-11.8 C
Brantford
Wednesday, January 15, 2025

County of Brant opposes possibility of amalgamation

David Bailey, Mayor for the County of...

Mayor Kevin Davis to initiate study for amalgamation  

Kevin Davis, Mayor for the City of...

Paris-based screenwriter pens Netflix Christmas movie

After spending many years working in the...

Brantford Council supports upcoming code of conduct legislation

City of BrantfordBrantford Council supports upcoming code of conduct legislation

City of Brantford Council unanimously approved a resolution supporting provincial legislative amendments to improve municipal codes of conduct and enforcement during its Committee of the Whole, Planning and Administrative meeting on Tuesday, August 13, 2024. 

The resolution, moved by Councillor Mandy Samwell, supports the Association of Municipalities (AMO) in calling for legislation looking to hold municipally-elected officials accountable for workplace violence and harassment.

The resolution reads as follows:

“A. THAT The Corporation of the City of Brantford supports the call of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario [AMO] for the Government of Ontario to introduce legislation to strengthen municipal Codes of Conduct and compliance with them in consultation with municipal governments; and

B. THAT the legislation encompasses the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s recommendations for:

i. Updating municipal Codes of Conduct to account for workplace safety and harassment; and
ii. Creating a flexible administrative penalty regime, adapted to the local economic and financial circumstances of municipalities across Ontario; and
iii. Increasing training of municipal Integrity Commissioners to enhance consistency of investigations and recommendations across the province; and
iv. Allowing municipalities to apply to a member of the judiciary to remove a sitting member if recommended through the report of a municipal Integrity Commissioner; and
v. Prohibit a member so removed from sitting for election in the term of removal and the subsequent term of office”

A copy of the resolution is to be forwarded to the President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Colin Best; Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford; Member of Provincial Parliament, Will Bouma; Member of Parliament, Larry Brock and all Ontario Municipalities.

During the meeting, Haley Bateman, a regional Councillor for St. Catharines, spoke as a delegation to address the importance of holding municipal elected officials accountable to Human Resource standards.

“This is something that I’ve advocated for over my career, …prior to being elected I worked in women’s shelters and my first real introduction to how policy can affect positive change was Bill 168 and that was workplace violence and harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act way back in 2009. This was an incredible moment for survivors of violence and It was a profound shift in the accountability and legislation undoubtedly saving lives,” she said. “We knew then, what we know now… that there was, and is still, a gap in this legislation as elected officials are exempt from this. Fifteen years later, we are on the cusp of closing that gap and ensuring that every working Ontarian has the same rights and the same protections under the law.”

She noted that according to a 2018 report from Municipal World, 77 per cent of Ontario municipal staff reported harassment and bullying by elected officials with 76 per cent stating they had personally been at the receiving end of harassment by a member of council.

“We can, we must, and we will make every effort to prevent this from continuing,” she said. “This legislation is vital to the safety of those working in municipal government, and it’s vital to a healthy and democratic space for us all to continue in. …We have heard in our advocacy from every party, everyone on all sides of this debate, that it needs to pass and it needs to be done correctly.”

She asked that the Brantford Council join the 207 of the 444 municipalities across Ontario who have supported the legislation coming up in October. 

“Sharing and understanding different perspectives and our lived experiences is vital to the progress of the communities that we represent,” she said. “Above all, we have to create a safe environment for everyone to participate fully. I ask tonight, that you consider this and that you put your name and your city’s reputation on supporting this legislation.”

Councillor Linda Hunt asked Bateman to clear up any misconceptions about the proposed legislation, who it’s aimed at protecting and what types of conduct would be grounds for removing a councillor from their position. 

“This legislation looks to prevent egregious actions from councillors to municipal staff or from councillor to councillor. When we think about that, we think about the level of power and control that we have as councillors and the responsibility is huge, we need to protect staff from that,” responded Bateman. “If you do a simple Google search about what some councillors out there have been doing to their staff, or to staff at the municipality or to another councillor, it’s very, very shocking. Disagreements and heated debates, those are great and I don’t think any councillor would be in a position to run if that’s not something that you like to do and are able to leave it at the table while walking away as friends and colleagues, but this is looking at egregious actions.”

She added that the upcoming legislation would also take the matter out of the hands of the Council so that they wouldn’t be responsible for deciding their colleagues’ fate, and that an Integrity Commissioner Board would be the one to decide if a councillor would be removed from their position or not. 

