The Integrity Commissioner’s Report [Correction 2014-04-08]
06 Sunday Apr 2014
Written by parry034 in Parry Sound, Reflections
[See the last paragraph, after the photo for the correction. The original text has been highlighted with a strike through font.]
The Integrity Commissioner’s report of March 24, 2104 is worth reviewing in light of the Kangaroo Court session held by Parry Sound Council on March 25th. The Commissioner’s report and recommendations are not quite as nuanced as they may seem. Here’s a link to the report on the Town’s website (yes it’s there, go find it). Here’s a separate link to the report hosted at this site in case you have any challenges navigating the Town’s webpage and finding the correct report.
Reading the Report and then reviewing current Town rules and regulations it becomes obvious Council is permitted to dismiss any board or committee member, including the Chair of the Downtown Business Association, unilaterally as the rules currently stand. They are able to do this without any requirement to speak with the individual, and without cause. It can be done because enough members of Council don’t like the individual, they feel some sort of political threat, or if there is a performance issue. That’s because there are no rules or regulation of board and committee members and how they are treated.
It’s hard to discuss or negotiate changes in performance or behavior with a board or committee member if there is no actual issue or the underlying issue is personal dislike. But it is certainly possible, and advisable, to discuss performance issues and request a change. In the case of an impasse it’s always an option for the individual to resign. Being removed from a Board must be considered as being “dismissed with prejudice”. It’s a very public ‘slap in the face’ for what Ms. McWalter has contributed and accomplished as a volunteer in Parry Sound.
Can you imagine Council deciding to terminate a Town employee in a closed session of Council without any previous interaction with that employee at any level? It would immediately precipitate a lawsuit or a union grievance. People we pay to provide a service to the Town have protection from the capricious behaviour of Council, but not our volunteers?
This disconnect seems to be at the core of the Integrity Commissioner’s report and recommendations. Because there are no rules or regulations concerning the management of committee and board members the Commissioner was unable to find that Council was at fault in breaching these rules and regulations. No regulation or rule; no foul.
The Commissioner went on to recommend that Council develop the necessary rules and policies regarding the management of boards and committees. That was all the commissioner could do. Reading the report, and listening to the Commissioner’s presentation to Council, it did seem that she was annoyed with Council’s action with respect to the process by which they decided to remove Ms. McWalter from the DBA Board.
In the absence of rules and regulations can you imagine six members of council deciding to get rid of the seventh number? Heck, but for regulations it could be done with only three members of Council and the Mayor. And they could do it one Council member of a time. But they can’t, because there are rules and regulations. That’s why we, as a society, accept being governed by the rule of law.
The action of Council to remove Ms. McWalter seems arbitrary, unilateral and intended to inflict maximal humiliation. This was obvious to three of the counselors who voted against the resolution. Provided below in bold is the excerpt from the Council minutes identifying the resolution and the recorded vote. I wasn’t surprised to see which Councillors voted against the resolution. I was surprised by one individual who did vote yes, and basically swung the vote.
Item 7.1 Board Governance – Membership, Parry Sound Downtown Business Association Board of Directors
Spokesperson: Rob Mens, C.A.O.
Resolution 2014 – 056
Moved by Councillor Horne
Seconded by Councillor Keith
That the appointment of Lis McWalter to the Downtown Business Association Board be revoked, effectively immediately.
Recorded Vote
Borneman No
Horne Yes
Keith No
McCauley Yes
Saulnier Yes
Williams No
McGarvey Yes
Carried
After four years of remarkable success I believe Resolution 2014 – 056 will go down as a black mark on Council’s record. From where I sit as an involved member of the community the action of Council seems capricious and malicious.
I would like to offer a suggestion. Council should take a step back and reinstate Ms. McWalter to the Downtown Business Association Board. The DBA can decide whether or not she should remain in the position of Chair. Council and Staff at the same time can draft, discuss and pass appropriate rules and regulations regarding the management of boards and committees. With this information in hand Council can then meet with Ms. McWalter and discuss whether there is an issue under the approved rules and regulations. If there is an issue, a good faith attempt should be made to reach agreement on remedying the situation. If an agreement cannot be reached there should be the opportunity for Ms. McWalter to resign. We all don’t agree on everything, that’s why there are rules and regulations. Removing a member of a committee or board without their request should be the last route of action. These are volunteers, not Staff or Council who are paid for their services. They are not to be kicked around at the whim of Council.
