The public's perception of relationships between councillors and property developers proved to be a hot topic for debate at a Colwood council meeting on Monday (Sept. 9).
In an attempt to "restore the public confidence and trust in city planning and decision-making processes", Coun. Kim Jordison brought to the table a proposed new policy that would ask any elected official that has received a monetary or non-monetary benefit from a developer or anyone closely associated, to immediately recuse themselves from any council matter of potential value to that project.
“I've seen some shady things happen in the past, and again this past municipal election, that I think we as a council need to address,” said Jordison in support of her proposed policy titled ‘Restrictions on Gifts, Favours and Discounts’. “In the past, developers - some that don’t even live on Vancouver Island - have fully funded election campaigns for some, and it has a bad smell to it."
“I said it before and I'll say it again, something doesn't have to be illegal to be unethical.”
At the meeting, Jordison clarified the policy wasn’t intended to focus entirely on councillors’ relationships with developers, and should extend to any project brought forward to council.
But monetary benefits from developers soon became the focus of the debate again.
Referencing a “major decision” made at a council meeting in September 2022, which increased density of the Beachlands neighbourhood, known as Royal Beach at that time, Coun. Ian Ward said that an “elected official, who is no longer at this table”, had received “in excess of $2,400” from “key names” connected to the development.
Ward explained at the time of the meeting, the 2022 election campaign contributions had not been made public, so participants and the public were unaware of any connection between the elected official and the developers.
“It undermines public confidence in the decisions that are made at this table,” said Ward.
“There can be a perception of impropriety, and I think this isn't about pointing fingers and blaming anybody,” Ward said later, emphasizing that the crux of the issue is the public’s perception of the relationship between developers and councillors.
“In many ways, it can also be about protecting the integrity of the people of the state, so that they can do their job without fear of negative perception in the community. If everything is totally above board - it’s clarified by a bylaw.”
The proposed new policy was met with a mixed reaction from other councillors at the meeting.
Whilst supportive of restrictions targeting election campaign contributions, councillors questioned why the policy should extend to other “gifts” when there is already guidance in the Colwood community charter referencing restrictions on accepting gifts.
Coun. Misty Olsen went as far as to say Jordison’s proposal 'contravened' the community charter, pointing to guidance excluding gifts or personal benefits received through protocol or social obligations that normally accompany the role of a councillor.
“This motion essentially is telling me that there are events that we were socially obligated to attend within the community as part of our role as an elected official - we’re no longer able to do that,” said Olsen.
Mayor Doug Kobayashi also highlighted the community charter, which says, “A council member must not, directly or indirectly, accept a fee, gift or personal benefit that is connected with the member's performance of the duties of office.”
“Clearly we're not supposed to be accepting gifts, with a few exceptions,” added Coun. Dean Jantzen.
Instead of making a decision for or against Jordison’s proposed policy, all councillors voted in favour of referring the matter to council staff, who were asked to seek legal advice.
Staff will then draft a policy on election campaign contributions and their impact on council business, before bringing it back to councillors for debate.
“It's hard to legislate ethics, I think that's what we're trying to do here,” said Coun. David Grove. “And for me, this motion doesn't do it.”
