Cambridge, I want to love you

But sometimes Council makes it really difficult!

Okay, perhaps that title is a bit harsh. There is a lot to like about Cambridge, including some pretty amazing people, service organizations, trails and public spaces, and local businesses. But as I mention in the subtitle, the disheartening piece often results from council decisions. This week I will focus on just one example of a story that seems like it should get more attention then it has. Thankfully, at least, the Record’s Paige Desmond covered it.

Photo by Bannon Morrissy on Unsplash

Paige’s article outlines a recent Cambridge Council meeting decision where there was no penalty for a Cambridge committee chair even though Cambridge’s Integrity Commissioner noted a “significant breach of the city’s code of conduct”.

Essentially, a complaint was made to Cambridge's Integrity Commissioner, Paula Boutis, about the conduct of a Committee of Adjustment member. The integrity commissioner declared that a significant breach had occurred. Yet, Cambridge council chose to do nothing at all with this information.

In fact, the Integrity Commissioner recommended that "The chair of Cambridge’s committee of adjustment should be fired after she deliberately violated the city’s code of conduct for committees." And still, council chose to take no action, unanimously in fact.

The complaint involves Frances Seward, who chairs the Committee of Adjustment. It was determined that Seward "acted inappropriately on an application for a property across the street from her home”. Seward discussed the issue with neighbours and did not declare a conflict of interest at committee.

The complaint was filed by the owner of the Oak St. property who “sought to sever the property and asked the city to allow minor variances to zoning bylaws to permit the demolition of the current semi-detached home and build two new, three-storey homes.”

The Commissioner found that Seward “abused her role ... by furthering her personal interests related to the proposal that was before her, which required an impartial adjudication she clearly could not provide. She acted in clear violation of these code provisions.”

“By the time of the December meeting, (Seward’s) partner who resides at the same location, along with other residents, submitted comments in opposition to the proposal,” the staff report reads. “The respondent did not recuse herself nor declare pecuniary interests at either meeting.”

The Integrity Commissioner claimed that, “Seward not only deliberately failed to recuse herself from the decision, but also failed to take the advice of the committee's secretary treasurer who Boutis believes gave clear direction...that members who live within the notice area of an application ought to recuse themselves."

Council spent very little time even discussing the issue. Councillor Ross Earnshaw sought clarification that it is “open to council to not, in fact, impose any remedial or corrective actions not withstanding your recommendation” and that council could reject the Integrity Commissioner's recommendations - which is accurate.

That was the only 'discussion'. It then went to a vote where council unanimously agreed to 'receive the report' but take no further action. As far as I understand it, Seward will continue to chair the Committee of Adjustment.

As noted in the Integrity Commissioner's report, the Committee of Adjustment is a somewhat unique committee because, while many city committees are simply 'advisory', this one is a "quasi-judicial decision-making body." To me, that carries additional weight.

The staff report states that, "It is the role of the Integrity Commissioner to review all inquiries received in an independent, impartial, thorough, and professional manner in keeping with the process and procedures as outlined in the Code of Conduct." I'm left confused as to why the Integrity Commissioner's recommendations were so quickly ignored, with basically no discussion at council.

You can watch the meeting, where the Integrity Commissioner outlines the issue along with recommendations, followed by a very quick and unanimous decision by council to take no action (starts at 52:00).

While the city clerk noted that no further decisions will be made on this matter, that doesn’t prevent residents from reaching out to their representatives to share their frustration with this decision. Cambridge folks, click here to find contact information for Cambridge councillors.

It’s also interesting to note that the Ontario Land Tribunal has now overturned the Committee of Adjustment’s decision regarding the Oak Street property - so the Oak St proposal can now proceed.