Council in the Township of Stirling-Rawdon has accepted an Integrity Commissioner’s report in regards to issues with the behaviour of Councillor Sari Watson.
In a special council meeting held Thursday, one which Watson was unable to attend, council voted to accept all of the recommendations made by the Commissioner, lawyer John Ewart.
Those recommendations included not applying any sanctions or financial penalties against Watson.
The Commissioner did not believe sanctions or financial penalties were warranted and didn’t believe they would be useful.
Other recommendations include having Councillor Watson review council agendas in advance and make respectful requests for information from staff in advance of meetings, that she be provided with a copy of the Integrity Commissioner’s report and that she review the Municipal Code of Conduct, and that she review relevant sections of the Municipal Act, 2001, Part VI, which sets out the duties and obligations of both Municipal Council and Members of Council
There are several other recommendations, including making audio recordings of council meetings to help council members and staff. These recordings would not have to be made available to the public and would not serve as the official minutes of a meeting.
See the full Integrity Commissioner’s report here. His recommendations begin on page 16.
The Integrity Commissioner’s report, released last month, was the second involving the same issues. The first was delivered in the summer of last year.
At Thursday’s special meeting of council Mayor Bob Mullin said that council hopes the recommendations approved by council will help council and staff move forward to work together for the betterment of Stirling-Rawdon.
Meanwhile Councillor Watson has provided Quinte News with a statement on the Integrity Commissioner’s report and process.
The statement is below.
I’m disheartened the IC has produced a second report based on anecdotal evidence and biased claims at great cost to the tax payers of Stirling-Rawdon.
After failing to follow the Code of Conduct’s investigation process initially, the IC rendered a guilty verdict without providing me the legal opportunity to review and respond to the complaints.
Council issued a statement saying they would not accept the IC’s first report.
Upon receiving the complaints, it was apparent they were nothing more than biased claims from councillors, staff, and two members of the public who frequently attend meetings.
Allegations of “not voting” was simply my legal right to abstain. “Pushing single-interest environmental issues” was forming an advisory Tree Committee to create Municipal Tree Policy at a council meeting complete with the max of two delegations, numerous letters, and public attendance requesting a transparent, accountable, and efficient maintenance process for Stirling-Rawdon’s tree canopy.
Allegations of repeating topics (i.e. “the snowplow truck”) were my questions and comments during first year budget deliberations surrounding the purchase of two new $250,000 snowplow trucks. I voted against them asking for quotes regarding a second hand truck or contracted services and allegedly broke Code of Conduct for doing so.
{{*Allegations of disrespect are baseless while the real complaints regarding disrespect and human rights violations against the other members of council and staff go uninvestigated.*}}
I am concerned to learn the IC process is riddled with politics itself; government processes are so often tainted by personal interest (job security etc).
It disheartens me to know that in 2020, a process designed to deal with integrity can be filled with the opposite.
I am in discussions with lawyers in Toronto.
Stirling-Rawdon councillor Sari Watson. (Photo: John Spitters/Quinte News)
