Amendments were made to a proposed Councillor Code of Conduct Policy at a Rocky View County (RVC) council meeting on Nov. 25, with the revised policy being brought back on Jan. 13, 2015.
Directed by council, administration prepared the proposed policy to outline practices for councillors to follow and “to help preserve respect and decorum.” The policy intends to ensure all members of council and the public can participate in the democratic process without fear of intimidation, threats, personal attacks, harassment, bullying, or ridicule, according to the policy.
“I feel a lot of this has gone on in the last four years, and it’s time we try to limit that,” said Deputy Reeve Lois Habberfield. “It’s not that you’re not allowed to speak your mind or disagree with the decision of council, it’s how you do it. We need to do it in a respectful manner.”
While code of conduct policies are common practice among Alberta municipalities, RVC currently has no policy of this kind in place. However, Reeve Margaret Bahcheli said she felt the proposed policy made “sweeping statements” that left her “a little concerned.”
In particular, Bahcheli said she was uncomfortable with the section of the document, which deals with policy compliance. The policy states “where a situation warrants, Council members may report the concern to the whole of Council in an in-camera session.”
“We go in-camera and it’s confidential,” she said. “If this were the provincial government, I don’t think Alberta would stand for the PC party to be able to do this kind of in-camera sanctioning of the Wildrose party. We don’t do that to them, and I’m really uncomfortable with doing it to us.”
A motion made by Councillor Liz Breakey to remove the policy compliance section entirely failed after a tie vote, with Councillors Al Sacuta, Jerry Arshinoff, Breakey, and Bahcheli voting in support.
Moved by Councillor Rolly Ashdown, a section stating “council members shall report violations” of the policy was changed to “council members may report violations.” In the same section, “a council member who perceives or is aware of a violation of the Code of Conduct may speak directly with the person” was amended to read “should first speak directly with the person,” following a motion by Habberfield.
Sacuta said the policy included requirements that “attempt to muzzle councillors.” Arshinoff agreed and listed examples from the document stating council decisions must be accepted and respected by all councillors, and public or media statements will only be communicated by the council appointed spokesperson.
“If a councillor believes the opinion of the majority of council is detrimental to residents, that councillor not only may, but has an obligation to oppose that opinion in any way possible,” said Arshinoff. “Our job, and our only job, is to represent the residents.”
He also said the conflict of interest section contained “many very admirable clauses,” but that they were “entirely negated” since according to the policy, individual councillors decide for themselves if a conflict of interest is present. Sacuta added that the policy “omits a key requirement” in dealing with conflicts of interest.
“That requirement is that you shall not vote on an application where the applicant gave money to you or your campaign,” he said. “Therefore, the conflict of interest section must be expanded.”
Arshinoff and Sacuta said they felt their recommendations for the policy were not considered, however, according to RVC administration, input was received from councillors and vetted through legal counsel before being incorporated into the proposed code of conduct.
After Habberfield’s motion to table the issue until next council meeting on Dec. 9 failed due to a tie vote – with Sacuta, Earl Solberg, Ashdown, and Bahcheli voting against the motion – Councillor Greg Boehlke’s motion to accept the policy as amended was called to a vote.
Breakey, Arshinoff, Sacuta, and Bahcheli voted in opposition, resulting in a tie, and the motion failed.
“We are back to the drawing board, but this doesn’t mean we don’t still have the will to have a code of conduct,” Bahcheli said. Ashdown proposed a motion arising to direct administration to bring the policy back before council on Jan. 13, 2015. The motion was carried 6-2 with Councillors Sacuta and Arshinoff voting against the motion.
