We are pleased the CRD Governance Committee has deferred its discussion of the wobbly staff report Code of Conduct – Next Steps prior to it going to the full board.
It allows time to carefully reconsider restricting staff, volunteers, committee members or any member of the public from filing complaints under the Code of Conduct. In our view the staff report section under complaints offers little convincing rationale or adequate background to properly consider the issue.
The report states advantages, “Allowing complaints from members of the public has the advantage of providing a way to address breaches that other Directors may not be aware of. It also potentially reduces any insider bias that might discourage Directors from filing a complaint against their colleagues.”
But adds, “That said, broadening the class of complainants also has drawbacks. It may increase the number of complaints, particularly with a 24-member Board, and it has the potential to be used for political purposes.”
Where is the evidence to support these assertions? There’s no evidence in the latest annual reports to suggest this is the case in larger jurisdictions such as Vancouver or Surrey where the public is allowed to make complaints.
The volume of complaints in either municipality does not seem overwhelming at all. Nor is there evidence to suggest complaints are being used for political purposes. Provisions can be made to screen out vexatious complaints at any time and especially prior to elections.
The staff report continues with qualifications, “A code can include non-obstruction provisions and confidentiality clauses that will ensure an investigation is carried out in a fair and confidential way, however, those provisions do not apply to members of the public which could disadvantage the subject of the complaint.”
There’s also no evidence to suggest that this is the case after examining the annual reports and information from the ethics-integrity commissioners in neighbouring Edmonton and Calgary.
Restricting the class of complaints has far-reaching implications for good governance in the region and we urge the governance committee and CRD board to review staff recommendations. While it may smooth the administration of the program, this approach represents an opportunity lost to enhance public confidence.
So, why isn’t there one regional code of conduct for 13 neighbourhood jurisdictions and one regional district that’s administered by one regional ethics-integrity commissioner?
We are at a complete loss to understand why we aren’t using a standardized regional approach to ‘make a difference together.’