Code of Ethics

The Code of Conduct is in place. There appears to be a glimmer of understanding it is not the weapon hoped for. The process is straightforward but not simple. The cost is an annual retainer plus actual time spent dealing with a complaint at a rate commensurate with legal fees. We have not yet seen an agreement. No estimates are available. Suffice to say, it will not be cheap and whoever files a complaint will be responsible for the extra burden on the taxpayer.

The first requirement is for a complainant to sit down with the person complained against to discuss the complaint. The response may be an apology - or not. If not, the complainant must submit the complaint in writing, accompanied by an affidavit, to the Integrity Commissioner.

The Commissioner will decide if the matter is within his mandate. If so, the alleged offender is given ten days to respond to the written complaint.

Then complainant is required to respond in writing to the response within ten days of receiving it.

The person complaining is advised to obtain legal advice before making an allegation of a conflict of interest. I fancy it would be wise to consult with a solicitor before making any allegation of bad conduct against an elected official. Written allegations of wrongdoing could well be harmful to a person's character and reputation. It is unwise without giving serious consideration to potential consequences. Laws of Libel and Slander come to mind. Being complained about could very well become a complaint against a complainant.

Section 2 of the Code deals with Confidentiality. Breach of Confidentiality was the reason given for retaining George Rust-D’Eye to “investigate” a leak. The definition in The Code carries an interesting qualification - “If disclosed, could result in loss or damage to the Corporation.”

That phrase is a key distinction. I previously took up the question with our former Director of Corporate Affairs. More than once. What responsibility does a councillor have to keep decisions made behind closed doors secret, which do not cause “harm or loss to the Corporation”? The non- answer was, “That's a good question, Evelyn” Never fear, it is now stated in the Code. Stuff can only be kept secret if.it may cause harm or loss to the Corporation. I doubt that can be interpreted to cover the collective posteriors of elected or appointed officials.

Section 3 deals with Communications and Media relations. It states, “Members of council will accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of council even if they disagree with the majority.” Now there's a tricky situation. My colleagues are not likely to appreciate my conjecture about why they made a particular decision .. I believe Rules of Order prohibit a councillor from interpreting another's reason. It might be uncomplimentary and that's a no-no.

Section 4 states, “Members of Council shall acknowledge and respect that staff work for the Town of Aurora as a corporate body and are responsible for making recommendations that reflect their professional expertise and corporate objectives without undue influence from any individual member.” There's more along those lines. It has a hollow ring considering events throughout this term of council.

How The Code might evolve from this point on could be very interesting.