EDITORIAL – Conflict of interest issue is about both reality and perception
(Image: Mel Rothenburger file photo.)
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST is in the news again, this time involving donations to three Kamloops City councillors by individuals associated with a housing development in Valleyview.
It centres around an apartment block on Glenwood Drive. The developer, A&T Project Developments, wanted to build it six stories high. Several hundred residents in the area wanted to restrict it to four storeys.
Council ignored a petition against the zoning exception, approving the 120-unit project with the necessary rezoning and development variance permit this week.
Plunking a six-storey apartment block into a neighbourhood of single-family homes is bound to cause concerns at the best of times. However, with the provincial government forcing municipalities to step up housing construction regardless of long-established community plans, the Kamloops council is enthusiastic about housing these days.
Putting people in towers brings on a big planning debate that goes back generations. There are all kinds of arguments against that trend but it’s a topic for another day. Right now the issue is conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest.
There’s nothing illegal about a City councillor voting in support of a project connected to a campaign donor. It happens frequently. It isn’t quite the wild west but it can bring up awkward situations like the one in Valleyview.
Councillors Bill Sarai, Dale Bass and Mike O’Reilly all received donations in connection with the 2022 civic election campaign from people involved with A&T. None of the three recused themselves from the vote on the Valleyview project and they are correct that they didn’t break conflict of interest rules.
If a council candidate made a deal with a campaign donor that, “Give me a nice donation and I’ll give you my vote when you have a project that needs council approval,” it would clearly be illegal. But accepting a donation and voting in favour of a donor’s project is not in itself wrong if no strings are attached.
The Community Charter states that “locally elected officials who have a financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter that will be discussed or voted on at their municipal council or regional district board meetings must declare that interest in the matter. Following their declaration they must not participate in discussions, vote or exercise influence on the matter.”
There are exceptions and nuances but every councillor has a responsibility to carefully consider conflict of interest in every vote. When it comes to development projects, they must be satisfied in their hearts that a campaign donation has not influenced their decision on how to vote. If they’re wrong, they can be taken to court and lose their seat at the council table.
As stated in the Charter, the foundation of conflict of interest rules is that councillors must not vote on a matter that could personally benefit them. If it does, they must voluntarily excuse themselves. On most days, councillors go out of their way to ensure that not even a perception of conflict can be left on the table.
At times, they carry it to extremes in order to be absolutely sure. Clearly, Sarai, Bass and O’Reilly are satisfied they don’t have a conflict. The matter of perception is something else, if concerns of residents near the development, and social-media chatter in the wake of the decision are anything to judge by.
The three have decided that a) they had no conflict on the Valleyview project and b) they can live with any perception that they do.
The rules around conflicts of interest for public officials have received some minor adjustments over the years, and might well be in need of some more. If anyone has a perfect answer, I’m certain the powers that be would be interested.
Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, and a Webster Foundation Commentator of the Year finalist. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Most of the negative citizens seem to not understand the difference between a conflict of interest and a conflict of their interest. Why are we taking any of them seriously?
LikeLike
For those councillors to sit up there and almost proudly proclaim there is no conflict is quite ridiculous.
As most are aware, a conflict arises for elected officials not just from an actual conflict, but from the perception of a conflict.
I think many would consider the fact that a number of owners/members of a development firm made personal maximum contributions to councillors, with that same firm now having obtained positive votes from them over a contentious project.
In no situation would what has happened be considered by the average voter as a healthy thing for the city. This type of influence should simply not exist. To claim it’s not a problem is disingenuous, but this council has a record full of similar behaviour so we can’t be surprised.
I would like to give a salute to the individual who called in to the meeting and pointed out that the city had moved the camera feed so that the CAO was off frame to ensure no further embarrassment of recording the highest paid employee dozing off or playing on his cell phone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even though I’m usually the first to say how bent this term’s Council is, honestly, I’m not seeing the issue specifically with this situation when looking at the results.
Developing for this city does require some wheel-greasing, hob-knobbing, networking, golf excursions. But in the end, some contractor will make their money, feed jobs for the locals, feed into the local economy, and in return we get some much needed housing in this city. Everyone wins….right?
Unlike when they sign off on low-barrier so-called supportive housing that do in fact gravitate and magnify violence, crime, and drugs into unsuspecting neighbourhoods without any forewarning or public input… that’s a problem.
…which leads to the main reason why people are upset with Council all the time. We are the “Crime Capital of Canada”, and for the MOST part it is their fault; sometimes “it is a Federal Issue” (as Dale Bass deflect with), but it’s not like they could create city ordinances, or red zones that would help install guardrails for ‘certain people’ so we can feel better about our dismal position. But they won’t, based on ‘their’ (not our) personal politics. And for that, they get put under a microscope. Our city is turning into a-not-nice-place, and the people demand to know why, from those on the top…
… if our streets were cleaner, no one would care that Bepple was a member of CMHA, no one would care that Sarai’s son dodged the unemployment line for hitting pedestrians with a city vehicle, O’Reilly wouldn’t be in the mess he’s in with the Courts, And Karpuk wouldn’t get laughed at for his ‘fart-gate’ comments, because Reid Hamer-Jackson wouldn’t have been voted in if our streets were safer and ‘certain street issues’ were handled with more ‘tough love’…. and certainly no one would care if a planned apartment building gets an extra floor added to it.
I get that, in principle, it’s highly suspicious to see certain businesses donate for favouritism toward their plans. But in this instance, it hurting anyone?… The only thing I keep hearing is, “it’s going to be an eyesore”. I’m sure it will be, but that’s how things develop, piece by piece, just not all at the same time.
LikeLike
The best way to solve this is that if an elected official has received a monetary donation from individuals that are involved in any type of construction/land use then said official is automatically excused from the vote so that there isn’t a conflict of interest.
LikeLike
I believe that in this scenario, the city council members could be considered to have a conflict of interest, or at the very least, a perceived one.
This is due to the significant financial contribution the council member has received from the applicant. Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations regarding conflicts of interest, which often include rules about gifts, contributions, or any other form of financial benefit from parties with business before the council. Even if local laws do not explicitly prohibit this scenario, ethical standards would suggest recusal to maintain the integrity of the process. It’s worth investigating whether the city has such rules in place, and if not, considering their implementation.
Therefore, to uphold both legal standards and ethical norms of public service, the council members should consider recusing themselves from voting on this project application. Failure to do so could result in scrutiny, potential legal challenges, and a significant public relations issue, which seems to already be emerging
LikeLike
Armchair Mayor, are you describing what could be called a symbiotic relationship in the world of municipal politics?
By the book, or charter, in black and white, the symbiosis is perfectly legal. At the same time, the moral compass of some people may see the symbiosis as being unacceptable.
As far as our acceptance of democracy, where does the truth lie?
LikeLike
The thing is others have built many four stories (occasionally five) stories all over town without much of a fuss and with relatively few complaints. This thing is going to be a wort. An eyesore that will plague us for years. The reality is most renters will still need to drive as Kamloops is neither a fun destination nor an easy place to get around unless one drives. And parking will certainly be a serious issue. No question housing is a huge issue but it should not be pursued in such excessively haphazard ways. The entire council should have excused themselves from voting for it.
LikeLike
Yeah, a SIX story building in Kamloops. How truly outlandish and ruinous. The whole city would be saved if only it was just 5 stories. So excessively haphazard, not the housing projects, your rhetorical drama I mean.
LikeLike
you off course understand where this six-story thing is going to be built…or maybe not. But besides that this city is on course to become uglier and uglier…world record uglier.
LikeLike