BLOGexclusive: Council's Conflicts Of Interest

Oh this City is in such a mess! The WUC fiasco is not the only one. Here is a new one!

Are the Mayor and Councillors in a position today where they have a serious conflict of interest on the border file? It may be that they will have to back out and let the Senior Levels do what they want or they will have to get a Court Order allowing them to continue to act!

I thought that the matter had been put to bed a long time ago and the decision was---that there was no conflict although I do not remember the rationale being given.

Unfortunately for the Mayor and Council, their lawyer in the Capitol Theatre bankruptcy file may have put them in the position where they are legally estopped from arguing that they have no conflict. The border file may become even more convoluted thanks to the failure of the Mayor and Council to do anything right on the Capitol file.

Here is what I mean and you'll see where I am going quickly with this I am sure.

The City is unhappy with the Trustee because he did not play dead and give up the Capitol assets to Eddie's demands. Now I am no big fan of the Trustee and I have had my wars with him However, the City decided that he should be replaced presumably by a compliant Trustee who may be more accommodating to the the City's wants. Not only that, there is a need to replace Inspectors, especially influential ones that do not agree with the City it seems.

I am more interested in the Inspector part of this. The Star reported that:

• "[City lawyers] are also pushing to have former city clerk Tom Lynd removed as one of the influential creditors directing Funtig, alleging he is in conflict of interest.
  
  It is the latest salvo fired in the ongoing saga of the bankrupt theatre which has has remained closed since March, mired in a dispute over its debts and its fate...
  
  The city has requested a meeting with the creditors so the issues of removing Funtig and Lynd can be discussed. The creditors, through a vote, have the power to dump either of them...
  
  Lynd needs to be removed from his role in the dispute because he was city clerk at the time the funds were provided to the theatre by the city, said Willis in his letter. Lynd also continues to receive a pension from the city, he said.
  
  But Lynd, when contacted Saturday, insisted there is no conflict on his part and said he doesn't plan to step aside.
  
  Funtig, in his response letter, indicated he sought a legal opinion on whether Lynd was in conflict. The opinion was that Lynd was not."

On the face of it, I would have thought that Lynd would be supportive of the City if he were the Clerk---unless he knows there was NO mortgage. Moreover, as a pensioner, he should support the City too, right.

Apparently, this does not matter to the City and they want him removed for a conflict.

Well if, according to the City's outside lawyer, receiving a pension from the City (or is it OMERS) puts a Councillor in conflict, Ward 2's Ron Jones is out since he receives a pension from OMERS and presumably there is a conflict. To his credit, Councillor Jones has indicated on certain matters his conflict concerning this. Remember that OMERS is DRTP's parent and they are still fighting to be the Tunnel route and also perhaps to get a new train tunnel in the area. Moreover, the Mayor and Ccouncillors all contribute to OMERS too so they must be out also.

Here is an interesting aside about that too. Remember all of that extra income the Councillors made because of the so-called Enwin mess. Not only did it increase their salary but their pensions too! I was told by the Treasurer:

• "The councillors' contributions are based on the councillors' salaries plus the Board payments. The mayor's contributions are based on the City salary alone"

And speaking of conflicts, those members of Council who are or were on the WUC during the relevant period cannot vote an anything respecting the proposed investigation since the purpose of the investigation could be to investigate themselves! That means in my opinion, Eddie and Councillors Lewenza, Marra, Jones and Brister are out as far as the ongoing investigation is concerned and should have absolutely no input into the decision-making.

Want to know something even more hilarious. It may be that NO ONE on Council can vote since they all may have a pecuniary interest! According to the Star in 2006

• "WUC pays $8,200 annually to individual board members."

My understanding is that all of the money from all Boards that all Councillors receive is pooled and then divided out equally to all of them. Are they all now conflicted out? They had better get a legal opinion on this matter ASAP and if I am right, then an application had better be made to a Judge under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act before Monday at Council:

• "Power of judge to declare s. 5 not to apply
  
• Sec 7 (3) The judge may, on an application brought under subsection (2), by order, declare that section 5 does not apply to the council or local board, as the case may be, in respect of the matter in relation to which the application is brought, and the council or local board thereupon may give consideration to, discuss and vote on the matter in the same manner as though none of the members had any interest therein, subject only to such conditions and directions as the judge may consider appropriate and so order

How much more of this can citizens take before the Province is forced to step in!