SULLIVAN DUCKS 'DRUG PROBLEM'

Sam Sullivan has not had a good week. The way he handled what can only be
referred to as his drug problem has done more damage than the actual
problem itself.

Sullivan's drug problem, as you have likely read here and elsewhere,
involved two incidents. The first was when Sullivan gave money to a junkie
so she could buy heroin and not have to turn tricks to feed her habit. The
second was when he gave a crack cocaine addict money so the man could buy
crack and smoke it in Sullivan's van while the city councillor was at the
wheel. A few moments later, Sullivan gave him more money so he could buy
more drugs so Sullivan could actually watch the deal go down.

Both of these stories appeared in the Vancouver Sun. Sullivan was a willing
source on the heroin story, which he knew would be played prominently. It
appeared as the final front page piece in December 2000 as part of a series
setting up the city's Four Pillar drug strategy.

The crack story appeared as part of a Sullivan profile two weeks ago,
prompted by his nomination as the NPA candidate for mayor. He confirmed the
essential story after the reporter talked with the crack addict. While this
was the first time the story appeared in print, it has been circulating
around for some time. One senior city official told me Sullivan has been
dining out on the story for the past couple of years.

When questions were raised last week after people put the two incidents
together, Sullivan seemed truly puzzled: "Why," he wondered on the Bill
Good radio show, "is this an election issue now?"

When Sullivan was paying for those drugs he was a relative nobody. At the
time the heroin deal was going down, he was a fringe player in the NPA
government of Philip Owen.

Sullivan's colleagues considered him a bit of a flake and gave him no
responsibilities beyond an alternate seat at the GVRD. And as we read in
his profile, he was so despondent at being sidelined. During one term he
said little and initiated nothing. In fact, it is difficult to find
anything significant and lasting he initiated during his nine years as part
of the NPA majority.

Now, however, he is running for mayor. People want to know what he stands for.

But, that said, does Sullivan admit to doing those deeds and take some
pride in them, or does he try to duck? He tries to duck by portraying
himself, not for the first time, as a victim. Poor Sam.

First, he says, the criticism against him is an example of his opponent Jim
Green running a "dirty campaign" against him. "American style politics," he
called it.

Green has certainly commented on the issue. But Sullivan, not Green,
created the issue.

If he finds himself wriggling on a hook, it is a hook he fashioned himself.
This wasn't some deep dark secret that Green uncovered. All any of us had
to do was read Sullivan's words in the paper.

Sullivan also tried to excuse his acts by saying all this stuff happened
over 10 years ago and long before the city started working on the Four
Pillars approach. Times were different then and there was no hope on the
horizon for addicts.

That's not accurate.

The reporter who wrote the heroin story was given the impression the
incident took place a few months earlier, while Owen and city staff were
crafting the city's drug policy. The crack buys took place well after the
drug policy was in place.

Cornered and caught. And to make matters worse the back room guys in his
own party were obviously seeing Sullivan's attempts to lay the blame
elsewhere as a losing strategy.

He tried to extricate himself from a mess of his own making at the NPA
fundraiser last week when he delivered an apology for his actions and any
damage they may have caused to his party.

So is he off the hook? You tell me.