Coun. Debbie Wiggins-Colwell
In a split 5 to 4 vote, Tantramar Council rejected a town policy on Tuesday that would have required all members of council to sign a pledge of confidentiality in addition to one they’ve already signed as part of their code of conduct.
“I’m going to have to vote no on this because it’s already been signed once,” said Councillor Debbie Wiggins-Colwell.
“I’m an elected official. I just feel like it’s maybe something that if I have something I want to say,” she added, “that I’m free and able to do so.”
She was commenting on a policy that would require all town employees, including volunteer firefighters, to sign a pledge not to disclose “all non-public, confidential or proprietary information, data, documents, agreements, files and other materials” under the control of the municipality.
Town Clerk Donna Beal said that a majority of municipalities in New Brunswick have confidentiality policies that apply to their employees, but she could not say for sure if any others require members of council to sign them.
Elected officials in Tantramar must sign a code of conduct that requires them not to disclose information discussed during closed council meetings such as personnel or legal matters.
Mayor Andrew Black said by signing an additional pledge, members of council would be showing “solidarity” with town staff.
“For myself, I would say that if the entire staff of the organization and the managers have to sign this, then I think it would be a good idea for councillors to follow suit to show that we’re held to the same standards as they are,” Black added.
‘I think it’s wrong’
“I also have a problem with this,” said Councillor Michael Tower, adding that the code of conduct required by the province already holds elected officials to a higher standard when it comes to confidential information.
“I understand what you’re trying to do with solidarity, but we have two policies and they’re trying to get us to sign something and the province already demands something of us,” Tower said.
“I think it’s wrong.”
Councillor Bruce Phinney said he would also be voting against the new policy.
“I can’t in good conscience do this. Not that we don’t want to be a part of the solidarity thing, but sometimes there is a difference between [town] management and council,” he added.
‘Not muzzling us’
Coun. Allison Butcher
“I’ve read through this pledge of confidentiality,” said Councillor Allison Butcher.
“It’s not suggesting that we need to be even more confidential or less confidential than the confidentiality agreement we signed that was mandated by the province,” she added.
“This shows me that we are part of a team that includes the management and the staff of our municipality; it is not muzzling us in any way, it is requesting the same level of confidentiality that the other form does, so I don’t have a problem with signing this,” Butcher said.
Voting results
Moved by Councillor Matt Estabrooks, seconded by Councillor Allison Butcher:
I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE POLICY 2024-11, CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY.
Those in favour: Mayor Andrew Black, Deputy Mayor Greg Martin, Councillor Matt Estabrooks, Councillor Allison Butcher.
Opposed: Councillor Debbie Wiggins-Colwell, Councillor Michael Tower, Councillor Bruce Phinney, Councillor Barry Hicks, Councillor Josh Goguen.
Motion defeated.
To read the new confidentiality policy as it was presented to council, click here.
To read the confidentiality sections of the council code of conduct, click here.
Redundancy galore…: has not this Town Council time to attack more numerous existential issues rather than pursuing all these silly by-law squabbles?
Another attempt to create a situation where councillors represent town employees and bigwigs to the people, rather than the other way around.
I guess there’s something to be said for it actually being voted down, for a change. Note the names of those who voted in favour, and make sure never to vote for them as councillors, though!
Of course Debbie votes against it – look at her track record of blunders with following policies.
Bill you’re so clearly still irked by councillor wiggins colwell.
It’s unfortunate that Mr. Wark continues to allow people to post here not using their actual name as is required by the real media who is accountable.
Although we may not agree with the decision of council or member of council, they do not provide their position under disguise of a fictitious handle.
Also the term split vote is not being used correctly by Mr Wark.
A majority voted this motion down, a split would have required a tie breaker.
Not the first time this so called media person has used this term wrong.
Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure Shawn M who you think the “real media” are. The Globe and Mail, for example, which calls itself Canada’s National Newspaper, publishes hundreds, if not thousands, of comments everyday signed by what you would call “fictitious handles”.
For example, tonight’s story published an hour ago under the headline: “Calgary water restrictions to last up to five weeks longer as repairs drag” has the following as its latest comment posted by “Maggie Th”:
“It is unbelievable that a city this size has no redundancies in their water system! How can the city expect citizens to restrict their showers, laundry, dishwashing and gardening and then invite 10s of thousands of people to the city for the Stampede?!!! City of Calgary get your priorities right!”
To which, jromalo966 replies: “Their priority is social engineering”
As for the definition of “split decision” (without splitting too many hairs) a 5-4 vote shows that council was split on this vote. Although as the headline says council said no, it was only by the thinnest of majorities and I felt it important to let my readers know in the lead paragraph that this was so.
