Council Update - Do As I Say, Not As I Do

At council’s November 26^th council meeting multiple councillor code of conduct complaints were on the agenda.  Since these discussions are held in closed sessions, no details are available on the content or number of complaints other than the agenda them in the plural. 

After a closed session that lasted almost three hours, council made three motions in response to the complaints.  The first was a broad-based apology to any RVC employees who “may have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, or criticism from a Council member” and a reaffirmation of council’s commitment to “uphold a workplace culture based on mutual respect, dignity, and professionalism”.

The second motion directed Administration to return to the next council meeting (Dec. 3^rd) with amendments that would preclude members of the public from making Code of Conduct complaints. 

The third motion directed Administration to work with the Complaints Adjudicator to review the Code of Conduct bylaw and return to council by the first quarter of 2025 with recommended amendments.

Legislative services staff raised concerns with the immediacy of the timeline in the second motion, pointing out that the agenda for the December 3^rd meeting is supposed to be posted on the RVC website by the next day.  However, the CAO intervened to assure council that if the motion passed, staff would deliver as directed.  The motion passed 4 / 3 with Councillors Hanson, Samra and Wright in opposition.

While we have concerns about the content of the second amendment, we were surprised at the complete disconnect between the first and second motions.  From our perspective, it makes no sense to issue an apology that apparently was triggered by past inappropriate behaviour only to immediately thereafter demand that staff provide material within an unreasonably short timeframe.  We also found the new CAO’s lack of support for his staff disappointing.

The second motion also suggests that at least some of the code of conduct complaints were from members of the public – otherwise, what is the logic in responding by restricting access to the complaint process.  We fail to understand how this decision can be consistent with council’s commitment to transparency and accountability.  We are also concerned that this change will leave residents with no alternative other than the courts to address inappropriate behaviour or decisions by councillors.

The other “do as I say, not as I do” decision from council at that meeting dealt with the Omni ASP.  In October, council approved Planning’s priority list and workplan for the planning documents they should work on over the next year.  Revisions to the Omni ASP didn’t make it onto that list.  Disappointed by that outcome, Boehlke and Schule introduced a motion to direct Admin to prepare terms of reference to move the Omni revisions forward.  To prevent repeated kicks at the can, Council’s procedure bylaw gives the Reeve the option of ruling motions “out of order” if they are the same or similar to motions that had been considered in the previous six months. 

Kissel opted to not rule the motion out of order.  In both this discussion and the discussion in October that resulted in Boehlke’s original failed motion, Admin made it clear that they did not have sufficient resources to take on this project without delaying other projects.  They also advised that since the anticipated changes to the Omni ASP were not consistent with the County Plan, it would be prudent to wait until its review was completed in the summer of 2025.  Despite that advice, in a 4 – 3 decision, council directed Admin to move forward to finalize terms of reference to revise the Omni ASP for its approval before the end of Q1 2025.  Hanson, Kissel, and Wright were opposed.