As every last RM councillor and Reeve has been told; now is annual time to distance oneself from real and perceived instances of upcoming potential situations that could become the subject of an Ombudsman complaint of how your public duties could be seen and used as opportunities for inappropriate personal or personally connected gains.
A truly simplified interpretation of the Provincial statutes and guidelines might be that it goes as far as family members living under a councillor's roof. I know I've seen that quote made in public.
Perhaps a much better two page guide is seen at this link below. Is it too much to ask every councillor to read such material. For those who got nothing out of SARM workshops it just might trigger an epiphany. In fact the heading (above) may be more compelling if it came back with an updated heading in the future.
HERE"S THE LINK
https://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/uploads/document/files/conflict-of-interest-web-en.pdf
Now I have had such an epiphany just this morning. Perhaps the most important disclosure any councillor could make is that any agreement or understanding amongst the sitting councillors to allow all decision making on a division wide basis at the prerogative of a council member; is wrong and that in filling out those very serious "Disclosure documents" it is made clear that is one of the material facts that could be seen as a connection that might influence a councillor's vote. The practical result being there will be an appropriate future distancing from personal agreements previously made around the entire (or partial) council table.
You know it violates the basic concept that a majority of council decides every matter before council; and that every council decision (and adopted current bylaws and the Municipalities act itself) are the only ways that anyone gains their "authority to Act" on behalf of ratepayers concerning Municipal affairs. And making it seen that those decisions are all made impartially and outside family compacts; and more important valued friendships which are not intended to be endangered by speaking one's own mind and representing the best interests of the electorate. It certainly might be a case of the fix already being in.
Anyways...please read the document referred to above and comment. Otherwise there is a very strong risk of being the subject of the Ombudsman's 1000andths and some subject of complaint in Sask.
Thus appropriately curing the situation of an automatic OK for the sitting councillor to necessarilly have his own way on any matter pertaining to "his" division.
A truly simplified interpretation of the Provincial statutes and guidelines might be that it goes as far as family members living under a councillor's roof. I know I've seen that quote made in public.
Perhaps a much better two page guide is seen at this link below. Is it too much to ask every councillor to read such material. For those who got nothing out of SARM workshops it just might trigger an epiphany. In fact the heading (above) may be more compelling if it came back with an updated heading in the future.
HERE"S THE LINK
https://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/uploads/document/files/conflict-of-interest-web-en.pdf
Now I have had such an epiphany just this morning. Perhaps the most important disclosure any councillor could make is that any agreement or understanding amongst the sitting councillors to allow all decision making on a division wide basis at the prerogative of a council member; is wrong and that in filling out those very serious "Disclosure documents" it is made clear that is one of the material facts that could be seen as a connection that might influence a councillor's vote. The practical result being there will be an appropriate future distancing from personal agreements previously made around the entire (or partial) council table.
You know it violates the basic concept that a majority of council decides every matter before council; and that every council decision (and adopted current bylaws and the Municipalities act itself) are the only ways that anyone gains their "authority to Act" on behalf of ratepayers concerning Municipal affairs. And making it seen that those decisions are all made impartially and outside family compacts; and more important valued friendships which are not intended to be endangered by speaking one's own mind and representing the best interests of the electorate. It certainly might be a case of the fix already being in.
Anyways...please read the document referred to above and comment. Otherwise there is a very strong risk of being the subject of the Ombudsman's 1000andths and some subject of complaint in Sask.
Thus appropriately curing the situation of an automatic OK for the sitting councillor to necessarilly have his own way on any matter pertaining to "his" division.
Comment