|
Update: March 10, 2008
Reponse from City Clerk, Ken Todd:
Mr. Todd was asked on Februray 27/08:
Would you please provide me with the intended action regarding
the proposed Code of Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials,
which I understand your department will be coordinating following
the budget discussions?
In light of the fact that Councillor Gill suggested that the
adoption of the Code of Conduct should be delayed in order
to address the question of costs, specifically, for hiring
an Integrity Commissioner, will the costs of such be discussed
in relation to the 2008 budget?
If no allowance is made for hiring an Integrity Commissioner
in 2008, will this impede the implementation of a Code of
Conduct this year?
Mr. Todd responded:
Council has appointed a Committee to review the draft document
and report back to Council. The Committee has met once and
has asked that all the Boards and Committees of Council be
circulated a copy of the report and asked for their comments.
This is due to the fact that the code will also apply to them.
The feedback has been asked for by the end of April-
the Committee will then meet again. I would expect a report
back to Council before the summer break in June.
If a decision is made to hire an Integrity Commissioner after
the budget is set, Council would then approve the hiring by
way of a budget amendment; so to answer your question, this
shouldn't impede Council's ability to hire a Commissioner
in 2008 or impede the implementation in 2008.
Update: February 26, 2008
According to the assistant Clerk, "the
Clerk's Dept. will be co-ordinating the meetings of the committee,
however, it won't be proceeding until after council deals
with the budget."
Update: February 20, 2008
Where is it?
On January 28/08, city council deferred passing a motion
to adopt the draft Code of Conduct for Elected and Appointed
Officials in order to get input from the council appointed
committees and boards. A committee of council was formed to
address this matter with the following members: Mayor McMullan
and Councillors Elliott, Gill, Kushner and Williamson.
After 27 days, nothing has happened.
The Peer asked Councillor Elliott for an update and was
informed that the committee had not met, did not have plans
to meet, and was waiting for direction from the Clerks Department.
Though the City Clerk was not available on the day of publication,
The Peer did speak to his assistant who said she was not aware
of any intention to direct the committee of council.
The Peer is concerned that the Code of Conduct is set up
to die, and here’s why:
Councillor Kushner, who originally brought forward the motion
under the previous council, wants to take out the word “perceived”
and its derivatives.
Mayor McMullan has been accused by The Peer of pandering
to a local activist group who worked on his campaign. Lana
Wainman, (Peer Copy Editor) questioned his officiating at
a fundraiser held by the activist group who claimed they were
raising funds for heritage and fitness when he should have
known the funds were to pay for a legal challenge at the OMB.
Though the Mayor responded professionally, Councillor Gill,
who had not been named, responded, urging that she direct
the accusation toward him as well so that he could take it
to his lawyer and stated, her accusations “will not
be tolerated." As a result, Ms Wainman accused Gill of
attempting to intimidate her into retracting her statement.
Had the Code of Conduct been in place, a complaint would have
been filed. Councillor Gill may now feel uncomfortable with
the bullying clause that is included in the draft Code.
That now brings us to Councillor Williamson who volunteered
for a position on the Committee of Council when it was suggested
that a fifth member be added for voting purposes.
Williamson has come under criticism in these pages for his
blatant support of an activist groups attempts to derail the
Port Place project. As a member of the Port Dalhousie Heritage
District Advisory Committee (PDHDAC) Williamson knows that
a vast majority of its members are also members of the activist
group. He may also be concerned that the moment that the Code
of Conduct comes into effect, a complaint will be lodged regarding
a conflict of interest in regard to the Port Place heritage
application for those members who are also active members
of the activist group.
Here we have a Committee of Council made up of five members,
four of whom may have reason not to want to see the Code implemented.
The Peer does. We promise our readers and the citizens of
St. Catharines that we will fight to have City Council adopt
a Code of Conduct by which they and their appointed officials,
both current and future, can be governed.
Check out our website for updates on the status of the Code
of Conduct at www.peer2000.com.
