| STILL
MAKING THE SLOW CRAWL BACK TO COUNCIL--but with passages removed
Whew! We said we’d keep this issue alive
until such time as the Code was passed, but this is ridiculous—and
it’s costing us time, energy and valuable space.
So where is the code now? Same place as it was
two months ago when we last reported on it. It was supposed
to come before council at the end of May but the deadline
to hear from boards and committees was extended to June 1st.
The public may go online to the city website and add comments.
Sure, go ahead, for all the good it will do.
Mayor McMullan refers to the draft code as
if it’s already been passed into law using it to explain
why he is not to be held to the same restriction as staff
would be because the word ‘perceived’ was deleted
from the code governing council.
What is more troubling is this passage deleted
from the draft code:
“An elected or appointed official shall not give, in
the performance of official duties, preferential treatment
to relatives or friends or to organizations in which relatives
or friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.”
This may explain the Mayor’s double standard
as exposed in a St. Catharines Standard column authored by
Doug Herod and titled “Mayor demonstrates double standard
during council gong show.”
At issue was the fact that McMullan allowed a speaker to insult
the Port Place architect (who was present in the gallery)
and to call for “making life a living hell for people
pushing this affront (Port Place) on Port Dalhousie”.
Whoa! What did this have to do with the sale
of Hogan’s Alley which was the agenda item? A couple
of months earlier, McMullan interrupted me several times through
my talk in which I was attempting to implore council to put
an end to the hostilities in Port Dalhousie by correcting
the conflict of interest that exists with those who are both
members of PROUD and the Port Dalhousie Heritage Committee.
The agenda item that I was speaking to included the staff
recommendation “that Staff report on the possible review
of the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District Guidelines,”
which, not only specifies the make up of the committee but
also contradicts the current makeup of the membership.
Not only was I interrupted several times but
I was also threatened with ejection. And this came after PROUD
leaders exalted themselves in front of council and presented
council with a framed print in appreciation of their opposition
to Port Place, which had nothing to do with the agenda item.
The first part of the staff recommendation stated “that
Staff be directed to work with PDVC to implement the OMB decision,”
which, in case anyone has forgotten, approved the development.
Yet here we have the very people who lost their case, congratulating
council on supporting them in their losing bid. And this was
after council had been duly admonished in the OMB decision
for failing to follow their own procedural bylaw in withdrawing
council’s support from the project.
It becomes too obviously clear who McMullan’s friends
are. They certainly aren’t the many citizens in Port
Dalhousie and across the city who support the Port Place development.
Not that McMullan has to worry about the Code of Conduct being
used against him in this case because it is only my “perception”
that he is giving “preferential treatment to friends
or to organizations.”
I can work with the delay. It only brings it
closer to becoming an election issue this coming year. ¤
MAKING THE SLOW CRAWL BACK TO COUNCIL (Feb 09)
I wouldn’t want to accuse anyone of deliberately
delaying the process, but it’s been over two years since
Councillor Kushner brought the issue back to life —and
that was after first making the request in 2004 to adopt a
code of conduct. The delay was, in part, to hear from the
city’s appointed advisory committees, only half of whom
felt they needed to weigh in. A committee of council was formed
to deal with this consisting of Mayor McMullan and Councillors
Kushner, Gill, Williamson and Elliot.
The committee has since revised the draft prepared
by staff and now it’s being sent back to the boards
and committees for a final review. City staff expect to have
it before council by the end of May.
The committee of council revised the original
draft adding a few things but mainly taking certain phrases
and passages out. This makes for a very interesting study.
As was expected, terms like ‘perceived’,
‘appears to’ and ‘be seen to’ were
removed in every instance. The implication is that only ‘real’
conflicts will be dealt with. So how does one question whether
a conflict is real or not without first perceiving it to be
real before challenging it?
A more troubling situation is a point that was removed under
Item #3, Principals of Conduct. The original draft prepared
by staff included this point: An elected or appointed official
shall not: give, in the performance of official duties, preferential
treatment to relatives or friends or to organizations in which
relatives or friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.
This makes one wonder why it was removed and
begs the question “Who are the relatives, friends or
organizations who could be given preferential treatment?
Would a majority of council actually give preferential
treatment to a certain organization—let’s say
one that claims to have helped get most of them elected in
the last election? Would a city advisory committee actually
give preferential treatment to an organization and its opinions?
Well, maybe if that committee was made up of a majority of
members from that same organization.
It has been published both in Dalhousie Peer
and the St. Catharines Standard that I will file a formal
complaint against members of the PROUD dominated Port Dalhousie
Heritage Advisory Committee the moment that the Code of Conduct
is passed into law for all the reasons I stated in our February
issue. Removing that one passage makes it harder to prove
that there is a ‘real’ rather than a ‘perceived’
conflict but it doesn’t stop me in my tracks.
And, to note, the revised draft still contains
the clause: All members of council have a duty to treat members
of the public...without abuse, bullying or intimidation. Or
will that too be taken out in the final draft?
David Serafino
|