“I think a lot of people have an issue with this but there is a removal process already in place in the Municipal Act for conflict of interest,” she said. “In here [the legislation], we’re talking about sexual abuse, we’re talking about violence, we’re talking about threats and intimidation. Those are huge things that we need to take seriously and if we want a more diverse, a more respected Council, and if we want debates and decorum then this is something that needs to pass.”

Speaking to her resolution, Samwell said that while there are many good elected representatives out there, like in any sector, there are people who are guilty of perpetrating harassment in the workplace.

“ Unfortunately, one does not have to look far to find examples such as Barrie, Ottawa, Mississauga and Brampton as to why this legislation is so necessary,” she said. “In every other workplace in Ontario, employees are held to violence and harassment in the workplace policies, but currently there is no legislation that provides an appropriate mechanism for the accountability for municipally elected representatives when it comes to perpetrating harassment. …Many people may say we have police for this reason, but unfortunately, not all harassment is considered criminal. We are asking for this legislation that is in line with every other workplace wherein recommendations for action, are made on an investigation based on balance of probabilities.”

Councillor Linda Hunt said that she was fully supportive of the resolution noting that it’s hard to get healthy democracy when people don’t feel safe enough to come forward.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to bring this type of resolution forward, but the reality of the world we live in today is that this workplace harassment and violence does occur, and so for that reason, I’m fully supportive of the resolution,” she said. 

Councillor Rose Sicoli said that she would be absolutely supporting the legislation.

“As elected officials, we have this tremendous amount of responsibility to uphold ourselves to a much higher standard,” she said. “We should be acting with a very strong moral compass and a measure of integrity in how we conduct ourselves, yet we have the fewest repercussions for ejecting councillors who are exhibiting egregious behaviors. Do methods exist for staff to file complaints or councillors to file complaints? Yes they do, but it leaves staff persons in a very vulnerable position where they may feel that their job is at risk.”

Amendments were later pitched by Councillors Michael Sullivan and Dan McCreary to allow the Integrity Commissioner to penalize “frivolous and vexatious complaints” and for those who make such complaints frequently, effectively “weaponizing the Code of Conduct,” to leave a monetary deposit.

Hunt said that she would not be supporting either of the amendments.

“We’re not talking about constituents filing vexatious claims here, we’re talking about a member of staff that feels like they’ve been harassed by a councillor or another councillor that feels like they’ve been harassed.”

Mayor Kevin Davis said that while he understood what Sullivan and McCreary were trying to do, he suggested the amendments be retracted and reworded to the following:

“THAT in addition, the legislation should include a provision allowing an Integrity Commissioner to award costs against individuals who have filed repeated frivolous or vexatious complaints.”

Sicoli said that the reworded amendment was still not in the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish and that she would not be supporting it. 

“I don’t think it speaks to where we’re trying to go and  I don’t think it protects our staff,” she said. “I don’t think it makes our staff feel valued when we’re trying to manipulate this on the fly because we’re afraid of vexatious claims. I’m not supporting it.”

McCreary then noted that while some of the council members saw the legislation through a staff lens, there were others who were seeing it differently. 

“I think some folks on this committee are seeing this from a staff lens and the rest of us are seeing this with respect to the way this Code of Conduct has been weaponized by a very small group of folks in this community,” he said. “There’s one individual within this community who has filed, I’m guessing somewhere between five and ten of these, and for every one that the Integrity Commissioner makes public, there is at least one that is not made public because it has no merit whatsoever.”

Sicoli reminded everyone that the legislation in front of them did, in fact, speak exclusively to protecting municipal staff and not the general public, and that they should stay on track with the true intention of it.

Davis said that, like McCreary, he didn’t read it that way. 

“I realize that the incidents that this legislation was based on, many of them dealt with municipal staff, but I interpret this to apply to complaints made by members of the public and certainly they should be allowed to file a complaint if they’ve been sexually harassed by a member of council so I don’t see how it’s limited in that context,” he said. “As I said earlier, the best legislation considers all perspectives and provides a balanced piece of legislation. …This doesn’t deal with this issue of repeated, frivolous and vexatious complaints, and you’ve got to have something in there that deals with that, but at the same time, you have to design it in such a way that it doesn’t act as a disincentive or an impediment to someone filing a legitimate complaint.”

The amendment to have the legislation include a provision allowing an Integrity Commissioner to award costs against individuals who have filed repeated frivolous or vexatious complaints then failed on a vote of 5-6.

The original resolution to support the upcoming legislation was then passed unanimously.

Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles