Integrity commissioner motion ruled out of order

By Al Beeber - Lethbridge Herald on February 12, 2025.

LETHBRIDGE HERALDabeeber@lethbridgeherald.com

Mayor Blaine Hyggen on Tuesday ruled an official business motion regarding a proposed integrity commissioner be included in a council code of conduct bylaw was out of order because the matter had been dealt with previously.
A challenge by Acting Mayor Jeff Carlson failed by one vote to get the mayor’s ruling overturned.
Voting against Hyggen’s ruling were Carlson, Belinda Crowson, Jenn Schmidt-Rempel and Ryan Parker.
Council then voted 6-3 to give first reading to a motion arising brought forward by original OBM sponsor Crowson. That motion left out the reference to an integrity commissioner. Voting against that motion were Crowson, Schmidt-Rempel and John Middleton-Hope.
Crowson told council as she presented the first motion that she expected councillor Rajko Dodic to bring to council’s attention it had been previously addressed and to ask the mayor to make a decision on whether it could proceed or not. And Dodic did just that.
“One way or another, we should be changing this bylaw,” Crowson told council before Hyggen’s ruling.
Hyggen agreed with Dodic, ruling the OBM out of order as the integrity commissioner matter is one that was already addressed by council which falls under the scope of Section 176 of the procedure bylaw.
“With that, it can be challenged but the ruling that I’m making (is) that it is out of order,” stated the mayor.
Council previously dealt with the subject in 2021 before addressing it again in April of 2022. By a 6-2 vote, council declined in 2022 to give first reading to a motion that failed to get past its Governance Standing Policy Committee.
Crowson didn’t challenge his ruling so instead brought forward her motion arising to get it on the floor for review and possible second and third readings on Feb. 25.
Crowson called her motion arising a cleanup of the current code with some minor changes but which doesn’t allow the public to bring forward complaints about council.
Crowson said council knows it needs to update its code of conduct bylaw and two options exist. One was to do it in a way that only allows members of council to make complaints about other members, the other being to change the process so members of the public can make complaints about council.
If the latter approach was taken, the thought at a meeting of the Governance SPC was “it would be very difficult to investigate ourselves at that level,” said Crowson, therefore it was felt an integrity commissioner should be hired. And that would require a cost, the councillor added.
“This will seem like deja vu all over again” because the discussion has been going on for awhile, Crowson said.
Council heard from City solicitor Brian Loewen during discussion it is “best practice” to make sure that bylaws read consistent with superior provincial legislation, citing the passing last fall of Bill 20.
Crowson told council her amendment motion on Bylaw 6454, an amendment to Bylaw 6125 — was another approach to updating the council code of conduct bylaw, keeping complaints internally between members with a few other housekeeping matters.
Hyggen told members of the audience in person and online that procedures exist municipally and provincially to ensure matters would still be dealt with if something is awry with council.
“If we don’t make the changes to our bylaw that are consistent with the new legislation (Bill 20), to the extent that our bylaw remains inconsistent with that new legislation, it’s inoperative,” said Loewen.
Bill 6125 — a Bylaw of the City of Lethbridge to Establish a Code of Conduct for Members of Council – states its purpose is to “establish standards for the ethical conduct of members relating to their roles and obligations as representatives of the City and a procedure for the investigation and enforcement of those standards.
It also states that “as leaders in the community, members are held to a higher standard of behaviour and conduct and must be mindful that as public figures the lines between public and private behaviour are not readily apparent, nor easily distinguishable by the public at large.”
As representatives of the City, council members shall:
* act honestly and in good faith, serve the welfare and interests of the City as a whole;
* perform their functions and duties in a conscientious and diligent manner with integrity, accountability and transparency;
* conduct themselves in a professional manner with dignity and make every effort to participate diligently in the meetings of council, committees of council and other bodies to which they are appointed by council;
*arrange their private affairs and conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny.
The bylaw also states:
* A member must not claim to speak on behalf of council unless authorized to do so.
* Unless council directs otherwise, the Mayor is council’s official spokesperson and in the absence of the Mayor it is the Deputy Mayor, or if both are absent it is the Acting Mayor. All inquiries from the media regarding the official council position on an issue shall be referred to council’s official spokesperson.
* A member who is authorized to act as council’s official spokesperson must ensure that their comments accurately reflect the official position and will of council as a whole, even if the member personally disagrees with council’s position.
* No member shall make a statement when they know that statement is false.
* No member shall make a statement with the intent to mislead Council or members of the public.
“Not hiring an integrity commissioner creates difficulty when it comes to triaging, summarily dismissing and investigating complaints. These difficulties are amplified if any person is able to bring a complaint,” stated a report to council.
“Without an integrity commissioner, someone or council will need to receive complaints and initiate the complaint process. This individual(s) should not be the party named in the complaint, or a witness to the complaint. This ensures a procedurally fair and transparent process. Currently, that someone is the mayor or deputy mayor.”
The report adds “during an investigation, the benefit of an integrity commissioner, or an investigator is their ability and experience to move an investigation through the necessary process in a timely manner. If council is investigating, it will take additional time of councillors involved and may pose perceived issues when it comes to transparency and bias. Councillors that are witnesses should not be involved in the process as investigators, in order to ensure procedural fairness.”

3
-2