We need an Integrity Commissioner to investigate the Integrity Commissioner.


I don’t quite understand how it takes Robert Swayze over a month and $1,700 in legal fees for Deb Doherty, to investigate the frivolous complaint against her. Then it takes him 2 working days to investigate Sandra Cooper and comes up with almost word for word what Mr. Luongo came up with in a comment two posts ago in this very space. The following comment after Luongo’s comment by Chris Carrier should have at least cast a shadow of doubt on the Mr. Swayze’s pat response below. A few things about this matter do not add up; to myself and many others.

The following is Robert Swayze’s response to Steve Berman’s complaint:

I have reviewed your complaint, served it on Mayor Cooper and she has responded to my questions. I have confirmed that the Mayor is on the CPUSB and the Board of Collus PowerStream. She receives compensation for these positions. Her response to me also included a reference to the following section of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (“Act”):

“4. Section 5 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have, . . .

(h) by reason only of the member being a director or senior officer of a corporation incorporated for the purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the municipality or local board or by reason only of the member being a member of a board, commission, or other body as an appointee of a council or local board; . . . .”

I find the above section to be a complete answer to an accusation that she failed to declare a conflict of interest as required by the Act. She was appointed to both boards by Council and

her receipt of compensation is exempted from being pecuniary. She was entitled to participate in both matters.

Accordingly, your complaint is hereby dismissed.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “We need an Integrity Commissioner to investigate the Integrity Commissioner.

  1. Pingback: This Week in Collingwood Politics – July 11, 2015 | enough is enough

  2. The conflict of interest was not tied to pecuniary interest. The act is clear on that. The conflict of interest was tied to the fact that she could not act in the best interest of either board when dealing with issues where the two companies may be at odds. It is the responsibility of a Board member to always act in the best interest of the company. When dealing with a situation where folding the CPUSB is in the best interest of the Town is in direct conflict with the profits of COLLUS Power Stream she definitely faced conflict and her vote proved that.

    • Well said AvidReader, and that’s something I had hoped the IC would clear up.

      I sit on the Library Board, along with Councillor Cam Ecclestone. When a vote is made, does he vote what is best for the Library, or what is best for the Municipality. It’s not always the same thing, nor is he paid to sit on the Library Board.

      I guess the Act and the IC don’t look at it in those terms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s