Councilor surprised banned resident ignored ruling

The city councilor who chose to end a committee meeting early on Tuesday expressed surprise that one of the residents currently banned for three months from Stratford’s municipal buildings for three months is ignoring this decision.

Article content

“I understand they disagree with this. There is a process of having this dealt with. I don’t think anybody on the council or staff side thought that, when a ban was put in place, that somebody would just ignore it to show up,” Coun. Mark Hunter said in a phone interview Wednesday

Stratford’s finance and labor relations subcommittee meeting was adjourned before it even really began. Hunter, acting as chair, ended the meeting shortly after another resident, who was appearing as a delegation, began his presentation. Hunter made the decision to abruptly end the session because Mike Sullivan, one of three residents banned under the city’s Respectful Workplace Policy, was in the gallery.

The cancellation marked another chapter in the struggle between local citizen activists and City of Stratford officials.

Article content

This was the second meeting that was abruptly ended after Sullivan and two others, Barb Shaughnessy and Ken Wood, were banned following a Feb. 26 council meeting. The first meeting was set for May 28 and included a public session to discuss the potential residential redevelopment of the Krug factory site. Stratford Mayor Martin Ristma canceled that meeting when Sullivan refused to leave after being asked to do so.

Given that Sullivan continued to ignore the ban, Hunter said there’s a lesson for the city on how to do things differently if a similar situation happens in the future. However, the ban, he noted, was not a council decision.

Article content

“I don’t think it should be a council decision. … (Then) it could be a lot more political than it already is,” Hunter said.

While the policy is council generated, its application is a staff decision, Hunter said. According to Hunter, the ban was put in place to protect city staff, so not honoring that “protection” opens the city up to potential liability.

The cancellation meant that evening’s delegate, retired journalist Robert Roth, who was there to speak against the ban, did not get to do so. Following the meeting, Roth described the ban as a way for the city to stifle free speech. Hunter, however, denied this claim.

“That’s the furthest thing from the truth. Every time a delegation wants to speak to council, in order for that delegation to speak, council has to vote to accept to hear that delegation. I’ve only been on council two years, but I’ve never seen anyone opposed to anyone speaking. I think every time we’ve had a delegation request, it’s been a unanimous consent that we should hear the delegation,” he said.

Article content

Sullivan, a spokesperson for Get Concerned Stratford, is still allowed to engage with council and staff in other ways, such as emailing his comments so they can be read. The point of the ban, Hunter noted, was to create a physical distance between Sullivan, and the other banned residents, and municipal staff.

“What this ban did was, was restricting the forum in which he can speak to us. That’s all it did.”

Staff and council have not explicitly said what actions or words by the three residents led to their bans. However, in May 14 release, Ristma said there was an obligation to protect councillors, staff and the public from “disrespectful or inappropriate comments or actions in our workplaces.”

“Behavior that is hostile, offensive, humiliating, demeaning, derogatory or defamatory will simply not be tolerated,” he said.

Sullivan and others are still in the process of appealing the ban, which is set to end on July 3.

Article content