No conflict of interest for the councillor: Integrity commissioner

Clearview Township’s integrity commissioner appeared before council Sept. 14 to defend a determination that Councillor John Broderick did not have a conflict of interest in moving the motion, nor in participating in discussions regarding the issue of allowing ATVs increased access to municipal roadways or trails.
Lawyers Janice Atwood-Petkovski and Jeffrey Abrams of Principles Integrity are appointed the integrity commissioner for Clearview and a number of other municipalities in Ontario. They state in a 12-page report dated Sept. 1, that “a report is not often warranted where allegations of conflict of interest or code violations are found not to be substantiated. In this matter, however, we are of the view that a public report is beneficial in that it provides guidance and clarification on a question that has received much public attention in Clearview. Its purpose is to ‘clear the air’ with respect to our determinations on the matter of whether a disqualifying interest existed,” they write.
“We find that there was no conflict of interest for the councillor under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) nor any apparent conflict of interest under the Code of Conduct. In conclusion, we find that the councillor has not violated any of the provisions of the Code of Conduct, nor of the MCIA,” states the report.
“We note that Councillor Broderick is but a single vote on council, and the decision to implement any changes allowing greater access of public roads to ATVs lies with council as a whole.”
Principles Integrity said it has received numerous complaints from residents claiming Broderick has a pecuniary interest in increasing access to ATVs because he owns a business that sells off-road vehicles. It is the claim of a lawsuit filed against him by Creemore resident Elise Beauregard.
Abrams and Atwood-Petkovski made it clear they do not take a position on the issue of ATV access, only on Broderick’s actions.
They spoke to the MCIA, which allows people in the community with various interests to hold public office.
They cite case law that found a real estate agent with no direct connection to the land or development can sit on council and make decisions about development projects.
“The court rejected the argument that a member of council who is a real estate agent will always have a pecuniary interest in matters of land use, because to adopt such a position could have the effect of impeding active business members of the community from holding public office and participating in an important and significant aspect of local government,” states the report.
Ultimately it is up to the council member to make the call as to whether or not they have a pecuniary interest.
Abrams told council, the pecuniary interest has to be “likely,” not just a “possibility.”
“Our role is not to function as a review body for council’s decisions. It is council’s responsibility to weigh the myriad of factors that support each council decision. It is therefore inappropriate for the office of the integrity commissioner to be used as a collateral attack on the merits of a proposal before council for consideration. Our role is to make independent assessments on whether a councillor has fallen short of an ethical standard that applies to them, and not to influence the outcome of a policy debate,” states Principles Integrity. “In that regard we play a unique role as an advisor to elected and appointed officials who are subject to the MCIA. We are empowered to provide binding advice to members who seek our advice, and that advice serves to protect members in the event a complaint is filed on the same facts and circumstances in which the advice was given.”

Photo: Lawyers Janice Atwood-Petkovski and Jeffrey Abrams of Principles Integrity (bottom right) joined Clearview’s Sept. 14 council meeting to present their findings that Councillor John Broderick (top right) had no conflict of interest in bringing forward a motion to open road access to ATVs.