I’m wondering why I am only a “so-called media person.” As you may know, anyone who wishes to publish reports like mine is free to do so and there is no requirement for them to be “real media.” I’d say that journalists should be held to the standards of accuracy, fairness and balance. Can you point to anything here that is inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced? (Aside of course from your quibbling over the definition of the term “split vote”.)
Shawn M(?), why is Bruce Wark, in your learned opinion, a “so-called” media person and not “real media”? He’s a professor emeritus of, um, *journalism*, and he held some of the top positions in media for decades. Here’s his brief bio on the University of King’s College School of Journalism website: https://ukings.ca/people/bruce-wark/
Second, I’d say you’re being a pedant on the usage of the phrase “split 5 to 4 vote.” Council was nearly evenly divided in its opinion and vote. That’s a split or a divide. Sure, it’s not a tie broken by the mayor (your narrow definition of the only correct usage of the term “split”), but come on — there’s a split in opinion, as reflected in that vote and Bruce’s lead sentence.
Third, the so-called “real” media allow pseudonyms in online comments all the time. Heck, I just read a New York Times story on self-driving cars with comments by “Just Me,” “Carter” and “Astrochimp.” Yes, Astrochimp. So much for accountability in the “real media.”
It seems rather ironic that a reader who complains about commenters not using their actual names signs his own comment without using his surname.
However, considering he calls Bruce Wark a ‘so called media person’, one can reasonably conclude that it is our former mayor who, along with former CAO Burke and former Councillor Black (now our current Mayor who was championing this latest effort to further silence whistleblowers), attempted to make a change to a by-law that would allow the town government to define who is and is not a qualified member of the press in an attempt to muzzle Wark Times from asking pertinent questions at Town Council meetings. Fortunately, due to the resulting outcry from members of the public, and the refusal of the majority of our other councillors at the time to go along with this attack on freedom of the press and residents’ right to know, this was defeated.
Recognizing the importance of the role of whisteblowers in keeping the public informed of possible problems or corruption in governments has led many countries around the world in the last couple decades to introduce whistleblower protection legislation to protect whistleblowers from prosecution. It appears that the Mayor and those Town Councillors who voted in favour of this attempted policy change do not understand the importance of whistleblowers in our society. I extend my thanks to those councillors who voted against this unnecessary further restriction.
Councillors are not staff. Mayor and Council have a direct relationship to the people (hopefully!) and citizens need to see their diversity of ideas represented by the Council. Staff have a legal duty of loyalty to their municipal employer and always have less freedom to speak (with the partial exception of the Clerk, Treasurer and CAO). Hopefully, our council is not a corporate board of directors where all must tow the party line once it is established. It sounds like the Mayor thinks they are.
I just have a small point to add, since the main gist of what I was planning to say has already been so well covered by both Laura and Les.
If the commenter “Shawn M” really is our former mayor, as has been speculated, then he himself has previously done what he is now protesting so strongly against, in that he posted numerous previous comments under a pseudonym – “Tuxemal” – which didn’t include any part of his real name.
Good article.. Bruce, you’re doing God’s work here… I find the entire discussion of transparency and accountability mute at this point… our well-paid Town Hall staff are under the impression that the public have a say.. when in truth even something as simple as creating videos that have no input allowed is just a tip of the iceberg.. when asked why their Youtube Channel comment section is closed… no one seems to know… it’s like they are running on their own Agenda at this point [re-adjust tinfoil hat]. Either you like democracy, free speech, and discussions–no matter how controversial and upsetting to some.. or you don’t. Simple.
Give Freedom not more restrictions when formulating By-laws and regulations
governing councillors and citizens.
Mayor Feindel, Citizen Cunliffe, absolutely correct that debate over transparency and accountability is mute. The province has for at least two and a half decades adopted a governance model that has killed hospital and health boards using the same model even though the two main weaknesses are fiduciary and crisis management. The first record of this was published by a professor Lawerence Bezeau at UNB working with the auditor general of the time.. The report almost immediately disappeared. You may have read during COVID the Moncton Times and Transcript article: Are DECs (District Education Councils) Dying On The Vine.
Finally, at the Road Show held at Ward One in Dorchester, the CAO made it clear that councillor Debbie Wiggins Colwell was not an “Elected representative of our Ward”. Even though Documents show “ELECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE” All council members have a duty to represent the interests of all the citizens of the community.
After elected by universal suffrage the terminology representative of your Ward does not mean legal entitlement in the ward you were elected in.
Since the Deputy Mayor asked about training, I can’t tell if there has been any. The Mayor and CAO must have had some training. The next weekend the public wouldn’t know that the Road Shows are part of the construct to train them to the new modern streamlined legislative processes.
So in 2012 in Fredericton it was, “training next weekend will help clarify the difference between being a : “representative OF your Ward” and being “a representative FOR your ward”.
