Legislated process guides Broncos fund
Determining appropriate allocation is complex, challenging, Darrin Duell says.
In “Humboldt Broncos Gofundme cash should be divided equally,” Licia Corbella expressed her view that funds donated to the Gofundme campaign for the Humboldt Broncos should be divided equally between the 29 crash victims or their families.
There were factual errors in Ms. Corbella’s column, as well as other aspects of her views that we would like to address.
First, regarding the Aug. 15 court hearing, Ms. Corbella stated that “two lawyers representing the families of two of the young players killed ... also want the money evenly distributed.” This is incorrect.
In fact, the two lawyers she referenced strongly opposed the methodology of an even split between all 29 families at the hearing. Further, both of these lawyers insisted on the addition of a further paragraph to the court order which clarified that the approach reflected in the court order of an interim distribution of $50,000 to each of the 29 victims was not to be regarded as a directive from the court on how the final distribution should take place.
This view was reinforced by comments made to the court by a non-lawyer spokesperson who addressed the court on behalf of a third family, and who also strongly opposed an even split between all 29 families.
The scenario portrayed by Ms. Corbella of a consensus view that the donated funds should be split evenly between all 29 families finds no support in the comments made to the court on Aug. 15 by lawyers for the families. No party that addressed the court on Aug. 15 expressed that view (and three families strongly opposed it).
Second, Ms. Corbella suggested that she “can’t speak for all of the 142,000 donors to the Humboldt Broncos Gofundme page.” However, she immediately went on to do exactly that, stating that “My guess is most donors felt the same way” as she does in desiring an even split of the donated funds. No support was offered by her for this huge leap of faith.
Third, Ms. Corbella correctly acknowledged that Saskatchewan legislation known as the Informal Public Appeals Act exists to govern a distribution scenario exactly such as this. However, she further stated that the “court should just back off and dole out the cash as the donors intended.”
In fact, the complexity around distributing funds raised through crowdfunding and determining the intent of the donors is exactly why this legislation exists. In the absence of a legal framework that describes the conditions and intent of moneys raised, it becomes the responsibility of the trustee to set out that framework. That is exactly what is happening in this case.
Fourth, Ms. Corbella stated that an equal division of the donated funds “is not what is happening.” In fact, no decision as to the allocation of the remaining 90 per cent of the donated funds has been made.
Allocation of the remaining 90 per cent of the donated funds is being reviewed by an advisory committee that will make allocation recommendations to the Humboldt Broncos’ Memorial Fund board.
In the aftermath of the April 6 tragedy, we have witnessed an abundance of love, kindness and generosity from people, organizations, community leaders and governments. It has been an incredibly moving experience to see the goodness that people are capable of. The people who have volunteered their time to work toward a fair, equitable and transparent allocation of these funds are also giving their time (and money, in the case of lost income) to work toward that objective.
Deciding an appropriate allocation of these funds is complex and challenging. The persons who have accepted responsibility for this task are ordinary citizen volunteers who seek to do the right thing. In utilizing Saskatchewan legislation to accomplish that task, they seek an orderly, court-supervised process and a fair, equitable and transparent outcome.
To demand that these trustees rush to divide the funds evenly is to ask them to abdicate their responsibility as trustees and to ignore strongly divergent views among families as to appropriate allocation.
Rather than casually criticizing their efforts, it would be more helpful to offer gratitude and support for their initiative (as families did in court on Aug. 15) and informed viewpoints regarding the unique Saskatchewan legislation applicable to this case.