Centre Wellington now has a code of conduct for members of council.
An amended code was passed unanimously by council following considerable discussion on Oct. 30.
The decision also authorized the mayor and clerk to enter into a shared services agreement with Wellington County for services of an integrity commissioner.
The policy statement outlines that members of council are committed to the discharge of their duties as elected officials in a respectful and ethical manner.
The code of conduct is the means by which council will establish and maintain standards for appropriate conduct.
Key principles underlining the intent of the code are:
– members of council must be committed to performing their duties with integrity, independence and accountability, without improper use of the influence of their office and conflicts of interest, both perceived and real;
– members of council are expected to perform their duties in office with integrity and impartiality and manage their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny;
– members of council must recognize and act upon the principle that democracy is best achieved when the operation of government is made as transparent and accountable to members of the public as possible;
– members of council are responsible for complying with all applicable legislation, by-laws and policies pertaining to their position as an elected official; and,
– members of council shall not extend in the discharge of their official duties preferential treatment to any individual or organization if a reasonably well-informed person would conclude that the preferential treatment was solely for the purpose of advancing a private or personal interest.
The code applies to members of council, its committees and local boards of the township, and includes external appointees.
Township clerk Kerri O’Kane noted staff introduced a draft code of conduct at a committee of the whole meeting in May 2017.
She said based on feedback received at the meeting, staff added definitions for clarification and expanded the communications and media relations section.
O’Kane added that both the code of conduct and the hiring of an integrity commissioner will become mandatory.
She explained Bill 68 – Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 received Royal Assent in May 2017.
O’Kane said there is a phased-in implementation with some aspects coming into play immediately and the balance in March 2019.
“We are moving forward with this and it is part of council’s strategic plan to have a code of conduct in place.”
O’Kane said “it is not only one of council’s goals, but it is also mandatory.”
Mayor Kelly Linton noted members of council received documents from councillor Stephen Kitras outlining significant amendments to the proposed code before council that night.
Kitras asked for a discussion about the code stating it is a necessary part of council establishing an integrity officer.
He offered not only his own comments, but those of others.
“I felt it was necessary to reach out to some citizens who had a series of questions.”
He said one of the principles of the code should not be the elimination of free speech or constructive criticism.
The first set of refinements came under the definition of what comprised of disrespectful behaviour.
Kitras suggested the interpretation of disrespectful behaviour as outlined could be quite subjective in interpretation.
“It needs to be defined what is constructive criticism with facts, constructive questions and what is the difference between constructive criticism and harassment.”
Kitras said there are also issues of the use of colourful or descriptive language.
“My fear is that if there is ambiguity and a lack of precision, perhaps people will self censor themselves … and that is not what we want,” he said. “We want to have people asking questions.”
At the outset the document read, “Disrespectful Behaviour means behaviour that is rude, unpleasant, inappropriate and unprofessional. Behaviour that causes hurt feelings and distresses, disturbs and/or offends others and displays a lack of regard for others. Examples may include but not limited to; insensitive comments, harsh or public criticism, offensive jokes or sarcasm, swearing, belittling comments or behavior, rude gestures, etc.”
Linton felt it was fairly descriptive and clear
“I don’t think you want a list of everything we can or cannot say,” he said, adding that determining if a behaviour is disrespectful would be up to the integrity commissioner.
Room for criticism
Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen said there is still room for public criticism without being rude, unpleasant or inappropriate.
Councillor Fred Morris suggested what was missing was a reflection of the personality of the individual councillor.
“I can say something in a certain way that may not offend councillor Kitras but may offend councillor McElwain because of personality differences,” he said, suggesting that in a heated debate things could be said with emotional intensity which may be interpreted differently.
Morris said he would hate to see restrictions in how councillors say things based on how others would react.
“A non-confrontational person might be more easily offended than a person with thick skin,” he said.
As is, Morris considered it too broad in scope and subjectivity.
Councillor Mary Lloyd responded, “I welcome subjectivity because I believe those who are quieter at the table will feel they do not need to express their opinions in a forceful manner.”
She said physically expressing passion on a particular issue may offend a fellow councillor.
“Should I then be doing it at the council table – probably not,” she said.
Lloyd said the important thing is being able to bring issues to the council table with a level head.
“I believe constructive criticism about a report that is given to us is fine,” she said. “Criticism to a staff person is not fine.”
Lloyd agreed that hard questions do need to be asked.
Morris appreciated the comments but suggested “the same protection afforded to the quiet reserved person, you also have to give the same liberties and protection to the more demonstrative personality.”
Linton argued that what is listed under the definition of disrespectful behaviour is not describing constructive criticism.
“This is not about walking around with kid gloves,” he said.
VanLeeuwen said part of discussing issues is knowing the other person involved.
“The end goal is to convince the other person which means doing so in a way the other person understands,” he said.
Morris said eliminating the sentence “Behaviour that causes hurt feelings and distresses, disturbs and/or offends others and displays a lack of regard for others.” would solve some of the issue.
He believed that particular phrase was too subjective and one-sided.
Councillor Kirk McElwain agreed adding there is also a difference between whether someone’s feelings were hurt intentionally or accidently.
Councillor Don Fisher said “all this is really asking for is that we be civil.”
Fisher added there is no magic and it is subjective, which is why municipalities across the province are hiring an integrity commissioners to adjudicate if someone is offended enough to launch a complaint.
He also indicated he believes vexatious and frivolous complaints would be dealt with rather quickly.
Fisher added, “you can ask tough questions and be critical as you want to be, but you can be civil about doing it.”
Council agreed to delete the phrase and alter the introduction to read “Disrespectful behaviour means behaviour that is rude, inappropriate and unprofessional and displays a lack of regard for others.”
Numerous other items were also amended within the code prior to council eventually providing its support.
