Wellington Square

Archive for the ‘Love from the upper orders’ Category

Dignan-Rumble’s interest(s)

Hugo Rodrigues - January 22nd, 2013

Stumbled into this conversation via a series of direct messages on Twitter this past weekend, after Ward 3 Coun. Debi Dignan-Rumble announced she had applied for the executive assistant to the mayor’s job that closes at the end of this week.

Dignan-Rumble declared a conflict when council added $4,000 to the budget of the mayor’s office during the estimates committee meeting, essentially using this as her way of announcing she’d applied for the job. In her statement, she indicated she would similarly abstain from any matters dealing with the finances of the mayor’s office or its staffing until the successful candidate for the position accepts the job offer.

So the question arose— wouldn’t almost anything before council put Dignan-Rumble in a position of a potential conflict of interest? Would all her votes for the meetings ahead be scrutinized by her potential new boss (uh, who would be the mayor, by the way)? Or, worse, be scrutinized by critics as trying to curry favour with the potential new boss?

The cleanest answer for those who would look to find a conflict on every corner here would have been for Dignan-Rumble to take a leave of absence until the position was filled. However she doesn’t have to do that.

Under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, members of council only have to declare direct or indirect pecuniary interest when a matter comes before that council for consideration. “Direct” meaning only if the member of council or a parent, spouse or child of the member would be financially impacted by the decision, with “indirect” referring to the member, parent, spouse or child’s as a shareholder in a privately held company, holding a controlling interest in a publicly traded company or is a member of one.

None of those scenarios applies in this situation, outside of Dignan-Rumble voting on budgetary matters relating to the position she’s applied for. The fun part of that legislation is, however, that no one else on council can tell Dignan-Rumble to declare a conflict. The only person(s) who should even be advising any member of council on whether or not they hold a pecuniary interest is that member’s personal solicitor. While council’s solicitor certainly can offer his or her opinion, s/he is not in a position to advise an individual member as that solicitor serves council as a whole, not its members.

Now, things are much clearer should Dignan-Rumble get the job. The Municipal Elections Act Sec. 30(4) is quite clear on this, though it states it in reverse. Should you be elected or appointed, your resignation from your position within the municipality is effective the moment before you take your oath of office (for members of council). Vice versa, that means no member of council can be an employee of the municipality.

Categories: Brantford, Love from the upper orders, Money | No comments

Not anywhere near that simple

Hugo Rodrigues - December 11th, 2012

I remain intrigued by the resolution presented by Ward 4 Coun. Richard Carpenter at this week’s operation and administration committee meeting titled “Sharing of assessment revenues and expenditures.” It’s embedded below.

Carpenter is trying to separate policy and governance from money, while at the same time trying to show the city’s current push to expand its boundaries is only about the money. It verges tantalizingly close to seeing Brantford and Brant move towards some sort of upper-tier administrative body or government akin to a regional municipality.

Carpenter Assessment Resolution

The idea sounds simple enough— take all the property taxes raised by Brantford and Brant and put them into a single pot. Add the number of residents of Brant and Brantford together to determine proportionality. Then divide the money in the pot based on each council’s share of the overall population. That way, argued Carpenter, when a new business or industry sets up shop anywhere in Brantford or Brant, both municipalities share in the new property taxes paid by that development.

Carpenter read from the Ontario Municipal Act Sec. 20, which allows municipalities to enter into agreements to jointly provide services. I don’t know that’s the best section to lean on, as it’s aimed at services and Carpenter’s resolution is more about taxation and spending. But anyway.

In a nutshell, here are some of the impediments the two councils would need to overcome to really make this idea work:

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, which curtails the ability for water and sewer services to cross municipal boundaries;
The fact Brantford and Brant have different mill rates— for a truly equitable pooling of revenue, would both municipalities not require the same mill rates by property tax class?, and
Would this not increase pressure for equitable service to be provided across both municipalities? Why would ratepayers in the city support paying for county services and vice-versa? (I know, if it’s a truly proportional split this would be a wash).

I also come back to the question of that upper-level administrative or political body akin to regional government. You already have social services, the long-term care facility and land ambulance jointly paid for and administered by both councils. When you add overall taxation and apportioning of expenses to the mix, what’s the real difference between that and regional government? You’d have a tier of something above both councils making financial decisions that would then fall to each local council to implement.

I remain intrigued.

