Tantramar Town Council dismissed a formal complaint against Councillor Allison Butcher Tuesday on the grounds that it was “frivolous, vexatious, or made for an improper purpose” or that it did not fall “within the scope of this Code of Conduct.”
The complaint was filed on March 2nd by Councillor Bruce Phinney based on remarks Butcher made during a council meeting in February when she explained why she was voting against Phinney’s motion calling for council to get involved in “the hiring and firing” of town employees.
Phinney explained then that in the past, Sackville Town Council was involved in the hiring process, but it was taken out of council’s hands by a previous Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).
“We need to know who we’re hiring, we have to know who our employees are and we don’t seem to have any idea who they are, where they came from and what their work experience is,” Phinney said.
His motion said that council’s involvement in hiring would take the pressure off the CAO and create “a trusting relationship between the CAO and council.”
Butcher’s comment
During the debate, Councillor Butcher said that before she first ran for council, she looked into what the job would entail, adding that the time-consuming task of hiring and firing was well beyond what councillors are paid to do.
“The other thing I have to wonder is, in my mind reading this motion, it sounds, I wonder if this motion would have been brought forward if our CAO was a male and I’m offended by it,” Butcher said.
Phinney responded that whether the CAO was a man or a woman had no bearing on his motion.
“That’s not the way I work and I take an insult to that,” he said just before the rest of council defeated his motion on the grounds that hiring decisions should remain with the CAO who oversees the town’s day-to-day operations and supervises its staff.
Phinney’s complaint
In his complaint against Butcher, Phinney said she insinuated that his motion was made from “a sexist point of view” and that her comment violated several sections of the code of conduct:
Butcher’s defence
Councillor Butcher defended herself Tuesday saying that during the debate on Phinney’s “hiring and firing” motion in February, she was explaining why she was going to vote no.
“We need to be able as councillors to discuss, during the discussion on a motion, our thoughts, our feelings, our ideas around these things because together we come to a consensus,” she said.
“I stated that I wondered if it had been a different CAO, if it wasn’t a woman, if that [the motion] would have come forward and that was actually my thought process,” Butcher added.
“I did not refer to Councillor Phinney in any way whatsoever. I was discussing the motion. I don’t think that any of what I said was inappropriate,” she said.
“I don’t think that anything that I said was directed at Councillor Phinney. I understand that it offended him and it is his right to say he was offended during the open conversation in the same way that it was my right to bring forward how I thought and felt.”
Council debate
Most other members of council accepted Butcher’s defence saying members should be free to express themselves, that her comments were not malicious, did not accuse Phinney of sexism but merely “wondered” whether Phinney would have made his motion if the CAO were male.
Although Councillor Michael Tower said he found no merit in the complaint, he did defend Phinney’s motivation.
“I can honestly say in my own mind that the motion was not brought forward because it was a female CAO,” Tower said, adding that Phinney was also sharply critical of former male Sackville CAO Jamie Burke.
In fact, Phinney’s council colleagues decided he had violated the code of conduct on two separate occasions when he made derogatory comments about the Sackville CAO and suggested another candidate was more qualified for Burke’s job.
Tower also pointed out that Sackville council did have the final say on the hiring of senior managers. That changed in 2022 when council passed a new bylaw giving the CAO the exclusive power to hire and fire all staff.
In the end, only Phinney and Councillor Barry Hicks voted against dismissing the complaint against Butcher.
“I’ve got to say, I think an apology should be made,” Hicks said.
To read Bruce Phinney’s code of conduct complaint, click here.



Ideally, Butcher and Phinney will be voted out this coming election as there is some seriously good competition for Ward 3.
The pettiness is off the charts in the current culture of Town Hall politics.
Seriously.. do they really have nothing better to do with their time on the job here?
$2,000 per month for Town Councillors.. they should at least have some achievements to show for their time in… eh?
– Phinney brought forward a motion
– Butcher says “I wonder if this motion would have been brought forward if our CAO was a male and I’m offended by it.”
Butcher was imputing sexist motives to the motion. The motion was made by Phinney. So she was imputing sexist motives to Phinney.
Butcher’s claim “I did not refer to Councillor Phinney in any way whatsoever. I was discussing the motion. I don’t think that any of what I said was inappropriate,” is totally disingenuous, playing a game of make believe that implying a motion is sexist is not implying the person who advanced the motion is sexist. How can voters trust someone who thinks that way?
If Phinney had responded “I wonder whether Councillor Butcher would have made her comment if I was female,” would anyone doubt that there was an implication of sexism?
Butcher undeniably attributed a discriminatory motive to a colleague, in violation of the code of conduct which requires councillors to be respectful and not defamatory. Dismissing the complaint as “frivolous, vexatious, or made for an improper purpose” demonstrates how valueless a code of conduct is when it isn’t applied fairly, equally, and logically.
Hicks was right. Butcher should have apologized and withdrawn her offensive innuendo. Councillors need to be able to speak freely. They also need to honestly take responsibility for what they say instead of hiding behind the claim that implying something is totally different from stating it.
The council’s decision sets a precedent for using the code of conduct to punish those they don’t like, and disregarding it whenever they choose to. Innuendo is officially acceptable in council meetings now when the majority decide to disregard the code of conduct.