Kelowna Mayor, Sharon Shepherd, believes the only way to quash an appeal of a court ruling in favour of the Simpson Sawmill Covenant is through the actions of a new City Council. "The only way this can be stopped is to re-open the debate. The only way to do that is through a new council," says Shepherd. "It will take a new council to defeat this approach." Shepherd was reacting to a council decision Monday morning to appeal the B.C. Supreme Court ruling to the B.C. Court of Appeals. City Clerk, Stephen Fleming, told reporters following Monday's council meeting any appeal would likely not be heard until the spring of 2009. In a press release issued late Monday night, Shepherd indicated she would run for re-election to defeat the covenant appeal. She says the appeal should become an election issue. "I feel this should now be in the hands of the electorate, which will go to the polls on November 15, and encourage everyone to consider asking every candidate if they will vote to defeat the appeal of the covenant. My answer is already that I will." Shepherd stopped short of indicating how she voted during the in-camera debate on the appeal. Legally, in-camera votes are to remain private. When asked about the process, Fleming told reporters councillors could face serious repercussions if they revealed how they, or any other councillor voted. Fleming says that would contravene the Community Charter.
Shepherd says from the beginning, council has felt confident it was doing the right thing. She says most people in the community don't care about the details, they feel the covenant protects city owned land. "I think they are tired of this debate." Shepherd admits her decision will cause her some grief with her fellow councillors, but felt she had to speak out. I continue to support these initiatives of council, but to walk proudly in the City of Kelowna, I cannot defend the approach taken by council today (Monday). I am willing to deal with any of the consequences as a result of this decision and can only apologize to the citizens for not being able to bring forward a different decision than was reached Monday. She says when she ran for mayor, she stated her support of the "spirit and intent of the covenant. "I have not lost sight of that promise."
-------------------
Don Quixote Note: What is interesting in this report is the position of the City Clerk Stephen Fleming that revealing of the in-camera vote would contravene the Community Charter. Moreover it was against the Charter to reveal how they or any other councilor voted.
In Vernon this particular point was addressed three or four months ago when Coun. Beardsell asked for an actual vote in open council of a matter that was been declassified from in-camera. It was opined by the City Clerk and/or administrator as I recall that such a vote would be contrary to the charter and that the results of the in-camera vote would not be revealed. (Moreover such a motion could not be seconded or brought to the floor for debate.) HOWEVER, any councillor was as free as always to state his vote in relationship to a declassified in-camera vote but was restricted from telling how any other councillor voted or indeed the total vote either for or against.
This particular decision now in retrospect seems to contradict the advice from the Kelowna City Clerk. As it also has implications for the Coldstream Council who seem to be intent on bringing such a motion to the floor in September it will hopefully be sorted out by their City Clerk prior to this first meeting of Council after the summer hiatus.
---------------------
Yes.
1003No.
326 Don`t know.
80Total Votes: 1409
3 comments:
Can you or anyone else point out the section that prohibits a motion to declassify an in-camera issue?
One of the biggest threat to a democratic society is the secrecy in which our politicians operate. They are doing OUR business, we pay for their decisions, thus, we should know for what we are paying.
While the Charter intends to protect the public this secrecy appears to protect the politicians from the public they are supposed to serve.
Interpretation of the intent of the Charter should not be left to municipal officers or to lawyers: it should be ruled on by judges.
There are no provisions of the Charter that prohibit the declassification of an in-camera issue. In camera issues are regularly declassified by Vernon Council. (Almost every meeting)
They are voted on in open Council as to the declassification only and are routinely passed. They do not re vote or reaffirm the vote that was taken in the In-camera (Darkside) session and the declassified motion decision is brought into the open minutes as being either approved or defeated but no vote totals or Council names are revealed.
This seems to be the contenious part of the incamera resolution. Kelowna Clerk states emphatically that the vote total can not be revealed and the Council Member is forbidden from disclosing how they voted.
The Vernon experience (as I remember it) is that the Councillor CAN reveal how he or she voted BUT CANNOT reveal the total or how others may have voted. This is for declassified incamera motions only. This seems to me to be the remedy most in keeping with Canada's charter of Rights and Freedoms which gives freedom of speech a rightful position and should be available EVEN to politicians in this case.
Hopefully the Community Charter people can issue their interpretation of this section of the Community Charter so all City Clerks can defend a ruling that has been laid by the highest 'silly servant'.
I will try to lay out the situation to them via e-mail shortly and will post any reply I get.
The trouble is by allowing each councillor to reveal how they voted independently you end up having a clear picture of the in-camera session which is protected because of the nature of the discussions. This is to protect the individual Councillors from litigation as much as anything else.
The Kelowna interpretation is right and individual Vernon Councillors who feel they may be doing the public a service by revealing their voting in an in-camera session are doing precisely the opposite by exposing themselves and therefore the City to litigation. Remember, in-camera is for personnel, land and legal issues. Issues that if made public could expose the City to liability. Remember, it is the taxpayer that ends up paying if the City is successfully sued. Well, really MIA, but if the premiums go up, it affects the taxpayer where it hurts.
In-Camera issues are not something that should be trifled with for something as trivial as curiousity. Items that are de-classified must be done so from the perspective of risk management.
As it turns out, the de-classified items rarely expose the City of Vernon. Most actually seem rather silly that they were even considered in-camera in the first place. Not so the Simpson Covenant case.
Coldstream Council needs to be very careful about what they reveal because it may be the root of a defamation of character lawsuit, not a wrongful dismissal suit. Hard to sue for wrongful dismissal when you were a volunteer.
Post a Comment