An unusual ending

Posted by Magda
A fire alarm couldn't stop the passing of the 2008 budget, I just heard from my colleague Laura Thompson.

It seems the meeting was a little chaotic, with members of the audience shouting comments during the meeting. Then, as councillors were just about ready to vote on the budget, the fire alarm went off.

Some people put on coats and left council chambers, but after nearly five hours of debate, councillors weren't deterred, approving the budget before leaving the building.

Comments

[Grunt]

Was there "An unusual beginning" to the budget meeting;did any member of council declare a pecuniary interest?One would assume/expect that if a councillor's spouse works for the City that the former would declare this fact and,at the very least,not vote for that department's budget items nor any contractual agreements pertaining to the spouse's employment position?Bussing and busing, do not the combining of the two bring up the appearance of pecuniary interest,if not,conflict of interest?

[Mike Salisbury]

What is a pecuniary interest?

We hear it at the beginning of every council meeting. “Are there any statements of a pecuniary interest?” But how many people really know the significance of this simple question?

The prime responsibility of elected officials is to act in the public interest. If a Council member has a pecuniary interest, it is possible that they will be influenced by it when contributing to debate, voting or performing other duties as a member of Council. Potentially a councillor could act to promote their own private interests, rather than the public good. Not only is this unethical…it is illegal.

As some of you may know, my spouse works for the City…isn’t this a blatant conflict of interest? While in a few very specific situations the answer is YES, most of the time the answer is clearly NO.

The Act provides for some exceptions to the conflict and inside/outside influence restrictions which include:

• the council member’s pecuniary interest is an interest in common with the electors of the municipality;
• the council member’s pecuniary interest, related to a local service, is in common with other persons who are or would be liable for the local service tax;
• the matter under consideration relates to the remuneration, expenses or benefits payable to local government officials in their capacity as members of council of the municipality;
• the pecuniary interest is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be viewed as likely to influence the member;

Anyone interested in a more detailed explanation as to why this years budget deliberations did NOT create a conflict of interest for a City Councillor who is also a husband to one of Guelph’s finest transit drivers can read more at:

http://www.ward4guelph.ca/2008/02/21/what-is-a-pecuniary-interest/