posting
06-07-2007, 06:19 PM
Bill Glover, May 2007 Report
Glover’s motion to strengthen City’s “conflict of interest” guidelines.
At City Council’s first substantive meeting last December I brought forward a motion, seconded by Councillor Steve Garrison, that directed the Administrative Policies Committee to review the City’s conflict of interest guidelines. Staff prepared a report outlining the issues identified in the motion, offering a preliminary discussion, and requesting guidance on certain questions. The Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this report at our May 8 meeting.
Staff questions included:
·to whom would the rules apply - members of council? members and senior staff? members, senior staff and committee volunteers?
·what relationship could trigger a conflict?
·what interests could form a substantive conflict?
·what mechanism for disclosure would be required?
·what would be the consequences of a breach?
Interested residents will find the entire report on the City’s website under the May 8 agenda for the Administrative Policies Committee as Schedule B, report AP-07-008.
I shall not attempt to report on the entire discussion here, but some points should be noted.
First, all these questions have been addressed to some degree at the provincial level across the country. I do not believe we will be writing “new law” so much as recommending that we adopt the practice followed in one place or another. Some clarification is required on the first and last questions of to whom the rules would apply and what sanctions might be in the event of a breach.
City Councils in Ontario are governed by the Ontario Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1990. While we may adopt as a by-law a more stringent standard, we would not be able to enforce anything that goes beyond the provincial legislation with the same penalties provided under the Act. It was noted that compliance with the higher standard by members of Council would, at the end of the day, be voluntary, but that the “court of public opinion” could go a long way to “encourage” compliance.
The standard for what relationships should be included that I found most attractive is the Newfoundland standard. This says: “a relative of a Councillor means a father, mother, spouse, cohabiting partner, sister, brother, child, step-child, ward, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, or brother-in-law of the Councillor. ”This is a more rigorous definition than is currently used in Ontario.
The question of what constitutes a conflict also generates some discussion. Conflict may be defined by a list saying what it is, or alternately by what it is not. The current Ontario law has a list of what does not constitute a pecuniary interest (all that is of concern in Ontario). That will be the minimum standard in Ontario until such time as the law is amended by the legislature. Manitoba law has a list of what a Councillor must declare in order to avoid a potential conflict. I find that attractive, and hope we may be able to add it in our own by-law.
This Manitoba example raises the final point I shall discuss here: what is a suitable mechanism for disclosure. I believe we should adopt a procedure of a written declaration by each Councillor, that is amended by them as necessary.
Needless to say, this report generated considerable discussion. When the follow-up report comes back in July I suspect we will have another lively time. As we approach that discussion, and at the later Council debate, I think it will be important to remember two things:
·First, the intent of the motion as adopted by council and referred to the Administrative Policies Committee is described in the “whereas” clauses.
·There is a perception that the 1990 legislation is no longer adequate. We can wring our hands and do nothing, or we can move, as the City did on the smoking by-law, and set an example we can urge the province to follow.
·There will be some who say that the new standard may be too high, and that no one will run for office, or, should it apply to staff or committee volunteers (yet to be determined) who will want such positions? To them I would reply that as long as we are not making new law, but merely copying what is currently the practice in other jurisdictions, as it is obviously working there, why should it not work here.
Modern Fuel Artists’ Gallery lease problems addressed by Councillor Glover.
While attention has been focussed on the plight of the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes, the problems of the Modern Fuel Artists’ Gallery have been largely ignored. They are a tenant of the city in a limestone heritage building on Queen Street. Their lease, which would otherwise expire at the end of this year, has been extended to the end of April, 2008.
The lack of stable accommodation has adversely affected their funding, as it did for the MMGLK.
The City position is that as we do not know how the North block might be developed, it must be vacated. Given that the Downtown Action plan calls for a pedestrian area between City Hall, the LVEC and the Grand Theatre, I would think an artists’ gallery in a heritage building is just the sort of thing a North Block study plan might call for. Although a study plan has been funded for this year, work has not yet started. I find it hard to believe that it will be complete and accepted by Council before the end of next April. I am suggesting that the Modern Fuel Gallery be allowed to stay where they are at least to the end of 2008.
Moving the “Alexander Henry” now urgent.
While progress seems to be happening on the location of the MMGLK, moving the “Alexander Henry” into the graving dock is running into some problems. Questions have been identified to me, but supporting evidence for the concerns has not been provided. On Sunday, May 27, I spoke at the MMGLK annual meeting. The full text of my comments that address these questions, amongst other things, is posted and I hope you will take a few minutes to review this matter.
The causeway, LVEC and traffic.
Several people have expressed concern to me about a proposed rearrangement of the streets around the causeway, Ontario Street, and Place d’Armes. Given the date of the original proposal (1999) and the developments since then, I believe it would be suitable to have an independent peer review done of the plan. In addition to the LVEC and possible parking garages going in the area, Wellington Street is being slated to become a major arterial route into the City. Our old street configuration for leaving the city to the east - Ontario, King and Wellington, needs review.
Congratulations to the Domino Theatre.
At the recent All Ontario Festival of Plays competition in Newmarket, the Domino Theatre’s production of Arthur Miller’s “All My Sons” won 8 of 16 available awards.
The awards were:
·Outstanding Production 2007 - Domino Theatre for All My Sons
·Outstanding Technical Achievement - to the whole technical team
·Outstanding Coordinated Production - to the whole company
·Costuming - Elizabeth Bowes
·Adjudicator’s Award - Kevin Fox
·Outstanding Newcomer (off stage) - Talia Marcassa
·Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Geoff Johnson
·Outstanding Director - Ian Malcolm
Congratulations to the Domino Theatre and all their supporting volunteers on this impressive awards sweep.
Staying in touch.