The training of Tantramar Council should spell out that Council has only one employee who they can hire. THE CAO who like all the other CAOs in the province can be fired in a parking lot; but not by you the Town Council. Even if there is a By-law with EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS the CAO gets to interpret them as long as they’re seen by the courts as “reasonable” under the law.
Council members only have power to pick on each other. Their responsibility is to the whole “MY label the Indefinite Good”. Like a solid structure of a bundle of sticks the ONE VOICE of Tantramar.
Why? The division into Wards has the ‘potential’ for increasing conflict. When Councillors focus on their wards and take a stand as an advocate FOR their wards they can end up fighting each other rather than focusing on the town as a whole and what is in the best interest of all citizens.
There is more, much, much more! “in sum, John Carver is a clinical psychologist who back in the 7O’s tried to design the perfect system of governance. However as through out history other attempts at social engineering a Utopian community have fallen all too,too short. If there is a race now to tighten by-laws this division between council and management will undermine their ability to oversee their fiduciary duties, including the rigorous monitoring of their one employee.
The strong CEO has been the bane of New Brunswick Councils.The obstruction of councillors’ diverse world experiences will cost citizens plenty in hiring consultants. You don’t need a ROADSHOW to know that citizens want what was promised. Transparency with respect to critical decisions made by staff out of view of councillors. To bring clarity to our governance problems they have very little to do with Staff, CAO or Councillors. Now informed of the Universal hegemony you will as one voice Lobby for a return to parliamentary procedures. The Mayor being President of the Municipal association should be able to help council. A cautionary note. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent suppressing Councillors who stumbled on the truth. In memory of Councillor George Crossman who died 2023, “Wayne if you continue to light a fire under an issue, please make sure it warms all of us.”
“For myself, I would say that if the entire staff of the organization and the managers have to sign this, then I think it would be a good idea for councillors to follow suit to show that we’re held to the same standards as they are,” Black added.
The big news story on June 25th was the freeing of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange after over a decade of physical and psychological torture and persecution by the American and British governments, including 5 years in solitary confinement in a British maximum security prison generally used for murderers and terrorists. What crime did he commit? Oh, yeah, exposing the war crimes of the American government by publishing data provided to him by Chelsea Manning, an American soldier whose moral conscience led her to leak the evidence of said war crimes. Manning paid a heavy price for her bringing the actions of the American government to light as well, spending 7 years in prison before her sentence was finally commuted.
To date no one guilty of committing the war crimes revealed by Assange and Manning have been brought to justice.
No doubt Mayor Black would consider Assange’s and Manning’s treatment just and fair because they unveiled confidential government information. In this week’s Council of the Whole meeting town managers were once again trying to convince Town Council of the necessity for this further restriction on the ability of town staff and Councillors to report on information that is in the public interest. Can anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?
But Les.. he’s not just Andrew Black.. he’s “His Worship” and also President of the Union of Municipalities of New Brunswick and ALSO was elected to the position of Atlantic Caucus Chair representing the interests of Atlantic Canadian municipalities on the executive committee of the FCM. He’s kind of a big deal in 2024.. andI wonder if he’s got political aspiration above his current pay grade?
Onward and upwards.
Mayor Black admitted to violating at the first meeting a local practice to elect the Deputy Mayor. A citizen called out this violation and a councillor did as well. Robert’s Rules allows for council to pass the motion to look the other way,but if they act on the motion to actually carry out the action then they have put Tantramar in any future torts in a very weak position indeed.
Just for the record, staff under policy governance is the CAO’s who is the only employee of council. You can find surprisingly on Wikipedia information on Dr John Carever a clinical psychologist on governance of non-profit organizations. There are some great ideas, but Minster Alain mentioned Amalgamation isn’t working because councils are not doing governance according to Carvers licensed POLICY GOVERNANCE.
1 The constant training of everyone. Expensive.
2.Constant rigorous screutizing of CAO ‘executive limitations’
3.Serious fiduciary and crisis namagment. [ FIRE AND POLICE]
One example of this council is the Road Show public meeting. Carver noticed that council’s are doing these regular enough. The CAO and the office staff are not sitting ready to answer questions on half pay.
Citizens have probably guessed that this form of goverance is Charity based WE kind of set up.
Town hall because the substance of council’s deliberation while a water and sewerage line waits another 40 years. If a ward councillor brings Serious concerns to council they are compromising solidarity and the image of the New Community. Hence locking down any critical examination. There is much much more to this wonderful example of Hamstringing. The CAO has the ultimate authority to even interpret the words in the executive limitations. There is no blaming anyone for the mess not the CAO, not the council. But if citizens this fall don’t demand from the two main parties of going back to the vest of the worst. Let councillors slug it out. Although not written, the Regular meeting is suppose to be a sterile environment. [ airplanes cockpit. Where facts and ideas clash, not cheap shots about all too human personalities.]
.