One of the residents banned under the previous code says not much has changed since these updated policies still effectively shield advisors from public complaints.
While Stratford’s controversial respectful workplace policy was split into three separate components this week, one of the residents banned under the previous code says not much has changed since these updated policies still effectively shield councilors from public complaints.
Advertisement 2
Article content
“The process is still hidden from the person who’s being complained about, so there’s nothing (in the policy) that says they have to disclose anything. There’s nothing there that describes what the appeal process is like. There’s nothing there that says what level of bad behavior warrants what,” resident Mike Sullivan said.
At Monday night’s meeting, city councilors voted 7-2 in a recorded vote to accept a staff recommendation to split the policy into three – one for council, one for city employees and one for members of the public. Couns. Cody Sebben and Geza Wordofa were the only city politicians to vote against the motion, although Couns. Taylor Briscoe and Larry McCabe were not in attendance.
According to the public conduct portion of the revamped policy, a filed complaint will be reviewed the city’s director of human resources, or another assigned director, and the chief administrative officer to determine if the alleged actions constitute offensive behavior. This can be a single incident or the result of repeated pattern of conduct. If the actions of a resident have been deemed inappropriate, the investigators can impose a number of restrictions on the resident, including a ban from city property for a specified span of time.
Advertisement 3
Article content
The policy still does not sit well with Sullivan, who said these types of decisions, which could result in “something as dramatic as banning somebody,” should not be left to city administrators.
“Yes someone’s to be banned, then they must have done something really, really bad, and that’s not the case with this policy. You can be banned for any of the things they’ve listed, and there’s no recourse,” said Sullivan, noting it’s the mayor who is responsible for maintaining decorum at council meetings.
Mayor Martin Ritsma said some residents have pointed out he has the gavel, or the ability to the ask delegates at council to stop what they’re saying and step away from the podium, which he may do if a speaker needs to dial back their rhetoric or innuendos. However, Ritsma noted that one complaint about the policy involves the issue of subjectivity.
Advertisement 4
Article content
“Somebody in the chair might have a different take on what’s appropriate and inappropriate,” the mayor said.
Recommended from Editorial
While Sharon Collingwood, another resident who spoke at Monday’s meeting, said a respectful workplace policy should not focus on city residents, Ritsma praised the decision to separate the policy into three, effectively creating a public conduct policy.
“I believe there needs to be a policy that the public can turn to and say, ‘OK, when I’m at the counter at the clerk’s office, or at social services, these are the parameters with which I should conduct myself .’ And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that,” the mayor said.
Advertisement 5
Article content
However, Ritsma said he also believes the policy is a “living document.”
“So in the future, if we do have a public forum to talk about Stratford and what we want Stratford to look like, feel like. . . then this might impact something along the lines of the public conduct policy,” he said.
Sullivan’s ban, and the similar prohibitions handed out to Stratford residents Barb Shaughnessy and Ken Woodall stem from the same council meeting in late February of this year. Although he has tried many times, and through many different avenues, to get information from the city on what exact actions led to his ban, Sullivan has so far been unsuccessful.
“Not only don’t I know what I said or did. . . I wasn’t shown a copy of the complaints. . . . I wasn’t shown a copy of the so-called witness statements,” he said.
While Ritsma said he does not believe there was a threat of violence from Sullivan, he still has not viewed the letters sent to the residents announcing their bans.
“My belief is that if something’s coming out of the CAO’s office, it would be fairly substantive with regards to what the act was,” the mayor said.
Article content