Terrace Review: —— Wednesday, November 27, 199] | GO OF INTEREST ~ A Supreme Court decision throws an interesting light on recent events in local politics. ANALYSIS. FE. politicians, what is conflict of interest? How do they recognize it? How do they deal with it? Conflict of interest charges seem to have become the politi-_ cal weapon of choice for the ‘90's, and in some cases, the perfect excuse not to attend or to vote at a meeting. In an effort to clarify this issue, the Vancouver law firm of Lidstone, Young, Anderson sent a memo to all their governmental clients. The City of Terrace was on that mailing list, and city council _ considered the advice the memo contained with some curiosity. As the result of a B:C. Supreme Court decision. on Oct. 23, the rules of the game have apparent- ly been modified to the point where municipal governments may never be able to vote on specific issues. The case cited by Lidstone, Young, Anderson was Harwood Industries Ltd. and the Bible Fellowship Housing Society vs. the District of Surrey. It seems one Surrey aldermen deemed himself in conflict because he was a member of the housing society which had a rezoning application before council. The alderman, therefore, observed standard procedure and left council chambers while the matter was dealt with by his peers. The result of the vote in that case was a tic. Under the Muni- cipal Act, a tie is a negative by Tod Strachan. sion is (without commenting on the decision which may be under appeal) that a Council member who truly does wish to not participate in a vote on an issue must absent him or herself from the entire Council meeting prior to the vote. The minutes should record only who was present at the commencement of the Coun- cil meeting, and until the speci- fic item comes on the agenda and the vote is taken, a Council member not wanting to partici- pate ought not to attend the Council meeting. Thereafter the Council member could presum- ably join the Council meeting in session and the minutes would record the time that such mem- ber joined the Council meeting for the first time." So it is clear. If a city alder- man perceives himself in con- flict on a particular issue, he enters the meeting only after the issue has been dealt with. But according to Terrace city council this creates a problem. As alder- man Danny Sheridan points out, a situation could easily arise in which all city alderman felt they were in conflict, and that would mean the issue could never be placed on the agenda. The issue would sit in limbo forever, or at least an election — or two or three — down the road, when a council was formed with enough members not in conflict to form a quorum. But looking back at events in Terrace council chambers, the Supreme Court decision raises another interesting point that "If a city alderman perceives himself in conflict on a particular issue, he enters the meeting only after the issue has been dealt with. But according to Terrace city council, this creates a problem." vote, so the rezoning application was declined. But according to the Supreme Court, Surrey coun- cil had erred. Under Section 225 of the Municipal Act: "A mem- - ber of Council then present who abstains from voting shall be deemed to have voted in the affirmative." In other words, the abstaining alderman had effec- tively voted in the affirmative, breaking the tic, and the rezoning application was there- fore approved. Terrace’s city solicitors have therefore concluded: "It appears to us that the effect of the deci- may require we rewrite a bit of our recent history. On Aug. 10, 1987, alderman Bob Cooper left council chambers to defeat a motion that if approved would have called for an injunction against log hauling on Halliwell Ave. This is apparently not an uncommon practice in govern- ment. His departure left council without a quorum and the meet- ing was adjourned. Before he left, Cooper explained that if logging traffic were banned from Halliwell, the road may no longer be regarded as an arterial road and provincial _ deal with,” he said. © money for a reconstruction pro- ject would be lost. "There is too much at stake here for so few to It might be argued, though, that because Cooper has worked his entire life in the local log- ging industry, his departure was affected by his loyalty to this industry. This might be taking conflict of interest and turning it upside down, but the point is, in light of this latest revelation on conflict of interest, if Cooper’s departure from chambers was considered an abstention he was, ‘in effect, still present at the. meeting. And, physical quorum _ for reasons of conflict of inter- est. They would have, after all, been called upon to vote on a _. motion. that countered an earlier vote of council supporting the Orenda proposal. If such a decision were handed down, what might it mean? If the Supreme Court decision were to be taken literally, Cooper and Sheridan would effectively still - have been present and the meet- ing could have continued