Tim Probe removed from RM of Sherwood council

[chuckChuck]

Tim Probe removed from RM of Sherwood council
A judge ordered on Jan. 18 that he be disqualified from council, seat now vacant

CBC News Posted: Feb 07, 2018 7:12 AM CT Last Updated: Feb 07, 2018 7:12 AM CT
Tim Probe walks into the Court of Queen's Bench in Regina facing charges of municipal corruption and breach of trust.

Tim Probe has been removed from his position as a councillor for the Rural Municipality of Sherwood after refusing to resign.

Probe refused to resign after being found to be in a conflict of interest for his involvement in a council meeting on Jan. 13, 2016.

At that meeting, it was discussed whether or not Probe should reimburse the rural municipality for nearly $50,000 in legal fees. Probe did not recuse himself from those discussions before the council.

Probe and other members of council had incurred legal fees while testifying during another case. They had been reimbursed by the rural municipality for those fees.

After Probe refused to resign, the RM council brought an application to the Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan to have him disqualified.

A judge ruled on Jan. 18, 2018 that Probe be disqualified from council and his position on the rural municipality council is now vacant.

Probe is also facing criminal charges of municipal corruption and breach of trust. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

A judge is expected to issue his verdict on the criminal case in June.

[chuckChuck]

Is this case going to be a wake up call for RM councilors that they have to pay attention to conflict of interests?

Its likely that there are lots of councilors across the province who don't understand the conflict of interest rules and are putting themselves at risk.

[Guest]

this is good to see , if he is guilty , have not followed it at all . to bad it couldn't be made to stick in prov. (gth land deal) and federal politics(free unauthorized trips to private islands) (insider trading) as well . sure would be nice to see some accountability put back into prov and fed politics

[sumdumguy]

There's a fine line between conflict of interest and perceived conflict of interest. Some people take the "perceived" too far. They think that if you use the town skating rink, you shouldn't be on the rink board. Same with church boards. I think conflict of interest is where you financially benefit disproportionately. Sort of think that this may have been the Sherwood RM case here from what I read. You know the joke where the councillor's road is treated differently than mine?

[oneoff]

"Sum" ...

You're correct that there is a fine line between what is an outright conflict of interest and what a reasonable person could "perceive" as allowing the opportunity for being one and the same conflict of interest. In fact there is such a fine line that it is not meant to be visible.

And that; dear reader; is why any reading or interpretation of "conflict of interest" legislation or guidelines is quite explicit in stating that elected officials are to handle what the distant public sees at first glance; in the same way as known relationships between public representatives and people who have direct ties to those same representatives.


Its all about what could cloud impartial council decisions and accountability through blood relationships (or personal financial gain) and in addition; close family friends or even friendships and relationships and less well know ties to potential negative and positive benefits municipal representatives could convey through business arrangements, old grudges and opportunities taken to get even.

[oneoff]

Here's exactly what the Ombudsman says about "Conflict of Iinterest" legislation as well as how council members are to conduct themselves when such cases arise. Note that CLOSELY CONNECTED PERSON"S ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED

WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
The Municipalities Act sets out when a council member will have a confl ict of interest
in relation to a matter that is before council. Subsection 141.1(1) states that a
council member has a confl ict of interest if:
…the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the
execution of his or her offi ce and at the same time knows or ought reasonably
to know that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his
or her private interests or the private interests of a closely connected person.
Subsection 141.1(2) states that having fi nancial interest – including if a council
member could be adversely affected fi nancially by a decision of council - always
constitutes a confl ict of interest. Subsection 143(2) lists several situations in
which council members are considered not to have a fi nancial interest, even if
they could be affected fi nancially by a related council decision, but this situation
– Sherwood’s decision about seeking reimbursement of the legal fees – is not
covered by this list.
WHAT DO COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TO DO IF THEY HAVE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST? DECLARE, DISCLOSE, ABSTAIN, REFRAIN AND LEAVE
Subsection 144(1) states that, if a council member has a confl ict of interest in a
matter before the council, the member, must, if present:
• before any consideration or discussion of the matter, declare that he or she
has a confl ict of interest;
• disclose the general nature of the confl ict of interest and any material details
that could reasonably be seen to affect the member’s impartiality in the exercise
of his or her offi ce;
• abstain from voting on any question, decision, recommendation or other action
to be taken relating to the matter;
• refrain from participating in any discussion relating to the matter; and
• leave the room in which the meeting is being held until discussion and voting
on the matter are concluded.

