Outrageous Public Code of Conduct Policy 8048 Back on Today’s Agenda
Administrative and Legislative Review (ALR) Committee
Today 4pm - Ted Grimm Conference Room
This is a public meeting, you can attend in person or join via Teams, link in the Agenda Packet
As always - The Trash Panda is the ONLY outlet to broadcast the meeting for viewing at a later date. The City does not record these meetings for public use.
At the end of the Nov 20 2023 Council meeting, Council directed Administration to do two things.
1 Create both a Safe Workplace Policy to address undesirable behaviours directed at city staff and to provide a process that allows restrictions on communication from members of the public.
2 Amend Council Code of Conduct Bylaw 4492 to allow members of the public to file complaints against Council Members and to hire an external investigator for all Council Code of Conduct violations. (This came after a complaint filed by a local resident against Councillor Shila Sharps was dismissed because the City had no policy for such complaints. Right now only Council Members are permitted to file complaints against Council Members.)
On March 2 2024 Council gave first reading to Council Code of Conduct Bylaw 4805 to replace Bylaw 4492.
Revised Council Code of Conduct Bylaw will not come into force until March 1 2025.
However, it appears that the Public Code of Conduct Policy 8048 will be in force much sooner. This matter was brought up at the August 13 Administrative and Legislative Review Committee meeting. Chair Andy McGrogan had concerns about the inclusion of items that were already covered under the legal system as well as some items that seemed to overstep. It was sent back to administration for adjustment.
Adjustments
It’s pretty obvious this document was altered in a hurry, formatting errors created a longer document. NB - typically the first person to do alterations will have their work show up in red, the second person’s alterations will show up in blue.
Pg 23 Items mentioning acts that would fall under the Criminal Code were removed.
Pg 24 These items were also removed or altered.
(j) Repeated, frequent, or simultaneous requests for information, whether or not those requests are made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, (Alberta);
(k)(h) Electronically recording meetings or conversations without the prior knowledge and written consent of at least one (1)the other partyies involvedparticipating in the meeting or conversation that is being electronically recorded;
(l) Contacting former City staff to undermine current Council or City staff;
(m)(i) Loitering, causing a disturbance while accessing a City program, service, event, or facility, or acting under the influence of an intoxicating substance while attending a workplace; or
(n)(j) Threatening the employment, reputation, or private life of a member of Council or a City staff member.; or
(o) Using social media or other media to directly or indirectly carry out or conspire to carry out any of the above.
Many places that mentioned Directors now include Managing Directors. It adds in the ability for a Director to refer the matter to their Managing Director for action. This removes the Director from the line of fire so to speak from unhappy residents who have been sanctioned.
Pg 32- 35 A major change has been the process of Request for Review.
When a resident has been sanctioned, they have 15 calendar days to file a Request for Review; not business days, calendar days.
Previously proposed Policy 8048 in the August 12 ALR Agenda Packet had the requests for review going to the Administration Committee; now it goes to the City Manager.
That is alarming, leaving the decisions that involve sanctioning Medicine Hat Residents to one person. That person’s decision will be final, there is no appeal. Given that the City Manager has the power to direct any and all staff, this has created a situation where we now have an all powerful Empress in place of a Queen.
The Empress would have the power to literally banish you from City facilities if you don’t kowotw .
Pg 33 The City Manager can reject any Request to review on the following grounds.
“(b) Upon Within fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt of a Request for Review, the Administrative CommitteeCity Manager must conduct an initial assessment of the Request for Review at its next regular meeting in a closed session and may, at its the City Manager's discretion:
determine that the request should be dismissed based on any one or more of the following grounds:
(i) the City Clerk received the request after the fifteen (15) calendar day deadline,
(ii) the request is not on the form approved by the City Manager;
(iii) the request is incomplete, frivolous, or vexatious; or
(iv) the request otherwise has no reasonable prospect of success.
decide to conduct a substantive review of the Request for Review.”
NB - there is no “form” attached. It does specify the form that the Request For Review must take. This makes it more difficult for members of the public to satisfy the requirements. There is no provision to allow for correction of omissions or errors before the clock runs out.
“The Request for Review must include, at a minimum
(i) the date and description of the Unreasonable Behavior (sic) that resulted in the restrictions
(ii) the date of the Notice of Restrictions and the name of the Managing Director who issued the Notice of Restrictions;
(iii) the grounds for the review, stating the specific reasons;
(iv) what resolution or outcome the Member of the Public is seeking;
(v) any supporting documents or relevant evidence the Member of the Public is relying on; and
(vi) the Member of the Public's return email address and mailing address.”
Pg 34 It goes on to say
(b) The Member of the Public and the relevant Director will be permitted to attend the substantive review in-person or online unless the City Manager determines the Member of the Public's in-person attendance would be inappropriate based on the nature of the Unreasonable BehaviorCity Manager will determine the format of the substantive review and may meet with the Member of the Public, consult with the Managing Director, and/or obtain information from such other persons as the City Manager considers appropriate for the substantive review.
(c) The Administrative Committee will attempt to schedule the substantive review on a date and time that is mutually convenient for the Member of the Public and the Administrative Committee, as determined by the City Manager.
(d) The City Manager will determine the format of the substantive review.
Pg 33 “Prior to submitting a Request for Review, the affected Member of the Public or their legal guardian may request a meeting with the Managing Director who issued the Notice of Restrictions to review the restrictions. Requests for meetings may be accepted or denied at the Managing Director's discretion and may be conducted virtually or in-person as the Managing Director determines appropriate. The Managing Director may invite additional City staff to attend the meeting. Reasonable accommodations will be made to ensure the Member of the Public requesting the meeting is able to fully participate in any meeting the Managing Director accepts.”
Why That Section is Problematic at Best
The clock starts as soon as the sanctions are delivered. If the Managing Director issues the sanctions before they go on vacation, the clock can run out before the Member of the Public gets a chance to meet.
There is no guideline as to what form a substantive Review will take. For all we know the City Manager can decide to wipe her ass with the Request for Review and that will be sufficient.
I foresee only embarrassment and outrage if Public Code of Conduct Policy 8408 goes to Council in its current form. This needs to go back to Administration yet again.