Let me have your comments, ideas or questions on civic matters. Please get in touch anytime.
Glover’s motion to strengthen City’s “conflict of interest” guidelines.
At City Council’s first substantive meeting last December I brought forward a motion, seconded by Councillor Steve Garrison, that directed the Administrative Policies Committee to review the City’s conflict of interest guidelines. Staff prepared a report outlining the issues identified in the motion, offering a preliminary discussion, and requesting guidance on certain questions. The Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this report at our May 8 meeting.
Staff questions included:
·to whom would the rules apply - members of council? members and senior staff? members, senior staff and committee volunteers?
·what relationship could trigger a conflict?
·what interests could form a substantive conflict?
·what mechanism for disclosure would be required?
·what would be the consequences of a breach?
Interested residents will find the entire report on the City’s website under the May 8 agenda for the Administrative Policies Committee as Schedule B, report AP-07-008.
I shall not attempt to report on the entire discussion here, but some points should be noted.
First, all these questions have been addressed to some degree at the provincial level across the country. I do not believe we will be writing “new law” so much as recommending that we adopt the practice followed in one place or another. Some clarification is required on the first and last questions of to whom the rules would apply and what sanctions might be in the event of a breach.
City Councils in Ontario are governed by the Ontario Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1990. While we may adopt as a by-law a more stringent standard, we would not be able to enforce anything that goes beyond the provincial legislation with the same penalties provided under the Act. It was noted that compliance with the higher standard by members of Council would, at the end of the day, be voluntary, but that the “court of public opinion” could go a long way to “encourage” compliance.
The standard for what relationships should be included that I found most attractive is the Newfoundland standard. This says: “a relative of a Councillor means a father, mother, spouse, cohabiting partner, sister, brother, child, step-child, ward, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, or brother-in-law of the Councillor. ”This is a more rigorous definition than is currently used in Ontario.
The question of what constitutes a conflict also generates some discussion. Conflict may be defined by a list saying what it is, or alternately by what it is not. The current Ontario law has a list of what does not constitute a pecuniary interest (all that is of concern in Ontario). That will be the minimum standard in Ontario until such time as the law is amended by the legislature. Manitoba law has a list of what a Councillor must declare in order to avoid a potential conflict. I find that attractive, and hope we may be able to add it in our own by-law.
This Manitoba example raises the final point I shall discuss here: what is a suitable mechanism for disclosure. I believe we should adopt a procedure of a written declaration by each Councillor, that is amended by them as necessary.
Needless to say, this report generated considerable discussion. When the follow-up report comes back in July I suspect we will have another lively time. As we approach that discussion, and at the later Council debate, I think it will be important to remember two things:
·First, the intent of the motion as adopted by council and referred to the Administrative Policies Committee is described in the “whereas” clauses.
·There is a perception that the 1990 legislation is no longer adequate. We can wring our hands and do nothing, or we can move, as the City did on the smoking by-law, and set an example we can urge the province to follow.
·There will be some who say that the new standard may be too high, and that no one will run for office, or, should it apply to staff or committee volunteers (yet to be determined) who will want such positions? To them I would reply that as long as we are not making new law, but merely copying what is currently the practice in other jurisdictions, as it is obviously working there, why should it not work here.
Modern Fuel Artists’ Gallery lease problems addressed by Councillor Glover.
While attention has been focussed on the plight of the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes, the problems of the Modern Fuel Artists’ Gallery have been largely ignored. They are a tenant of the city in a limestone heritage building on Queen Street. Their lease, which would otherwise expire at the end of this year, has been extended to the end of April, 2008.
The lack of stable accommodation has adversely affected their funding, as it did for the MMGLK.
The City position is that as we do not know how the North block might be developed, it must be vacated. Given that the Downtown Action plan calls for a pedestrian area between City Hall, the LVEC and the Grand Theatre, I would think an artists’ gallery in a heritage building is just the sort of thing a North Block study plan might call for. Although a study plan has been funded for this year, work has not yet started. I find it hard to believe that it will be complete and accepted by Council before the end of next April. I am suggesting that the Modern Fuel Gallery be allowed to stay where they are at least to the end of 2008.
Moving the “Alexander Henry” now urgent.
While progress seems to be happening on the location of the MMGLK, moving the “Alexander Henry” into the graving dock is running into some problems. Questions have been identified to me, but supporting evidence for the concerns has not been provided. On Sunday, May 27, I spoke at the MMGLK annual meeting. The full text of my comments that address these questions, amongst other things, is posted and I hope you will take a few minutes to review this matter.
The causeway, LVEC and traffic.
Several people have expressed concern to me about a proposed rearrangement of the streets around the causeway, Ontario Street, and Place d’Armes. Given the date of the original proposal (1999) and the developments since then, I believe it would be suitable to have an independent peer review done of the plan. In addition to the LVEC and possible parking garages going in the area, Wellington Street is being slated to become a major arterial route into the City. Our old street configuration for leaving the city to the east - Ontario, King and Wellington, needs review.
Congratulations to the Domino Theatre.
At the recent All Ontario Festival of Plays competition in Newmarket, the Domino Theatre’s production of Arthur Miller’s “All My Sons” won 8 of 16 available awards.
The awards were:
·Outstanding Production 2007 - Domino Theatre for All My Sons
·Outstanding Technical Achievement - to the whole technical team
·Outstanding Coordinated Production - to the whole company
·Costuming - Elizabeth Bowes
·Adjudicator’s Award - Kevin Fox
·Outstanding Newcomer (off stage) - Talia Marcassa
·Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Geoff Johnson
·Outstanding Director - Ian Malcolm
Congratulations to the Domino Theatre and all their supporting volunteers on this impressive awards sweep.
Staying in touch.
Let me have your comments, ideas or questions on civic matters. Please get in touch anytime.