evvabeing
Senior Member
SIEGEL: Conflict of interest rules can be tricky
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2015/08/06/siegel-conflict-of-interest-rules-can-be-trickyCouncillors would like the legislation changed to define the concept of interest more precisely. Clearly, this is desirable, except that it’s very difficult to anticipate and describe every possibility, but it would be desirable to catalogue some difficult judgment calls and try to deal with those.
Two aspects of the legislation are in dire need of change.
Violation of the legislation now carries a mandatory minimum penalty — immediate removal from office.
It’s easy to see how the drafters of the legislation arrived at this. Using your public office for private gain is clearly unconscionable, except some of the examples cited above suggest there are some problematic grey areas that remind us that the punishment needs to fit the offence.
Maybe a judge should have the ability to say: I understand that you were not certain about this grey area, so I am giving you a slap on the wrist now, but you must refrain from this in future or the penalty will be more severe.
This course of action is currently not open to a judge; if the person has violated the act, he must be removed from office.
This can lead to poor decisions. In the case of former mayor Rob Ford in Toronto, the argument was made that the mayor of a major city should not suffer such a severe penalty for the trivial (in Mr. Ford’s world) amount of $3,000 (it was related to funding for his high school football team).
This makes bad case law.
Another weakness of the legislation is that it relies on private enforcement.
An individual must spend her or his own money to hire a lawyer and possibly an investigator to pursue a public purpose like holding an alleged violator of the legislation accountable. It would be an improvement if the legislation provided for some form of public assistance in enforcing this legislation.