Online Town Hall

We hear it at the beginning of every council meeting. “Are there any statements of a pecuniary interest?” But how many people really know the significance of this simple question?

The prime responsibility of elected officials is to act in the public interest. If a Council member has a pecuniary interest, it is possible that they will be influenced by it when contributing to debate, voting or performing other duties as a member of Council. Potentially a councillor could act to promote their own private interests, rather than the public good. Not only is this unethical…it is illegal.

And so the question is asked at the beginning of any meeting, and it is expected that any councillor with a pecuniary interest announce the fact and abstain from discussion on the issue.

But wait!

As some of you may know, my spouse works for the City…isn’t this a blatant conflict of interest? In some very specific situations the answer is YES, however most of the time the answer is clearly NO.

The Municipal Act requires a council member to declare a conflict of interest if he or she has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter under consideration. A member must also declare a conflict if he or she has some other, non-pecuniary type of interest that places the person in a conflict position (e.g., bias). This could include any benefit obtained by relations, close friends, or associates of a member who is in conflict. Examples may include a rezoning application by a relative or close personal friend or a business license decision involving a competitor business to one operated by a close friend. The facts of each situation will be unique and will need to be considered when determining if a member is in a non-pecuniary conflict of interest situation.

The Act provides for some exceptions to the conflict and inside/outside influence restrictions which include:

•    the council member’s pecuniary interest is an interest in common with the electors of the municipality;
•    the council member’s pecuniary interest, related to a local service, is in common with other persons who are or would be liable for the local service tax;
•    the matter under consideration relates to the remuneration, expenses or benefits payable to local government officials in their capacity as members of council of the municipality;
•    the pecuniary interest is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be viewed as likely to influence the member;

The Guelph Mercury blog “59 Carden Street” recently published the following comment;

Was there “An unusual beginning” to the budget meeting;did any member of council declare a pecuniary interest?One would assume/expect that if a councillor’s spouse works for the City that the former would declare this fact and,at the very least,not vote for that department’s budget items nor any contractual agreements pertaining to the spouse’s employment position?Bussing and busing, do not the combining of the two bring up the appearance of pecuniary interest,if not,conflict of interest?
Posted by: Grunt | February 20, 2008 at 03:17 PM

I am incredibly proud of the career my wife has chosen. As a driver for transit she helps hundreds of people get where they need to go, be it work school, or shopping. For many people the bus is their only means of transportation and Ruth not only provides a safe and comfortable ride, she runs a tight ship (on more than one occasion she has stopped the bus to read the riot act to unruly teenagers on the bus, much to the appreciation of other passengers)

However, does Ruth’s job compromise my position as a City councillor? Let’s look at the specific issues being raised by Grunt and the reasons why there were no pecuniary conflicts at last night’s Council meeting.

Council passed several budget items specifically relating to transit.
•    The provision of 20 minute transit service
•    The hiring of several new transit mechanics
•    The approval of a transit fare increase (to help pay for the 20 min service)

These service improvements affected everybody who takes transit. Come July we will all be able to catch a bus more frequently, no real direct benefit to me or my family although I will appreciate not having to listen to my daughter complain about having to wait so long for a bus.

Transit will need to hire more drivers and technicians but this has little to no impact on those already employed  by transit except the benefit of having more people attend the annual Christmas party.

The fare increase has a direct impact on my family because we will now have to pay more to take a bus however this also affects everyone else and so once again this is not considered a pecuniary interest.

Grunt did raise a valid issue of conflict relating to my participation in contract negotiations however the budget as passed simply honoured the existing collective agreement as signed by the previous council in 2006. the current contract comes up for negotiation in 2010 and yes, at that time I will declare a conflict of interest and abstain from discussion and voting on that issue.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm and is filed under Personal Soapbox. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.