ROTHENBURGER: Things are seriously out of order around the council horseshoe

It started well enough. In anticipation of a motion from Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson that staff draw up a review of operations and a possible relocation of the storage facility used by the homeless along Victoria Street West, several people stood to speak during the Public Inquiries section of the agenda.

As I mentioned in an editorial earlier this week, the comments by business people as well as social agencies clearly illustrated the gulf between those whose focus is on helping the homeless, and those who have to put up with the crime and gross activity they bring to the street.

Yet, that discussion was enlightening, and a welcome change from the usual tight rein kept on questions from the public at council meetings.

But after the mayor introduced his motion, order began to break down. Coun. Bill Sarai first proposed, then withdrew, an amendment to do a review of all social services along Victoria Street West.

A few minutes later, Coun. Nancy Bepple moved that the Community and Protective Services Committee undertake a review of possible changes and improvements to services along the street.

A more experienced mayor might have ruled that amendment out of order because it materially changed the mayor’s original motion, but neither corporate officer Maria Mazzotta nor any of the three incumbent councillors, and certainly not the newbies, alerted him to that.

Coun. Kelly Hall tried to move an amendment to Bepple’s amendment (under rules of order, up to two amendments are allowed on the floor at the same time) that the results of the committee’s review be brought back to council.

That was unnecessary, as committees have no authority to make decisions on their own; they must seek council’s endorsement.

Mazzotta now entered the picture again, informing the mayor he could be in a perceived conflict with a motion covering the entire street (his business is at the opposite end from the storage facility across from City Hall).

In fact, she said, he could, in her opinion, be in a perceived conflict anyway, even on the 48 Vic West motion, even though CAO David Trawin (who was absent from the meeting on vacation) had earlier told Mayor RHJ he wasn’t. (It would have much reduced the confusion if she had alerted the mayor before the meeting that she’d changed her mind about deferring to Trawin and that she would raise the possibility of conflict in the meeting.)

Under the law, she said, 10 members of the public could take him to court if they perceived he had a conflict.

It was about this time that Coun. Katie Neustaeter engaged in an aggressive and unpleasant back and forth with the mayor, repeatedly asking about his “history” of business ownership on Victoria Street West.

There was, she insisted, a “clear conflict that is taking place,” and it “crosses into serious ethical territory for me.”

Well, the Community Charter allows exceptions to conflict of interest rules if the council member’s pecuniary interest is an interest in common with electors, and also if that pecuniary interest is remote and unlikely to have influenced him or her.

Mazzotta was correct when she said the only way to determine if a conflict exists is in court.*

The mayor wondered if he could hold off on his motion until he got legal advice. There was brief discussion of how to withdraw a motion or put it on hold but the mayor decided discretion was the better part of valor and recused himself.

If she was aware of the Vancouver case, the similarities between it and the mayor’s situation obviously escaped Coun. Neustaeter.

Coun. Kelly Hall then moved another amendment to Bepple’s amendment that staff review the services at 48 Vic Street West, and forward that review to the committee. So, we had an amendment contrary to the amendment on the floor, but it stood, and was approved unanimously with the mayor out of the room.

Coun. Margot Middleton thought council should then be voting on the first amendment and the motion but, no, an amended motion is voted on as one.

Learning the ropes is a big job for newly elected people, including the rules of order, but they need to figure them out fast. Some extra guidance from staff parliamentarian Mazzotta would help. At the least, it would save a lot of time.

I’ll close with a quote from a different Pacino movie, City Hall, in which he played a big-city mayor.

“There was a palace that was a city. It was a palace! It was a palace and it can be a palace again!”

Kamloops can be a palace again, if City Hall gets its ducks in order.

*(Ed. note: An earlier version of this column discussed the B.C. Supreme Court’s dismissal of a complaint regarding a Vancouver councillor’s conflict of interest issue. The case has since been appealed and is back under Supreme Court consideration. The column has been edited to remove reference to the case.)

——

Mel Rothenburger is a former mayor of Kamloops, alternate TNRD director and a retired newspaper editor. He is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.

by Mel Rothenburger

ROTHENBURGER: Things are seriously out of order around the council horseshoe

This Week in Flyers

This Week in Flyers

Our Community