YOU'RE ALL ALONE AGAINST THE BUREAUCRACY

You’re all alone against the bureaucracy
Jul 14th, 2011 | By Staff | Section: Politics
This ran in the Toronto Sun ………. comments invited below

By Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun

There is a good reason for the Ontario Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. We want municipal politicians to act for the public good and not to make decisions or attempt to persuade others to make decisions based on self interest.

So you’d think this legislation would be user friendly and have stiff enforcement procedures.

As Michael Baillargeon, a 64-year-old marketing consultant, can attest, that couldn’t be farther from the reality.

The truth is no authority is prepared to take responsibility for the enforcement of the legislation and, as currently interpreted, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) forces ordinary residents to act as investigator and prosecutor.

When Baillargeon believed Toronto Catholic District School Board trustee Oliver Carroll violated the act, he couldn’t persuade anybody to take action. Not the Ministry of Education, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or the Catholic school board.

He said, “no authority was willing to assist or act; all I got were eloquently transparent excuses.”

He had to either let the matter drop or retain a lawyer at his own expense to investigate and prosecute. He hired a lawyer and took action. This was no minor expense, as it included drafting a court application, affidavits, attendances at cross-examinations and in court.

I don’t see how this could be done without expert legal assistance or for under $50,000. And if he lost, Baillargeon could have been on the hook for legal expenses incurred by Carroll.

As Baillargeon correctly states, “the legislation is not designed to deter contraventions, but is designed to deter enforcement.”

It’s no wonder conflict of interest applications are about as common as Toronto streets without potholes during winter.

Once Baillargeon started the application, no one at the Ministry of Education would take his calls and he says he was treated as an adversary.

At the same time, Carroll proclaimed the application was “frivolous and vexatious” and he’d be “absolved of any wrongdoing.”

Well, last month Superior Court Justice Jane Kelly released a decision declaring Carroll violated the conflict of interest rules multiple times when he “participated in discussions, moved and voted on motions in circumstances where there was clearly a conflict of interest.”

The 10 conflicts were “serious and indefensible.” Carroll’s daughter is a young teacher and his son had recently applied to be on the list of approved supply teachers, yet he participated in discussions and votes that could have benefited his children.

The details are mind boggling. He even introduced a motion requiring Toronto’s Catholic school board to pay the legal costs of trustees charged under the conflict of interest act.

The act is also overly generous to municipal politicians. It requires that legal action be taken within six weeks after the facts come to one’s attention. That’s a ridiculously short period.

The other problem is there is a defence if the politician can show he acted with “inadvertence” or was merely guilty of a good faith “error of judgment.”

Those are two huge loopholes which make it very risky for anybody to take action under the conflict of interest act.

Carroll, however, was unable to successfully use these defences because he knew or ought to have known he was conflicted. He, along with all other trustees had received two legal opinions which “addressed the issues of conflict of interest.” He attended at a meeting where a lawyer explained the legal opinions.

Worse, he was warned he should not partake in any matter where his or his children’s financial interests could be affected.

How anyone could have ignored the obvious conflicts shows the extent to which the culture of entitlement has infected certain trustees of the Catholic board.

POSSIBLE APPEAL

Carroll is reported as having announced an intention to appeal. If so, there will be more legal expenses and risks for Baillargeon. It will be up to Baillargeon to respond to the appeal. Shockingly, we not only leave it up to private citizens to enforce this legislation but we also expect them to continue paying for a lawyer and funding the costs of any appeal.

If we are serious in our desire that municipal politicians abide by conflict laws then we must give enforcement powers to an official body.

We can’t count on the Michael Baillargeons to be there for us.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2009/03/01/8576261-sun.html?utm_source=sharing&utm_medium=addThis&utm_content=You%27re+all+alone+against+the+bureaucracy