Flying by the Seat of Their Pants? (Parry Sound in Black & White)
An aside, flying under the CP Trestle will get you in big trouble, but you’re okay flying a few feet off the ice. It’s all about rules and regulations.
An interesting piece of information. Under Robert’s Rules of Order the action to remove Ms. McWalter from the DBA (revoke her appointment) would not have passed. The 3 to 3 tie would have defeated the resolution. The Mayor would not have had the right to cast the deciding vote as he did. But Council is governed by the rules (here we are with rules again) of the Ontario Municipal Act, which incorporates much from Robert’s Rules of Order, but not the rule preventing a chair from breaking a tie vote. Please note that I was incorrect in suggesting that Robert’s Rules of Order did not permit the chairperson to vote. They certainly do. Thanks to Ryan for pointing this out. Please take a look in the comments section for a discussion of the issue. I apologize for my confusion on this point of order.
No comments
April 7, 2014 at 3:33 pm
I don’t disagree with them doing that; they appointed her to represent the interests of Council and they should absolutely be able to revoke that appointment as they see fit. Anyone who can’t live with those terms should not stand for the appointment.
April 7, 2014 at 4:29 pm
I agree with you regarding their ability to revoke an appointment. That point was made in the post. The issue concerns process or lack of it, and I believe I outlines that in the post as well.
If you are correct about what appointees should expect with respect to being on a committee or board, then I fear we will not have many volunteers going forward. The volunteers actually work on behalf of the Town, not Council. Council is just the body we elect to represent our best interests, and conduct themselves in a manner that we would support. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you seems to be a reasonable way for them to operate.
Individual members of Council would not choose to treated in the fashion that they have treated this volunteer. There can be differences of opinion but there must be a discussion of the issues and resolution, not simply ‘shit canning’ someone.
It’s an election year and it seems nerves are starting to show.
April 7, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Hi Jo, I’ve been following this story with great interest. Thank you for bringing it to our collective attention. Kathleen
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Parry Sounds wrote:
> Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com posted: “The Integrity Commissioner’s > report of March 24, 2104 is worth reviewing in light of the Kangaroo Court > session held by Parry Sound Council on March 25th. The Commissioner’s > report and recommendations are not quite as nuanced as they may seem. > Here’s a li”
April 8, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Hi Jo,
Thanks for your blog. I’m curious about your statement
“An interesting piece of information. Under Robert’s Rules of Order the action to remove Ms. McWalter from the DBA (revoke her appointment) would not have passed. The 3 to 3 tie would have defeated the resolution. The Mayor would not have had the right to cast the deciding vote as he did.”
That would be some great irony if the mayor himself violated Roberts Rules in order to punish someone else, he claims, for violating Roberts Rules! I wonder though if that isn’t too good to be true?
The FAQ on the official Roberts website seems to say that the head can vote just as McGarvey did:
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1
“Question 1:
Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie?
Answer:
No, it is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the voting body, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. So, in meetings of a small board (where there are not more than about a dozen board members present), and in meetings of a committee, the presiding officer may exercise these rights and privileges as fully as any other member. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of any other type of assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the rights to make motions or speak in debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result.
When will the chair’s vote affect the result? On a vote that is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, the chair can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds. [RONR (11th ed.), pp. 405-6; see also Table A, p. 190 of RONRIB.]”
Am I reading this wrong?
April 8, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Ryan, thanks for your thoughtful response. You are correct and I erred in my reading of Roobert’s Rule of Order. Here is what I read.
“When a quorum [64] is present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is in order, except those mentioned in 48, which require a two-thirds vote. A plurality never adopts a motion nor elects any one to office, unless by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. On a tie vote the motion is lost, and the chair, if a member of the assembly, may vote to make it a tie unless the vote is by ballot. The chair cannot, however, vote twice, first to make a tie and then give the casting vote. In case of an appeal [21], though the question is, “Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly?” a tie vote, even though his vote made it a tie, sustains the chair, upon the principle that the decision of the chair can be reversed only by a majority, including the chair if a member of the assembly.” (http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-08.htm#46, see item #64.
The text indicates that the Chair can vote to tie a vote, not vote to tie and then vote again to defeat or pass the motion.
It’s my error and I apologize for any confusion. That’s why I’m not the chair of a committee. But I think there is enough irony all around without this.