The sanction follows the first-term councillor’s use of personal information contained in committee application forms to contact individuals applying to sit on a Town committee with additional questions to help him decide on the best candidate.
Coun. Poole said his own legal opinion from municipal law experts Shores Jardine indicated he had not breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act, or a council policy governing committee member selections.
Based on the different legal opinion from the Town’s lawyers, council voted 5-2 to strip Poole of his ability to serve as acting or deputy mayor. The decision followed a lengthy closed door meeting.
“I will heartedly vote against this because I think the motion is not based on legal justification; it’s based only on political votes,” said Coun. Poole when council came out of in-camera.
This is the second time Poole has found himself in hot water over privacy legislation in a formal code of conduct matter – and it believed to be the first time in the municipality’s 29-year history in which a councillor has faced a sanction.
Earlier this year, Poole faced a code of conduct meeting over a breach of privacy legislation when he shared Town of Banff news to an email list he had assembled that included an address of a resident who had applied for a position with a Town committee.
Coun. Corrie DiManno said it is a privilege to serve as acting or deputy mayor, noting the mayor’s office has to be shown the utmost respect when it comes to process, policy and privacy.
“Unfortunately, I currently lack the trust in this individual councillor to perform the duties of acting and deputy mayor and represent council and the organization in those capacities,” she said. “This is not something that I take lightly, or this council takes lightly, but I think it’s the path we need to go down in order to begin to rebuild trust.”
Residents wanting to serve on municipal committees fill in application forms, which include a series of questions already determined and approved by council. This is governed by a council policy.
In the lead-up to the committee selections in October, Coun. Poole emailed some candidates to get additional information and ask further questions using the contact email in the application forms.
Poole said the personal information was provided to council by administration and more than one of the applicants invited them to contact them if there were additional questions.
“It is usual in an interview process for there to be questions and answers and supplementary questions,” he said.
In addition, Poole said his legal opinion indicates there is no prohibition in the council policy that explicitly bans councillors from asking questions outside the application form.
“In the absence of specific language which prohibits contact between a councillor and an applicant, there’s no basis upon which council can impose discipline,” he said.
“I acknowledge those of you who vote in favour of this motion have your own political authority to vote as you want; it’s just not rooted in a legal statement.”
Based on a different legal opinion provided to council, which was not made public, most of council believed FOIP and the council policy, referred to as C09-1, were breached, or potentially breached.
Council referred to a few clauses, including one indicating applications must be submitted in the form provided by the municipal clerk unless otherwise authorized by council; and that administration is responsible for reviewing public member recruitment profiles and application questions and forwarding recommendations to council.
Coun. Grant Canning, who brought the motion forward to strip Poole of his ability to serve as acting or deputy mayor, said he believed this potential FOIP contravention was minor in nature and didn’t significantly harm public trust.
That said, Canning believed the more serious issue was the potential breach of the council policy, noting that council reviewed and unanimously approved it earlier this year, with no discussion about any amendments.
“This is not the first time we’ve had such issues this term. It is the latest incident for policy and procedures that have not been followed by an individual councillor,” he said.
“As a result, I feel it is necessary to make a motion to sanction the councillor. Actions have consequences.”
Poole’s only support came from Coun. Ted Christensen.
He suggested an apology from Poole to the candidates, or a letter of reprimand from the mayor, would be a better way to go.
“I question striking Coun. Poole from being acting mayor and deputy mayor because I think it’s increasing the divisiveness that is already creeping into our council,” said Coun. Christensen.
“Our first concern is for the candidates who are upset, who are concerned. This has become a personal political decision that I cannot support it at this stage.”
Coun. Chip Olver, who became very emotional during the discussion, wanted to get further legal advice before making a decision, but did not get the support of her fellow councillors.
“I have some discomfort going forward without that, but since it’s the will of most of council to go forward, then I will also,” she said, noting additional legal advice may have provided more information that could potentially change the decision.
“I think it’s really unfortunate to be here today. It’s certainly a first in my 25 years on council, and I wish we weren’t here.”
As a result of this incident, council also voted to redact any contact information from committee application forms before it comes to council in future.
Mayor Karen Sorensen said there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what appropriate contact and motivation for contacting a committee applicant is.
“I think it is important that we assure that this does not take place again, which is simply by redacting the contact information on these documents will solve that problem,” she said.
