It was a spirited debate among Chatham-Kent councillors regarding repercussions for councillors who exhibit harassing or violent behaviour.
During a meeting Monday night, CK council passed a motion to endorse recommendations made by the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) regarding municipal codes of conduct that include a process to vacate a municipal council member’s seat in extreme circumstances, such as harassment or assault.
Currently, there is no process in Ontario for removing a municipal councillor from office. Such a process would require approval from the provincial government through legislation.
Some Chatham-Kent councillors took issue with the recommendation that would allow, in egregious cases, for a sitting council member to be removed by a judge if recommended to do so by an Integrity Commissioner. The ousted councillor would also not be permitted to run in future elections. Council voted on that recommendation separately and narrowly passed it by a 9-8 vote.
Councillor Michael Bondy said the term harassment is very loose.
“I think if a councillor does something inappropriate there is a punishment—and that’s on election day,” Bondy said, noting if a judge dictated that a council member had to go, democracy would suffer.
Councillor Rhonda Jubenville expressed similar problems with giving the integrity commissioner the power to apply to the courts to remove a councillor, saying it would be subjective.
Currently, the most severe penalty that can currently be imposed on a municipal councillor in such a situation as assault or harassment is a 90-day pay suspension.
A provincial private member’s bill, Bill 5, was defeated in the Ontario legislature last month. Had it passed, the bill would have permitted municipalities and local boards to direct their Integrity Commissioner to apply to the court to vacate a member’s seat if a council member has contravened the code of conduct by failing to comply with workplace violence or harassment policies.