By Pam Wright
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Chatham-Kent council approved a new public conduct policy and trespass bylaw.
But at least one Chatham-Kent councillor is concerned the policy is an overreach, questioning the methodology used to determine who is breaking the rules.
Following a query by North Kent Coun. Rhonda Jubenville as to how misconduct by the public is decided, the municipality’s general manager of corporate services explained the process would begin with the employee, who would go on to consult with upper-level management if necessary.
According to Cathy Hoffman, the municipality already has an employee code of conduct and a council code of conduct, noting the public policy piece rounds out protection for staff and members of the public on municipal property.
“It’s becoming a best practice across the province with a number of other municipalities having already adopted public codes of conduct to have a fair process to manage these types of situations,” Hoffman said.
In short, Hoffman explained that if an incident takes place, the discussion can be “elevated” to legal services or the chief administrative officer to determine next steps depending on the “severity of the situation.”
“Therefore, this policy provides us with a process to be able to address those kinds of things,” she said, noting the bylaw provides a framework to keep municipal employees safe.
The new policy does not bring any additional costs, Hoffman added, as the municipality already deals with these issues.
Jubenville said she wanted to know what triggered the policy, citing the fact that the criminal justice system and the Ontario Human Rights Code are already in place to deal with infractions.
“I’m confused why we need another level of bureaucracy for us to monitor the public and deal with threats,” Jubenville said, emphasizing she doesn’t want the municipality to “hinder” the public’s ability to exercise their rights.
“If they’re doing so, in not a threatening way, I just find it a slippery slope that we could be engaging on,” the councillor said. “It feels a bit overreaching.”
Hoffman said the municipality recognizes that not all actions of public misconduct are criminal but may still break the rules.
In his remarks, CAO Michael Duben explained the policy provides a “mechanism” to deal with misconduct issues, noting it’s the municipality’s duty to engage with the public and that the scope of the policy is “much bigger” than employees simply being annoyed.
C-K legal solicitor Emily Crawford said that citing a member of the public for trespass is never done lightly, noting the municipality has a duty to provide the public with access to essential services.
Enacting the trespass bylaw would typically take in a “history of behaviour,” Crawford explained, to be used only in the “most extreme” of circumstances.
West Kent Coun. Melissa Harrigan expressed her support for the bylaw, noting it’s “important to have a policy to lean on.”
Harrigan used the example of “tense arguments” in the stands at arenas between hockey parents, saying she’s witnessed municipal staff asking people to leave because of disrespectful behaviour.
But she said people sometimes refuse, saying the arena is a public building paid for by their tax dollars.
“Ultimately we need to demand and require respect for everybody in the municipal setting and our community, and this policy does a great job of setting that bar,” Harrigan said.
The new policy allows C-K to trespass people, but an appeal process is also built in at a cost of $200.
The policy passed 15 to 3.
