A Quandary

Council will decide to-morrow night whether or not to appoint a new Integrity Commissioner.

Everybody knows of my legal action against six members of Council.The complaint by the group of six, filed with the former Integrity Commissioner is part of the suit.

Also known, the six are being defended by counsel provided by the town's insurance company. They take the position, they represented the town in their action ,therefore town insurance company should indemnify them..

Staff were directed to recruit a new Integrity Commissioner in August. A Request for Proposal was advertised, six proposals were received .

In the televised New Year's address, the Mayor stated the complaint against me is still pending, to be dealt with by the new Integrity Commissioner. The Mayor also claimed "staff" had complained to Council.

I have no knowledge of that. I am a member of council. I don't feel slighted though. Other councillors are also not aware staff had complained.
.
I have heard of Councillor Morris and Sue Walmer, soon after the last election, being informed
by the Planning Director,they had no right to be in the planning department, ordering junior staff to provide particular information on the spot.

I have heard a public argument from Councillor Nigel Keane about his right to attend management team meetings.

I have heard playful banter between Councillors MacEachern and Gaertner and the Treasurer
indicating a friendly association.

I hear lots of things. But I have never heard of a municipal employee making a complaint to elected representatives against an elected representative. Generally. I think it would not be considered wise or bode well for a good working relationship.

The Mayor, by making the statement in her televised New Year's message, implicated staff in a matter of litigation. involving a complaint which the Mayor also claims is yet to be processed.

We all know, the former Integrity Commissioner made a decision, gave it to the Deputy-Clerk for distribution to the complainants and the person complained about. We know it was first distributed to Councillor's inbox and shortly thereafter, mysteriously scooped back up again.

After a bit of a tussle.I obtained the decision. Our relatively new Clerk, who had just recently signed a five year contract, promptly retired immediately after.

Complainant Councillors vow they did not see the decision before they made the decision to "strip" the Integrity Commissioner of his authority.

Other Councillors who were neither complainants nor complained about, were refused the decision because they did not sign the complaint.They were Councillors but not complainants.
Apparently it made a difference.

Following council's direction, staff are recommending a legal firm to replace the erstwhile Integrity Commissioner who was stripped of his authority after making and submitting his decision. According to the Mayor. the new arbiter of ethics, is to deal with a complaint in which staff have been implicated by the Mayor.

The Chief Administrative Officer, acting as spokesperson, has informed the media, "we" decided an Integrity Commissioner should have a legal background.

I am not sure who "we" are. I was not a party to any such discussion or decision. Nor were others. I fear a resolution to that effect might be hard to locate in the public record.

The selection process was as follows. A Request for Proposal was advertised. There were six responses. Proposals were evaluated on points scored. Highest score, successful proponent.

An appointment is recommended. Not making any appointment at this time is a suggested option. The report was received by Council in Committee.

Council in committee is recommending the recommendation to appoint to Council for ratification.

Herein lies my dilemma. I am not sure I should participate in the debate and vote. But if I don't, neither should six other members of council. Nor, since the Mayor has made staff party to the complaint against me, still pending, I am not sure staff should be participating either in the recommendation of a new Integrity Commissioner.

But we all know what happens to anyone who crosses the Mayor's intentions.

I can see my Scottish mother. One arm crossed over her chest, the other raised to her face, chin resting between thumb and forefinger pressing into her cheek. I hear her voice.

"Imagine that" she would say in disbelief. "Is that no' the limit?"