Conflict of interest motion fails at Powell River Council

An effort by City of Powell River mayor Ron Woznow to have a legal opinion rendered on potential conflict of interest failed at a city council meeting.

At the March 21 meeting, Woznow introduced a motion to obtain a legal opinion regarding conflict of interest.

“I’m putting forward a motion because of the significant interest expressed by the citizens of Powell River with regard to the governance responsibilities of council,” said Woznow.

Councillor Cindy Elliott said she wanted to declare a conflict on this item since it is a decision about her. Councillor Trina Isakson also declared a conflict. Both Elliott and Isakson had been accused of conflict of interest relating to matters regarding Tla’amin Nation by Powell River resident Pat Martin.

Councillor Rob Southcott said he was wondering if he was in a conflict due to long association with Tla’amin and much more recent association with legislators.

“If there is a decision to be made that we do need a legal opinion, I’m in enough doubt right now that it should also include me,” said Southcott. “Because I’m in doubt I should probably declare a conflict and leave.”

That left Woznow and councillors Earl Almeida, George Doubt and Jim Palm to debate the matter.

Almeida said if the city was to look at conflict for two councillors, perhaps it should look at the whole council.

“We might as well have all seven of us go through the same process so there is nothing left on the table,” said Almeida.

Woznow made a motion that council direct staff to obtain a legal opinion for the purpose of determining if councillor Isakson and councillor Elliott have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, should they participate in discussions related to the city’s potential name change.

Doubt said he was not in favour of seeking a legal opinion on whether two councillors might or might not be in a conflict of interest.

“The reason for doing that is a legal opinion is exactly that,” said Doubt. “You ask two lawyers and you could get two different opinions. It costs money. In this case it’s not a simple legal opinion. This legal opinion might require some investigation, which is going to increase the amount of money it costs. What do you have at the end? You have one lawyer’s opinion.

“It’s not a judicial decision and no one is required to abide by it. As I heard a judge say in court, the only person whose opinion matters in a court of law is the opinion of the judge making the decision.”

Palm said the public had asked council to get a legal opinion and he was going to go along with it. He said that the law firm should talk to all councillors so that councillors can ask pertinent questions.

Palm said he wanted to amend Woznow’s motion to include the law firm Young Anderson, which had been identified by Martin as experts in civic law. The amendment carried, with Palm and Woznow voting in favour, Almeida voting against and Doubt abstaining.

Woznow then called for the motion as amended. He and Palm voted in favour, with Almeida and Doubt opposed. Because the vote was tied, the motion failed and the city will not be retaining legal services to look into conflict of interest.

May meeting

At a committee of the whole meeting last May during a presentation regarding the possible name change, then interim city chief administrative officer Tom Day said there is a lot of case law around conflict of interest versus bias, most of which is around land use legislation.

“Basically, what the courts have recognized is it would be common for each individual to have a viewpoint on a particular issue and that doesn’t disqualify them from voting,” said Day. “I think each and every person here has some interest in that particular item but that doesn’t mean there is a conflict of interest or that it would impact any process that we do go through.”

Join the Peak's email list for the top headlines right in your inbox Monday to Friday.