WALSH – Whose responsibility is it to hold City Hall accountable?

RECENTLY, COUN. BASS explained that the reason she made a motion in conflict with the mayor’s notice of motion regarding town hall meetings was because she didn’t know the mayor was going to make that motion.

She took no personal responsibility and blamed the mayor for this oversight. She admitted that the mayor, as protocol requires, had given all council members prior notice of his intent in writing, but stated publicly that she and her colleagues have agreed to ignore written documents given out by the mayor and she refused to read the handout of his motion.

Coun. Bass must think the rules are for others or, as when she faced possible sanctions for an improperly filed campaign expenses report, maybe she doesn’t fully understand her responsibilities as an elected official. What about the rest of our elected officials?

The mayor, during the debate on her surprise motion, did remind council of his upcoming notice of motion which would provide an opportunity for all council members to have a more inclusive conversation on his proposal for a town hall meeting.

Instead, true to form of past actions, this openly hostile council quickly formed a select committee to oversee discussions on any future town hall or community engagement meetings.

Whether intended or not, this newly minted committee most likely undermined, or at the least complicated, the mayor’s July 25 motion requesting a public town hall forum, which was unfortunately defeated 8-1 at last week’s meeting.

People tell me they are concerned about the rash of sudden leaks of confidential documents from City Hall. In my three terms on council I never saw such blatant violations of confidentiality. What is so different about this team and why has this not triggered an official independent investigation, as the consequences are suspension or possible dismissal?

It’s not known who leaked the mayor’s notification to councillors about his changes to standing committees, but the latest and most egregious reveal involves Coun. O’Reilly talking on NL Radio about selected parts of a harassment claim laid against the mayor.

Somehow, emails pertaining to the confidential investigator’s report were released to the media from a closed council meeting. Topics discussed at closed meetings are not to be publicized and are especially confidential when dealing with personal matters. Then Coun. O’Reilly very publicly discussed the report on NL Radio, though he neglected to inform the public of the most important part: the conclusion and recommendations.

Since the results have not yet been made public, I suspect that the investigation concluded that the mayor was not guilty of unlawful and/or inappropriate conduct.

Had he been found guilty, it’s very likely Coun. O’Reilly and fellow councillors would have been crowing this result from the rooftops. Instead, O’Reilly cherry-picked some negative comments made to the investigator but did not expand on the investigator’s judgment regarding those comments. This is not acceptable. In fact, this workplace investigation was marred by numerous breaches of confidentiality to warrant an RCMP investigation.

Also, why is there no followup on Coun. Neustaeter’s behaviour when asked by a member of the public whether there was a meeting (a meeting is defined as a quorum of five or more members of council, electronically or in person), to draft the March 17 council statement to the media?

Coun. Neustaeter twice said an emphatic “No.” Yet a Freedom of Information (FOI) request filed by the Armchair Mayor showed that “Yes,” there was indeed a meeting conducted through a series of emails by a quorum of council to draft that statement. This constitutes a council meeting.

How can City Hall be held accountable if councillors are allowed to give what now appears to be a misleading response to a clear and direct question at public inquiry; to discuss privileged information on local media; or to avoid prescribed sanctions after conjuring up what turned out to be a false story to shame the mayor in a formal public council meeting?

There have been several instances where Coun. Sarai, Karpuk, Bass and Neustaeter have made statements that could warrant an investigation under the Council Code of Conduct. It seems nobody on council or in administration intervened to remind them of their duty to be respectful when addressing fellow council members or staff.

And how about conflict of interest? When Coun. Neustaeter was sued for defamation by the mayor for her March 17 comments, councillors voted to have the City pay her legal costs, even though they themselves could be vulnerable to the same charge.

A member of the public shared with me that when emailed about this potential conflict, Mr. Trawin replied that “the responsibility for declaring a conflict of interest rests with each elected official – myself, the Corporate Officer, or another member of Council may notify a member of Council that they may be approaching conflict of interest territory, but there is no requirement to do so and the decision whether to recuse themselves rests with each elected official.”

I agree the final decision is the responsibility of the council member, however, the B.C. Community Charter states that part of the City manager’s duties is “ensuring that the policies, programs and other directions of the council are implemented.”

If the City manager, the corporate officer guiding the meeting, or a council member choose not to remind their colleagues when they could be perceived to be breaking policy, there could be a financial risk. City taxpayers would be liable if a conflict is proven through a legal complaint, especially if others were aware and chose to be silent.

The City manager and members of council have a duty to at least acknowledge and discuss any perceived conflict of interest prior to the start of meetings to avoid the expense of a redo or possible financial liability.

Aside from the Armchair Mayor, local media outlets so far seem content not to pursue these serious breaches of confidentiality and disrespectful behaviour. I am curious why they are not. Isn’t that their mandate?

Is it up to members of the public to lay a complaint under the Code of Conduct, which allows individuals to do so when they see wrongdoing? Apparently so, which is why I am filing several complaints for City administration to investigate. I hope they do.

Denis Walsh is a former three-term Kamloops City councillor. He chose not to run again in 2022, convinced that City councillors should step aside after a maximum of three terms to allow others to serve and to experience being on the “outside looking in.”