Draft for City of Medicine Hat code of conduct revealed
By COLLIN GALLANT on February 14, 2024.
cgallant@medicinehatnews.com@CollinGallant City council will debate a new proposal on how to deal with complaints made under their code of conduct policy, potentially opening up the process to the public and staffers under a defined process. The administrative and legislative committee meeting Tuesday accepted a draft of the policy – called for last fall – and heard from the city solicitor’s office the document adds flexibility to investigate and potentially resolve complaints or sanction offside behaviour, but under a better defined process. “It’s an excellent upgrade from what we had, but there are some clarity questions,” said Coun. Andy McGrogan, chair of the ALR committee, which sent the issue to council for debate and approval. The code of conduct is a requirement of the Municipal Government Act, and was first adopted in Medicine Hat in 2018 with minor changes in 2022. The issue came into focus last fall however, when critics called for a review of council’s decisions and response to utility pricing. As well, the ALR committee did receive a formal complaint in the summer, which, by definition of the present policy, involved two council members. The specifics of that matter have not been made public. Under the new policy, the particulars of such a complaint would become public if fault is determined by a third-party investigator, after several stages outlined in the 24-page policy. Mayor Linnsie Clark attended the meeting and was provided an opportunity to comment by the chair. “I agree with a lot of what’s been said,” Clark said, adding more would be said during council debate. “I don’t feel as though council should investigating council; it’s better optics to have an external investigator is better. “I’m in favour of an integrity commissioner model, and they could investigate both (complaints) and whistleblower issues.” The changes would: – Expand the definition of who can make a complaint to include staff members or the public, rather than just councillors; – Outline social media, add discrimination and harassment as problematic behaviour, adds pecuniary interests and defines conflict of interest language – Layout timelines for complaints would see an initial report to the city clerk forwarded within seven days to council’s ALR committee, which has 30 days to determine if an external investigator is required, if needed, within 90 days in most cases. It also recommends early mediation, and give final determination of breeches to third party investigators. They would have the ability to determined the seriousness of the breach, dismiss complaints considered frivolous, vexatious, are made in bad faith, or lacking evidence. Complaints filed within two months before a municipal election would be dealt with following the first meeting of the next council term. Solicitor Rex Osivwemu, who drafted the changes, said they are based on best practices, and allow for early resolution. “A formal complaint doesn’t necessarily have to go to a third-party investigator,” said Osivwemu. The matter could be dismissed by the committee, sent to mediation, or minor sanction, such as requesting an apology, he said. If complaints advance to a third-party investigation, the result would be brought back to the ALR committee. If there is a level of culpability, council would determine potential sanctions including a letter of reprimand, making a apology, removal from committees, or suspension of pay. Other members of the committee said they welcome a better definition of how to interact with public complaints, or direct questions or advocacy on issues. Coun. Robert Dumanowski said, “Nothing has really changed (in the update definitions) but there are outliers where cases are obvious. “Public office is a different environment and it’s difficult to determine when you’re in the role … we don’t have the luxury of having a private persona,” said Dumanowski, describing sections on pecuniary matter and conflicts of interest. “If you’re a lifelong Hatter, you’re probably connected to everybody.” “You can’t cover off every scenario,” said city chief solicitor Ben Bullock. “But this covers the main ones.” “Walking in to a department and ordering staff to do something,” is probably a contravention, but generally bringing concerns or asking questions through the proper chain of command wouldn’t. City manager Ann Mitchell said councillors shouldn’t be put in jeopardy or accused of favouritism by doing their jobs, and the process should take that into account. “Advocating for the citizenry is part of (council members) official duties, so bring it to me … so it’s not subject to interpretation,” she said. 31-30