with- out a physical quorum. And affirmative votes might have - been + names on any motions regarding recorded against their council’s position on the Orenda issue. What might have happened to other items on the agenda is anyone’s guess. Was there a quorum or not? Should Cooper’s | and Sheridan’s votes be recorded. to the affirmative on all subse- quent items regardless of their view? On that agenda were items like adoption of a rezoning bylaw for the Skeena Sawmills log storage area, adoption of the "It makes me wonder where this thing is going.” — Alderman Danny Sheridan or not, perhaps the vote should have been taken and Cooper’s vote registered in the affirm- ative; in favour of the injunction. This, of course, would have countered Cooper’s intention, which was to have the matter held over to be dealt with at a later meeting when the mayor and all six city aldermen could be present for the vote. With this in mind, a tabling motion by Cooper might have been a safer — plan. A more recent example that might be questioned took place on July 8 this year. There were several items on the agenda, the | first being a delegation of about a dozen people wishing to speak against council’s apparent sup- port of the Orenda paper mill at the Dubose Industrial Site. The first speaker was Rob Brown, who outlined several environmental concerns, criti- cized city council for embracing the project without knowing what it was all about, and asked council to lobby Victoria to assure there would be a full and complete public review process. Cooper interrupted Brown after he had been speaking for about 15 minutes. "We’re not here to argue the pros and cons. If you want a political forum this is not the place." Brown continued and three minutes later Cooper left chambers and city hall. Two speakers later and an accusation | by one that council wanted to "fast-track" the Orenda proposal, alderman Danny Sheridan left. This left council without a quorum and acting mayor Ruth Hallock adjourned the meeting to the sound of boos and jeers of "unbelievable", "disgusting", and "shameful". The relevancy of this example may not be quite so clear. There was no motion on the floor to be dealt with. But there was a del- egation calling for council to make a motion and it may be possible that a judge might decide Cooper and Sheridan left new Animal Control Bylaw, the initial stages of the Corrections Centre rezoning, and the reloca- tion of Ottawa St. Looking at these examples, the memo from Lidstone, Young and. Anderson makes only one thing clear: the issue of conflict of interest is. now even more unclear than it was before the court’s decision. And as Sheri- dan puts it, "It makes me won- der where this thing is going.” Even Lidstone, Young and Anderson express concern. Ac- cording to their memo: "It seems onerous that a council member must stay away from all that part of the meeting prior to the one agenda item on which he or she wishes to abstain; however, the Court’s reasoning seems to require such conduct. "It should be noted that such _ requirement could itself promote political abuse since certain items of a contentious nature in ‘respect of which the vote was contemplated ‘tobe. close, but in respect of which there was’ not a conflict, could be put early on the agenda at meetings where it was known that one or more aldermen were likely not to be present because of a desire to truly not vote on another item later on the agenda." The bottom line: Politics. at all levels of government are now more complex, more open to imaginative criticism, more open to political abuse, and perhaps, a ‘lot more dangerous for those who choose a political career, than politics. have ever been before. The Supreme Court decision, therefore, rather than clarifying conflict of interest, may only have added to the erosion of political effectivencss. Terrace Interiors Ltd. 4610 Lazelle Ave. 635-6600 “All the supplies you need” . Exterior and interior paints scomplete line of blinds ACROSS 85 Eng. schoo! *Large selection of wallpaper + Man 58 Anger pOWN os sim, ere any In stock ave 2 Imitat 12 Boing business 62 Fuel 3 Rent ® PB oe above door 13 Smelt 83 Gape 4 Goes Into 11 Foot digit 14 River, Sp. Senatl 5 Toward 49 Eng. town 8 Substance 6 _... Lupino 20 Commemorative award —-- Gardner 7 Affection 22 Auiicle i ee tin Sh 21 Paradise a 18 a va s1¥5 33 Brn oppertield 23 Prevented HORE EEE EERE 37 Mark 2 Win tegerd to LXLO) 1 2 The Boe 31 Rescued 9% Fountain drinks Jj aj a} d hI) ayy a one aoe naps Be Merk unit FOCECED CREE 37 Citrus Irult orn a| 08 al x) als] TH al ¥ ol v 40 Eliminate 38 Fert. lo Navy 42 Post 38 Chart AOD Bon BEE 2 rie 3 Seawned ADE ELDCERE EE 47 Garret 43° That is Li 5] ¥] a Gd} a] Ly} a] a] Al Y 49 Scartett‘s home 44 Weland TEE GEEG St Outi chi 48 Debases a) 1) VE via Zvi al 52 arse an 48 Mine entrance 54 Grackle 60 Nimble OnE BRE: CGEEw # Fags line 3 oe 2} Of ut a ds ai WR BO Pola Negri, tnit. 4 a2 a4 5 |6 |? a 9 |to }it 12 3 14 ~~ 1% 16 a.) eee See Oe EE wa a erimerimeranmensie: are