Stephen Vance, Staff
An interesting question was raised during the July 4 meeting of Meaford council – are citizens who volunteer on municipal advisory committees being bound to a gag-order that prevents them from speaking out if they have concerns?
Meaford’s council says no, but at least one Meaford resident suggests they are.
During public question period resident David Long asked council to reconsider a section of the volunteer code of conduct approved by council earlier this year.
“With respect to bylaw 23-2016 which was passed by this council on the 28th of April, 2016, I would request that you all reconsider section 5.3.1-e, which refers to volunteers, who will refrain from public criticism that questions the professional reputation, competence, and credibility of council, other volunteers, staff, and any other person. In the opinion of myself and many others, we believe that this is a gag order,” Long told council. “We respect the intent of this bylaw in that everyone should be treated with dignity, but we feel that this section is a gag order which prevents free discussion of public meetings.”
Section 5.3.1 of the Advisory Committee and Volunteer Code of Conduct included in bylaw 23-2016 addresses respect and dignity for and by citizens who volunteer their time to serve on advisory committees. The Independent has found similar language in municipal bylaws for several other municipalities.
“In the view of some of us, this stifles free discussion, disagreement, and differences of opinions, so we would appreciate it if you could review this section and consider whether or not it should be included in the new bylaw,” Long requested.
While Long contends that part E of that section, which states that “Volunteers will refrain from public criticism that questions the professional reputation, competence, and credibility of Council, other volunteers, staff, or any other person,” amounts to a gag order on volunteers, Mayor Clumpus disagrees.
“To me this is a question of civility. This is how we behave in a civil society. We treat each other with respect,” suggested Clumpus.
In the development of the Advisory Committee & Volunteer Code of Conduct, Meaford’s municipal Clerk, Rob Tremblay, held a focus group with representation from each of the four municipal advisory committees.
“The session reviewed the draft code and also allowed for discussion on volunteerism and ambassadorship,” noted Tremblay in his report to council. “Once the code was adopted, the Clerk made follow up presentations to the four advisory committees and each appointee was provided a copy of the code and Form 3, which must be completed by each appointee as an acknowledgment. Sanctions provided in the code allow for a member to be removed from an advisory committee for refusal to complete Form 3.”
At their July 4 meeting, council voted 7-0 in favour of removing individuals from advisory committees who refuse to sign ‘Form 3’ which is the Code of Conduct Acknowledgement form which reads:
I, ______________________, acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the Municipality of Meaford Advisory Committee & Volunteer Code of Conduct. I agree to be bound by the terms of the Code of Conduct as a member of an advisory committee or in another municipal volunteer position.
Four days later, on July 8, Long sent an email to a number of residents as well as to The Independent informing that he had been removed from the Economic Development Advisory Committee.
“Today via Canada post, I received my official dismissal notice confirming that I have been removed from the Meaford Economic Development Advisory Committee. The reason for my dismissal is that I refused to complete form 3 which is an acknowledgement that I agree to abide by all the terms and conditions of the newly passed by law #23-2016 proclaimed 28 April 2016. My specific objection is to one section namely Section 5.3 Standards of Behaviour and Conduct,” wrote Long in the email.
The entirety of section 5.3.1 of the bylaw reads as follows:
5.3.1 Respect and Dignity
a) Volunteers have a duty to treat members of the public, one another, Council, and staff with respect and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation.
b) Volunteers will ensure their work environment is free from discrimination and harassment.
c) Volunteers will conduct themselves according to legislative requirements, including the municipal workplace harassment and violence policies.
d) Volunteers will observe decorum and conduct themselves as outlined in the procedural by-law and/or Terms of Reference.
e) Volunteers will refrain from public criticism that questions the professional reputation, competence, and credibility of Council, other volunteers, staff, or any other person.
f) Volunteers will protect and not divulge personal and confidential information obtained or encountered in the course of volunteering.
To our readers we ask, are these requirements fair, and do they meet the intent of holding civil meetings and ensuring respect and dignity for all, or do these requirements, particularly item ‘e’ amount to a gag order on those who volunteer on municipal advisory committees? Let us know!
