On May 23 Centre Wellington received for information a draft code of conduct for members of council to review.
Mayor Kelly Linton said the code is an item which emerged from Centre Wellington’s strategic plan.
“It is something that is going to be required in the future by the province of Ontario,” said Linton.
Township clerk Kerri O’Kane explained part of what Bill 68 does is ensure councils establish codes of conduct and retain the services of an integrity commissioner.
O’Kane said staff have pulled together a draft document for council’s review that outlines many of the common key components of codes of conduct for municipalities across Ontario.
“We also recognize the draft (provincial) legislation indicates there will be regulations coming into effect .. therefore those would need to be taken into account as well – if we have not already thought of them.”
Some of the components of the draft legislation include policies with respect to elections and council conduct during elections.
“This is a comprehensive document and this will give council the opportunity to review this and then come back at such time as the (provincial) legislation is adopted,” O’Kane said.
She added that while the legislation requires codes of conduct, “every municipality would be different.”
Should council not retain its own integrity commissioner, it would be required to share one with another municipality.
O’Kane said there has been discussion with Wellington County and there is interest in a similar arrangement used for the services of a meeting investigator.
“This direction makes sense – for all municipalities to share an integrity commissioner,” she said.
The commissioner would look at the township’s code of conduct and other connected policies as well as conflict of interest regulations.
Councillor Mary Lloyd asked how this would affect communications and media relations.
To her, it made perfect sense that the code related to comments and communications after decisions are made and how those are relayed to the community.
“There comes from time to time an issue where we are out in the public and we are asked for an opinion on an issue where a decision has not been made,” said Lloyd.
O’Kane said it is something which could be incorporated. When first drafted, O’Kane said the idea was that members would be supportive of the decisions of council.
Lloyd stated that sometimes opinions are going to be different from one councillor to another – or even the mayor.
“Many of us who are here at the table are because we have thoughts and opinions on specific areas – and it may not always be the same if a decision (of council) has yet to be made,” said Lloyd.
O’Kane agreed, “Everyone is entitled to an opinion.”
Councillor Stephen Kitras asked where the citizen aspect or input was in the document.
“Can they make a request to go to the integrity commissioner?” Kitras asked.
O’Kane said this code will allow members of council or anyone with reasonable interest, such as residents, to make requests.
Councillor Kirk McElwain asked what the next step would be if the commissioner agrees with a complaint regarding conflict of interest.
O’Kane said she believes that once an investigation determines there is a conflict, the commissioner would present a report to council. There is also the option of going before a judge.
Kitras asked how this affects confidential information and whether a closed meeting was necessary and/or whether information should be made public.
O’Kane clarified council’s release of confidential information would fall under the code of conduct.
However, on the matter of closed meetings, O’Kane stated that issue would be determined by a meeting investigator – “it is a different process.
“The integrity commissioner does not get involved with meeting investigations.”
Kitras asked if there were definitions regarding “disrespect … is that just a perception or feeling thing?”
O’Kane said a definition could be added to the code.
“I think it should be a no-brainer … it should be common sense.”
Kitras noted there is the potential of harassment being implemented rather broadly.
O’Kane offered, “If someone feels disrespected or harassed … then it is considered disrespectful and it is considered harassment.”
Councillor Fred Morris asked for clarification on wording related to members of council speaking to the media or members of the public.
“How much latitude does a member of council have in commenting – if asked – by a member of the media about a council decision if the opinion differs from that of council.”
He asked whether a personal opinion can be made on that decision.
O’Kane said that would fall under the code of conduct of behaviour.
O’Kane suggested a councillor may not agree with a decision of council and could express the rationale for not agreeing with the decision.
“But I think that would be the extent of it.”
She clarified, “This is about support of the decision of council, whether you agreed with it or not. It does not suggest a person cannot state why he/she did not agree with it.”
O’Kane said there is the potential of the disagreement coming across as disrespectful … or not supportive of council if efforts were made to continue to fight a council decision.
She said a councillor could explain that he/she voted against a decision and explain why.
“This is about when it is taken to the next level …”
CAO Andy Goldie noted “at the end of the day, each municipality will be passing its own code of conduct.”
Councillor Kirk McElwain said he is concerned aspects of the code of conduct could really influence a councillor’s ability to be honest with who they are talking to.
“I think we are elected to be honest with the people who supported us,” he said.
O’Kane clarified the document before council id comprised of suggestions, any of which, aside from those provincially regulated, can be removed or altered by council.
“It is your document, your behaviour. It can be changed,” she said.
An amended code of conduct will be brought back to council when it is compliant with new provincial regulations and incorporates council feedback.
