps” — still next steps, three and a half years on.
2 December 2025 — At Trust Council, trustees describe the same problems the 2022 report described: “The lack of corporate planning is a fundamental problem”; “a governance review remains necessary”; “The committee meeting structure needs to be overhauled”.
18 September 2025 — Trust Council finally gives direction: of the report's fifteen recommendations, the Governance Committee is to prioritise three — number 1 (how Trust Council elects its leadership), number 11 (a multi-year planning document) and number 7 (helping trustees understand their roles). The rest are understood to rank below these.
Source: Follow Up Action Report, carried in the Governance Committee agenda
December 2025 — Trust Council resolves not to start new work this term.
Source: Recorded in the Executive Committee follow-up action report
25 March 2026 — The follow-up report on recommendation 8, the full-time Office of Secretary, reads: “Work on this has not started. As per Trust Council December 2025 resolution to not start new work this term, this item is DEFFERED.” Progress: 0%.
29 April 2026 — The Governance Committee records that the director of legislative services and the chief administrative officer “are working on recommendation #7 (helping trustees fulfill their roles)” — one of the fifteen.
2026 — The live work is briefing and onboarding material for the trustees who will be elected in October 2026. Staff commit to “improve onboarding and orientation of a new Trust Council following the October 2026 election”. The fix is being handed to the next Council.
Source: Financial Planning Committee agenda, strategic initiative 1.2.4
3 June 2026 — An action item to amend the Trust Council meeting procedure bylaw “to address the concerns raised by Great Northern Management Consultants in the 2022 Governance Review Report” is still open, with a target date of 30 September 2026 — four and a half years after the report.
The Province said no
Trust Council asked the Province, twice, to review the Trust itself. Here is the Province’s answer, in the Minister’s own words.
During this time of extraordinary change and uncertainty, our government is focusing on the services and choices that make an immediate and material difference while managing within our means. We will have to make difficult choices about the order in which we commit to new initiatives, like a review as sweeping as that laid out in the letter to Minister Kang. I am therefore not in a position to consider a review of the Islands Trust Act prior to the next general local elections.
In plain words: The Trust asked the Province to review it. The Province said no, not before the next local elections. So the body its own reviewers said falls short of good governance is not being examined by anyone, and the only people who can change it are the islanders who elect two of the three seats on their own committee.
Where it stands today
Four and a half years after the report, Trust Council has picked three of its fifteen recommendations to prioritise, is working on one of them, has formally deferred another because it resolved not to start new work this term, and is preparing briefing material for the trustees who will be elected in October 2026.
Work on this has not started. As per Trust Council December 2025 resolution to not start new work this term, this item is DEFFERED.
What is actually moving. Recommendation 7, briefings and workshops to help trustees understand their roles, is being worked on by the director of legislative services and the chief administrative officer, aimed at the council elected in October 2026. Separately, delegating development permits to staff — also a review recommendation — is being adopted by local trust committees, which does reduce delay.
In plain words: It is not dead. It is mostly not done. The Trust picked three of fifteen things to work on, is working on one, and decided to leave the rest for the council elected in October 2026.
What they recommended: fix it from the inside
The reviewers did not recommend getting rid of the Trust. They recommended reform — changing how it works from the inside.
The consultants recommended reform, not abolition: changing how Trust Council selects its leadership, restructuring its committees, briefing candidates before they stand and trustees after they are elected, staffing a full-time Office of Secretary reporting to Council, adding First Nations and province-wide representation to Council, and adopting real strategic planning.
Recommendation #6: Prior to standing for election, Trustee candidates should have the benefit of a briefing that provides a full description of what the job entails.
Helping Trustees Understand Their Role
Recommendation #8: The Office of Secretary should be staffed with a full-time incumbent, reporting to Trust Council through the Chair of Trust Council.
Secretary to Trust Council
Our view, not the consultants’. Every recommendation is about making Trust Council work better internally. None of them touches the thing this project is about: that the people whose land is regulated cannot vote out the body that regulates it. An islander still cannot remove the appointed chair who sits on their local trust committee, and still has no vote over the Council that approves their bylaws. The review diagnosed the illness and prescribed a better committee structure.
What we are not saying
Being fair matters as much as being critical. This page does not claim these things.
- That anyone acted in bad faith. The report says the opposite, twice, and so do we.
- That the Trust's finances are irregular. The consultants found the reverse, and so did our own audit of the record.
- That the Trust is secretive. The consultants found its transparency meets provincial standards, and our own measurement of four regional districts found the Trust's closed-meeting rate (42%) sits in the ordinary range for BC local government — the Capital Regional District, which would inherit six of the thirteen local trust areas, is at 45%.
- That the consultants recommended abolition. They did not. They recommended internal reform, and we say so above.
Read the full report on the Trust’s own site · The report in our archive · The 2021 scope of work