Civil exchange

Council moves a step closer to adopting a Code of Conduct

Council seems, at last, set to adopt a code of conduct governing its actions at Shire Hall and in public. Council put in place similar rules governing its staff and employees several years ago, but balked at previous attempts to bridle the behaviour of its members.

But a fresh new council made a Code of Conduct a priority. A draft set of rules was tabled last month. Mayor Robert Quaiff urged his colleagues to prepare and send him revisions or suggested changes to be incorporated into a second draft.

No one did. So he labelled the second draft final. Suddenly, the sluice gates opened and changes began to flow in the mayor’s direction.

Some councillors were still unclear whether a code of conduct was even needed. “What will be accomplished?” asked North Marysburgh councillor David Harrison. “This is a new council and I believe we have acted professionally. I will always reserve the right to communicate with my constituents on the issues of the day. When an election rolls around voters, will want to know where I stood on this issue, or that.”

Picton councillor Treat Hull didn’t see the proposed Code of Conduct restricting his communication with constituents but rather as an obligation to convey council’s decision accurately regardless whether or not he agreed with it.

Councillor Gord Fox agreed that, so far, he and his colleagues had acted professionally and with appropriate decorum.

“But this puts it down in writing, in case one of us goes feral,” said Fox.

Among the scattergun of proposed changes came a suggestion by Ameliasburgh councillor Roy Pennell to restrict staff input and advice only to those policies and matters where it was expressly requested by council. This drew a response from acting CAO Robert McAuley, who reminded the councillor it is not council’s role to administer municipal staff.

“There are times when staff are required to bring matters or recommendations to council,” explained McAuley. “It would handcuff your staff unduly if they can only speak when spoken to.”

The motion to gag staff failed.

More councillors bristled at a provision restricting council when directing inquiries to staff, through the chief administrative officer’s desk.

McAuley noted that such inquires were disruptive and likely to result in inaccurate information.

“A driver isn’t likely to reflect the corporate position,” said McAuley. “They don’t have that access. That is up to your senior staff.”

Some councillors argued it was necessary to retain the ability to contact certain staff to sort out small issues—rather than get bogged down in bureaucracy. Council agreed to a compromise where they will continue to contact certain staff but will copy the CAO simultaneously.

As the list of potential changes grew, Sophiasburgh councillor Bill Roberts observed that the Code of Conduct is a living document—it can and should be reviewed with each term of council or when overriding governing acts are adopted.

Harrison took one last shot at torpedoeing the Code of Conduct altogether.

“There should have been more ‘mays’ and ‘shalls’ and fewer ‘wills’ and ‘musts’,” complained Harrison.

But when the vote was called all but two of 15 council members present raised their hands in favour. The County’s first Code of Conduct governing council will likely be ratified on March 10.