January 25, 2008
From our February 2008 Issue
Awaiting Committee's Comments
by David Serafino
It took over three years for the City to table adopting a
Code of Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials, and we’re
almost there. A draft code was presented to Council last December
but, at the January 28th meeting, it was referred to a committee
of council to get input from all boards and committees before
further discussion would take place.
The request for a code was first made by Councillor Kushner
in December 2004 but put on hold pending an update of the
Municipal Act which was to include new provisions related
to such things as a complaint process for ‘in camera’
meetings and provisions for the creation of integrity commissioners
who would oversee the conduct of Councillors.
These provisions were originally included in the City of
Toronto Act about two years ago and similar provisions have
since been included in the Municipal Act which applies to
all municipalities across the province.
Under the Municipal Act, a code of conduct is optional but
several municipalities have adopted one and most have included
“perceived conflicts” alongside “actual
conflicts.” A perceived conflict may not be a conflict,
but it may appear so.
The argument for acting on “perception” rather
than exclusively on “actuality” is that someone
wishing to lodge a complaint would not be restricted to having
absolute proof beforehand that a wrongdoing is occurring.
The code does not specify every incident where conflicts can
occur nor does it reference a database containing all possible
cases of conflicts of interest. Perception allows an issue
to be brought forward for discussion without actually accusing
an elected or appointed official of wrongdoing.
The draft code carried the words “a direct interest
arises when an elected or appointed official may derive, or
be seen to derive, some personal benefit or avoid personal
loss.”
Councillor Kushner, asked that the words “or be seen
to derive” be eliminated, arguing that perception may
not be actuality. In a conversation with The Peer, Kushner
stated that he believes this does not limit a person’s
right to challenge any wrongdoing; however, it is The Peer’s
contention that the problem remains of defining a “real”
conflict without the benefit of precedence or definition.
Kushner’s original motivation for requesting a code
stemmed from a situation with the former Hydro Commission,
as well as with “leaks” from in-camera sessions,
which he identified as a “serious concern.”
In a Jan. 3/08 Standard article, written by Marlene Bergsma,
which specified the code would forbid such things as divulging
city secrets, she quoted Councillor Bruce Williamson as saying
“that’s not to suggest that councillors have been
engaging in such dodgy activities in the past.”
Williamson, the sole councillor quoted, went on to opine that
malicious or groundless complaints would be a barrier to getting
good people to run for council or to volunteer for committees.
Now the committees themselves will have the opportunity to
comment on the draft code of conduct and it will be especially
interesting to see what the Port Dalhousie Heritage District
Advisory Committee (PDHDAC) will have to offer.
The code states: A conflict arises when any elected or appointed
official participates in activities which advance a personal
interest at the expense of the City’s interests.
It is a well known fact that the vast majority of members
of PDHDAC are made up of the executive members of PROUD—the
group taking the city to the OMB to overturn the city’s
decision to approve the zoning amendment for the Port Place
development. Can this be perceived as anything other than
“appointed officials participating in activities which
advance a personal interest at the expense of the City’s
interests”?
To date there had been no legal mechanism to challenge what
can be perceived as a conflict. As previously pointed out
by the City Solicitor, the Municipal Act only deals with conflicts
of a pecuniary nature. However, the city’s new draft
code of conduct employs phrases such as “financial or
otherwise,” and “generally financial in nature
but not limited to such.”
Another area where PDHDAC members may be in conflict lies
in the phrase “...derive some personal benefit or avoid
personal loss.”
Council denied the heritage application for Port Place relying
solely on the heritage committees’ advice. Since the
City Planner was not allowed to comment, the city chose to
hire an outside planner to defend their position—a planner
who would be fighting on the same side as PROUD.
Since PROUD is raising funds for their appeal, does this relieve
them of costs associated with hiring their own planner? Can
this be perceived by any reasonable and informed individual
that their advice to council helps them derive a personal
benefit or avoid a personal loss?
Let’s insist we not be made to wait for long to hear
PDHDAC’s comments.
|
