Do as I say, not as I do.
In this province’s Municipalities Act — put in place by the House of Assembly — it’s pretty clear: “207. (1) A councillor shall not vote on or speak to a matter before the council or a committee of the council where … (b) the councillor has a monetary interest directly or indirectly in the matter…”
It’s a pretty clear and fair approach: if it involves putting money in your own pocket, you don’t get to speak to it or vote on it. You have — wait for it — conflicting interests.
But if you’re a member of the House of Assembly, making the rules for yourself, you’re bound instead by a code of conduct, which spells out rather loosely, “Members will base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest. They are individually responsible for preventing conflicts of interest and will endeavour to prevent them from arising. Members will take all reasonable steps to resolve any such conflict quickly and in a manner which is in the best interests of the public.”
The vote, if it had passed, would have cost Mitchelmore $48,664 in ministerial pay, and with the House of Assembly in a minority position, it was a close thing. With Mitchelmore’s vote, it was defeated, 20-19.
Why make this comparison?
Last week, as the House of Assembly wrangled over what sort of punishment Christopher Mitchelmore should get for his role in bypassing public service hiring policies and “gross mismanagement,” Mitchelmore took part in a crucial vote on his own punishment. The vote, if it had passed, would have cost Mitchelmore $48,664 in ministerial pay, and with the House of Assembly in a minority position, it was a close thing. With Mitchelmore’s vote, it was defeated, 20-19.
On the face of it, another rule of the House would also stop Mitchelmore from voting. Standing Order 20 says an MHA can’t “vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest.”
Magically, though, $48,664 isn’t either a pecuniary interest or a conflict of interest.
The Speaker issued a decision that says, basically, when it comes to conflict of interest, some animals are more equal than the rest: “Matters related to code of conduct are matters of privilege, as it is only the House that has the right to discipline its members. For related votes on such matters previously, all members present voted, including those members who were the subject of the matter of privilege or code of conduct complaint. This is a disciplinary matter, not a matter of pecuniary interest.”
Ah, the good old “we always did it this way in the past” argument.
When is a clear financial interest not a clear financial interest?
When the Speaker, coincidentally a member of your own party, says it isn’t, and when your party — and your own wallet — critically need your vote.
The simple fact?
Provincial legislators know exactly what conflict of interest looks like for the town councillors across this province.
It looks different, apparently, when they are looking in the mirror.
