St. Paul’s Committee of the Whole meeting featured a discussion on the proper boundaries for communication between councillors and town staff, as council reviewed revisions to the Council Code of Conduct.
The debate focused on balancing councillor’s ability to represent citizens and offer input with ensuring that municipal operations are not disrupted by undue influence or miscommunication.
Councilor Brad Eamon raised concern that councillors, like any citizen, may wish to communicate issues directly to staff or department directors. He expressed reservation that councillor’s input might carry undue weight because of their elected positions, potentially overshadowing similar concerns raised by regular citizens.
Coun. Nathan Taylor shared this concern, noting the challenge of distinguishing between a councilor speaking as a concerned citizen versus as an elected official. He questioned how councillors could effectively communicate suggestions without inadvertently overstepping or having their comments carry disproportionate influences.
CAO Steven Jeffery emphasized that the administration operates under specific priorities and goals set by him and his directors. Allowing councillors to directly suggest ideas or changes to department heads could disrupt those priorities, affecting productivity across multiple departments.
To address these challenges, the Council Code of Conduct proposes that councilor inquiries about citizen concerns be routed through the CAO and relevant directors via email. This approach aims to preserve administrative focus and ensure that councilor input does not inadvertently disrupt ongoing work.
The discussion also touched on how councillors could appropriately influence or advance issues. A proposed revision to the Code of Conduct reads. “An individual member may not provide direction to Administration or in any way advance or influence an issue or idea. Council may only provide formal direction to Administration through a council resolution.”
Coun. Taylor raised concerns about this clause, suggesting that the role of a councilor inherently involves advancing ideas and providing input. He used an example of a citizen’s concern about garbage collection, suggesting changes to pickup locations would technically be an operational matter but could also be a valid part of a councillor’s role in representing residents.
Taylor acknowledged the distinction between making suggestions and directing staff to act, which would violate the code. He stressed that councillors should feel empowered to provide input without interfering with the administration’s authority to make operational decisions.
Aline Brousseau, Director of Planning and Legislative Services, clarified that the proposed revision ensures that the administration does not act on a single councillor’s suggestion without council approval. She explained that this reinforces the principle that council decisions must come through formal resolutions, not individual influence.
Councilor Taylor raised concern that overly restrictive rules could discourage councillors from offering any input, fearing they could be accused of overstepping simply by making suggestions. Taylor suggested that the revision should differentiate between interacting with department directors, who hold leadership roles, and other staff.
“I’m also ok with that because, I agree, I should not come up to the guy mowing the lawn and tell him how to do his job,” Taylor said.
After debate, the council directed the administration to refine the proposed revisions to the Council Code of Conduct and present them at a future meeting for further consideration.