Categories: Brant, Brantford, Dissention in the ranks, Love from the upper orders, Money | No comments

Better oversight on conflicts of interest needed

Hugo Rodrigues - November 26th, 2012

Anyone attuned to Ontario and Toronto municipal politics has by now heard Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was found guilty in a conflict-of-interest court hearing and the presiding judge has vacated his seat for this term.

That this end, regardless of Ford’s intent to appeal the ruling, has come to be was a result of a constituent noticing and questioning whether Ford’s actions and decisions were contrary to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. This is a concerning reality of the legislation I first noticed when former Toronto Catholic District School Board trustee Oliver Carroll was unseated by a conflict-of-interest ruling in February 2009— trustees are under the same law. That was followed by two more trials and (if memory serves) at least one more trustee seat being vacated prior to the 2010 municipal election.

All of these were one-person missions to literally take down an opponent in office, where the conflicting actions became the weapon to fell them. The legislation itself leaves the decision of whether or not to declare a conflict / pecuniary interest up to the individual member— who should only be able to consult his or her own counsel for advice. No other member of council should advise a colleague of a conflict or is able to mandate them to exempt themselves if in conflict.

How many conflicts are never reported? How many aren’t declared? Who really is watching this stuff, except those with skin in the game for whatever reason? Locally, around this time last year, we had a furor over an unsigned bylaw— contrary to the Municipal Act and that has since led to the Brantford mayor likely being the only one in Ontario who actually signs bylaws before the televised conclusion of a council meeting. Those calling for more accountability at the time ultimately had no where to turn except lawyers, who may have come at an unpalatable cost.

From a governance perspective, we need better accountability measures than this. We have integrity commissioners in many municipalities — including Brantford — but they’re complaint-driven. Someone else has to notice offensive behaviour(s) before an investigation is completed and any recommendation for censure sent to council.

Here’s my suggestion— reform the conflict-of-interest legislation to make it a mandatory component of a council’s integrity commissioner. Then, as part of their contracts with councils, have integrity commissioners conduct an annual document review to ensure compliance. This would still allow any complaints to come forward sooner if noticed by someone and rely on accurate minute-taking by staff members (doubtful any municipality lacks this), but would ensure a regular, independent review to make sure members of council were doing their jobs within the bounds of the law.

It would have caught all the situations I’ve referred to above, without the need for the heavy politicking that led to their actual day in court.

Categories: Dissention in the ranks, Love from the upper orders | 1 comment

Will the OMB draw Brantford’s ward boundaries?

Hugo Rodrigues - September 19th, 2012

I have been pondering this question in observing the ward-review process that’s been underway in Brantford for almost a year.

This process has been hamstrung from its outset.

On Sept. 17 we witnessed the latest example of how when the review committee came before council to present its report recommending a revised five-ward system for the 2014 municipal elections. Every member of council who spoke — and keep in mind most if not all were interviewed one-on-one by the committee — had only critiques of the recommendations.

View Proposed Brantford ward boundaries in a larger map

Rather than simply toss away these recommendations as previous councils have done in the past, council should take a second (and third, and fourth, if necessary) look at the reports. Ask for the background material from the academic expert council forced upon the committee. Read through the committee’s minutes to gauge its discussions.

When councils strike ward-boundary review committees, they need to pay attention to the advice they’re receiving. An example can be seen in the experiences within the City of London prior to the 2006 municipal election.

In a nutshell, thanks to some archival searches, council of the day was a seven-ward system there with a board of control. It didn’t act on several opportunities to improve representation through changes to both the number of wards and their boundaries. Unsatisfied with the status quo, a group of citizens took council to the OMB and won. As of 2006 the city has had 14 wards with a single councillor per ward.

It’s incumbent on this council to set aside personal interest and the communities that have supported them and look at the city with an eye to equitable and effective representation that respects neighbourhoods and geographical features such as rivers, roadways and railways. The current reality clearly shows the status quo is unacceptable— representation is not equitable across the existing five wards and with the plans for development known to the city, the inequity is only going to increase.

To councillors’ complaints about the proposed wards having more constituents and greater workloads, well, that’s going to be the reality— one they could have mitigated by keeping the option of full-time councillors on the table and by expressing more support for a six-ward council. Some wards will be heavily weighted with older neighbourhoods or newer neighbourhoods. That’s the reality of this city’s growth patterns.

Given what they were saddled with and barring any reconsideration of the full-time question or a willingness to expand the size of council, the recommendations before council are good ones. It has an opportunity to make a good decision, locally, or give constituents a berth to ask the Ontario Municipal Board to make one.

Categories: Brantford, Dissention in the ranks, Love from the upper orders | No comments