Two new code of conduct complaints against Tantramar Mayor Debbie Wiggins-Colwell are being referred to the Local Governance Commission for review after tied council votes.
The complaints relate to a statement Wiggins-Colwell posted on the municipality’s Facebook page in the hours after the province announced the approval of the proposed gas/diesel plant near Centre Village and a vote after the fact to remove the post.
It is uncertain if the commission would only determine whether to proceed or dismiss, or if it would see the entire process through; but the tied votes left Councillor Kirsten LeBlanc wondering how council could move forward.
“ If someone were to bring forth, for example, a motion to vote on the government overseeing all of the two-step parts, is that a possibility rather than this coming back to us? Because these split votes are not . . . I’m sorry, but it’s not allowing much to proceed.”
Listen to the audio below:
In answering LeBlanc’s question, assistant clerk Chris Hill suggested the upcoming Union of Municipalities of New Brunswick conference would be a good place to further discuss the issue.
Deputy Mayor Josh Goguen agreed the split votes were troublesome.
The complaints
The first complaint was regarding a council decision made during a Sept. 3 special council meeting. In that meeting, council deliberated on whether to remove the aforementioned Facebook post from the mayor. The complainant argued Wiggins-Colwell may have violated several principles of Tantramar’s Council Code of Conduct by not recusing herself from the vote. As it happened, her vote broke the tie and the post was left up.
The complaint alleges that her voting “undermined the appearance of impartial and accountable government,” and that, even if council determined her vote didn’t meet the criteria for a conflict under the Local Governance Act, the appearance of bias remained such that “a reasonable member of the public could conclude that the mayor was using her position and vote to influence council’s response to her own actions.”
The second complaint was against the mayor for the posting of the letter in August, and alleges the mayor acted without council authorization or consultation. A similar code of conduct complaint against the mayor was voted on at the last regular council meeting and was dismissed in a 6-2 vote.
Procedure change
Deputy Mayor Josh Goguen opened the meeting by saying the complaints would proceed differently going forward, then gave the floor to Hill.
Hill said staff determined, after consulting with the ombuds’ office and legal counsel, if council wants to dismiss a complaint, it must first provide the complainant and affected member a chance to provide a brief written submission. Previously, council had gotten those statements prior to voting.
Because of this, it meant council could not consider a motion to dismiss the complaint outright during the meeting, but would have to wait until it received those submissions before it could vote at a later date.
He then told council about the procedure for referral to the Local Governance Commission in the event of a split vote.
Goguen then outlined council’s role at the screening stage, whereby council are not to determine or discuss the merit of the complaint, but only whether it could proceed based on three criteria laid out by the code of conduct bylaw – is it frivolous, vexatious or made of an improper use; was it filed within the three-month time period; and does it fall within the scope of the code of conduct.
The votes
On discussion of the first complaint, Councillor Barry Hicks didn’t waste time stating his position clearly from the outset.
“ Well, we had a mayor serve eight years before and voted his own vote on everything,” said Hicks. “(For) the code of conduct, he never left a room. So I think this is a crock.”
A brief back and forth between Goguen, Hicks and Councillor Haidee Robertson around the complaint and the changes outlined at the start of the meeting followed as Goguen tried to keep the meeting on track.
At this point, Councillor Alyssa Greene said she felt council should be included in the discussions administration had with the ombuds’ office and legal counsel, and expressed concerns there were relevant HR matters within the code of conduct complaint that couldn’t be discussed in the public meeting.
“ And I would suggest that maybe we have a closed meeting to discuss those concerns, because there are some related to the codes of conducts that have been coming in that I think we do need to have a meeting on. So I’d like to have it on the record that I’m suggesting that that would be an appropriate move.”
Goguen seemed taken aback by the claim, saying there were no HR files in the complaint as councillors are not considered employees and that Councillor Greene should take any HR concerns she has to the CAO.
Greene persisted, but didn’t offer more detail and reiterated she would like to discuss the matter behind closed doors. She also said she felt it wouldn’t be a code of conduct issue once the HR concerns were discussed.
There was some more back and forth, including CAO Jennifer Borne reiterating HR complaints should come to her and that, without knowing what Greene was referring to, it would be a separate matter from the code of conduct on the agenda.
Greene stated her wish to have a closed session a final time, and then Goguen got the meeting moving again.
Ultimately, both votes split the same way, with Councillors Hicks, Greene, Robertson and Wayne Wells voting to dismiss, and Councillors Butcher, LeBlanc and Tori Weldon, along with the deputy mayor, voting to proceed.
Read both code of conduct complaints here.
