As local councils await results from their integrity commissioners, we remain uneasy with the concept of an un-elected individual passing judgment on the people’s choice.
One case in Guelph deals with a form of harassment, and another in Erin deals with divulging closed session information.
Most workplaces have adopted policies that speak to the issue of harassment in the workplace. Barking profanities, using demeaning language or intimidating co-workers and subordinates is unacceptable.
There are numerous other cases where inappropriate gestures or the use of physical force would constitute harassment, and possibly a criminal offence in severe cases.
Notwithstanding these points, most policies clearly indicate that complainants should never attempt to manipulate a circumstance or make false claims.
While the nuances of harassment are understood at a municipal staff level and are easily managed by a capable chief administrative officer or designate, the question of how to handle elected politicians proves a different challenge.
Apart from criminal circumstance, a politician cannot simply be removed from office before the end of their term. Many councils have adopted a code of conduct which outlines expectations, but has no real repercussions for failing to perform as expected.
The integrity and ethics commissioner concept came of age in 2006, during the early years of the McGuinty government. We lamented at that time how unfortunate it was that such a position was deemed necessary.
Since then most councils have grappled with the issue of whether to go with a commissioner or not, as most had governed their own affairs and settled differences well for generations.
Voters should note the novelty of a commissioner has a price tag, both in terms of dollars expended and the value voters place on local government.
The outcome of an investigation is rarely the kind of justice demanded by a complainant. Instead it is often a sanitized outline of events that will offend few and satisfy no one. Often, it will be a gentle reprimand replete with should-haves and could-haves, rather than a penalty of consequence. Some instances call for a withholding of pay for up to three months.
In terms of the cost to local government and its very health, this reliance on an un-elected position to police politicians is disconcerting.
For us, ethics and integrity were best handled at the ballot box, which begs a question about the benefits associated with the current four-year term of office.
When terms were two or three years in length, the pact with voters was far more tenacious and corrections were fairly immediate if a change in leadership was needed.
More frequent elections are the best method for ensuring a community is governed with the level of ethics and integrity it demands.