[WiltonRanch]

Without some sort of oversight this will continue to happen. Locally a city had a mayor who fleeced the city by setting up an advisory position for a consultant before he resigned. As well, he created a deputy mayor position. When he resigned the deputy took over and hired the former mayor with a hefty retainer. If it wasn’t for concerned citizen calling bs and social media nothing would’ve happened. Aside from him paying some of his consulting fees back he got away. He even assumed a fake Facebook account to battle those who presented the evidence. Though when the election came anyone associated with him were punted and the new mayor brought in third party auditors.

[LEP]

Wilton. How is the new mayor doing? Keeping things above board?

Last municipal elections saw a pretty major changing of the guard with almost half of all positions being newbies.

All RM councillors have to sign disclosure forms. Still won't prevent things like GTH from happening. On the surface there was nothing to connect Boyd and Tappauff.

[WiltonRanch]

Wilton. How is the new mayor doing? Keeping things above board?

Last municipal elections saw a pretty major changing of the guard with almost half of all positions being newbies.

All RM councillors have to sign disclosure forms. Still won't prevent things like GTH from happening. On the surface there was nothing to connect Boyd and Tappauff.

New mayor appears to be transparent and honest. The previous group appeared shady and entrenched in the past.

Small government by nature of size and familial relationships can be quite tribal. Nepotism can rear it’s ugly head

[oneoff]

I'm of the opinion that councils and reeves would never dare to run "their" meeting as they do; if only those "public" meetings were televised in some form or other.

That and actually allow access to the information being considered in open sessions.

As it is now; you can sit through a whole meeting; without seeing or hearing hardly a shred of what should be the subject of the matter being decided. Between the BS and misinformation; and outright denial of facts and rebuttals; it is a near complete waste of any gallery attendee's time. Even when you wait for months for a submission to get before council; you can count on being threatened with RCMP removal if you attempt to say one word.

And I do know what I'm talking about; this isn't a riddle and conflicts of interest are rampant and not enforced when brought to council's attention.


A clear and present danger.

[LEP]

I think there is an ombudsmen to approach if you know of a conflict.

But I would be careful about crying wolf in a small community. If you have proof, go for it.

[WiltonRanch]

I'm of the opinion that councils and reeves would never dare to run "their" meeting as they do; if only those "public" meetings were televised in some form or other.

That and actually allow access to the information being considered in open sessions.

As it is now; you can sit through a whole meeting; without seeing or hearing hardly a shred of what should be the subject of the matter being decided. Between the BS and misinformation; and outright denial of facts and rebuttals; it is a near complete waste of any gallery attendee's time. Even when you wait for months for a submission to get before council; you can count on being threatened with RCMP removal if you attempt to say one word.

And I do know what I'm talking about; this isn't a riddle and conflicts of interest are rampant and not enforced when brought to council's attention.


A clear and present danger.

Sad thing is if this corruption is not cleaned up at the local level it gives reason for provincial government to amalgamate rms so there are less to deal with oversight. Even buffoonish spending of taxpayer money will warrant the same result if not brought to task. Then people do lose the advantage of having a local rm.

[chuckChuck]

Amalgamating RMs would help to reduce conflicts of interest and decisions that are often skewed by very local politics. It is hard for small RM councils to make difficult but necessary decisions that make rate payers unhappy with local councillors and reeves.

[WiltonRanch]

Amalgamating RMs would help to reduce conflicts of interest and decisions that are often skewed by very local politics. It is hard for small RM councils to make difficult but necessary decisions that make rate payers unhappy with local councillors and reeves.

True enough. However, smaller rm government if run properly can be more reactive to local situations than a larger regional type government. Sad reality of politics is people get the government they deserve. Apathy, and irrational people elect poor government or cause the loss of rights.

[GALAXIE500]

All councillors are to adhere to a " code of ethics" bylaw in their individual RM's. On our local council I have seen first hand how those "ethics" are interpreted and followed. The sooner there is an amalgamation , the better. Some of the crap that goes on in some of these little communities is pathetic,and needs to be changed. Time to clear out the driftwood!