Editor: They are standing up for our community despite the consequences. A few Chatham-Kent councillors have hallmarked themselves to the taxpayers by demonstrating their duty of loyalty and care, their legal and ethical obligation by challenging administration.
When councillors attempt to hold administration accountable are met with sanctions from the integrity commissioner, are they truly free to represent the citizens? The role of council is not merely advisory, but a fiduciary responsibility to act on behalf of the citizens to manage the assets of Chatham-Kent and provide oversight of administration by directing administration as a whole or by directing administration via the CAO.
Elected officials hold a higher authority than appointed administration.
Reports have found a few councillors in violation of council’s code of conduct. Such findings seem to stem from earnest efforts by these councillors to hold administration accountable.
It seems these councillors, simply by doing their job – to represent the public – has become a punishable offense.
It seems the council code of conduct is being used, not as a guide for ethical behavior but as a means to silence our elected representatives.
Our administration has its own code of conduct, governing how administration must behave, however, administration enforces its own code. Why is the administration’s code of conduct not subject to the same strict enforcement as councils code?
This double standard undermines the very purpose of an elected council. Government management appears to be intentionally stripping the power of elected representation so they can run things.
Government could expand the integrity commissioner’s mandate to include investigating the conduct of senior municipal staff or specific administrative actions that show violations of staff code. I suspect this won’t happen solely because they want control over elected representation and subsequently us.
If elected officials cannot challenge administration without fear of reprisal, the balance of power is broken. There then is no need for an elected body, no representation for citizens, such becomes an administration’s world, to do as they want rather than what the people rely on their elected officials to control. The management side of government has created easy legislative steps to sanction elected officials, via an integrity commissioner, all the while, government management has created costly roadblocks for the public to hold administration accountable.
It strongly appears administration is misinterpreting the spirit and intent of the code of conduct. A healthy and functional government requires open and, at times, robust debate between elected and administrative officials. To stifle such is to undermine the very principles of accountability and good governance the code of conduct is meant to uphold.
The integrity commissioner’s interpretation of the code may be too broad and restrictive, removing elected authority away from council, placing administration more in a position for control rather than effective management governed by responsible scrutiny.
Placing more nails in our democratic coffin, folks, the province has introduced Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act 2025, providing added authority for the integrity commissioner to recommend removal of a councillor for code violations.
When questioning senior staff, my experience is unequivocal, they are adverse to transparency.
One councillor suggested training for council. Council should adopt a standard to ask staff for clarification in a manner not perceived to question staff’s integrity but compels staff to be complete, comprehensive, accurate, transparent and able to substantiate staff claims.
John Cryderman
Chatham
Editor’s note: According to the Ontario Ombudsman, “Integrity commissioners are intended to perform the functions assigned by a municipality in an independent manner.” They operate independently of municipal staff or councillors.
