Report could have wider consequences

It’s been nearly a month since Conflict of Interest Commissioner Ron Barclay submitted his report to the government on the Rural Municipality of Sherwood.

Sadly, we still don’t know what’s in that report, but that’s not even the most bizarre element.

Even more unusual is that we already received last week something resembling a mea culpa from the RM, which already has Barclay’s report in its possession. Evidently, it didn’t understand its legal advice and/or made mistakes in implementing that advice when it proposed the 14,000-person Wascana Village project on Regina’s southeast edge.

“We are not lawyers, but we are volunteers who rely upon our legal counsel’s advice to provide guidance through the difficult area of law,” the RM said in a news release.

Of course, this isn’t exactly a fountain of clarity as to what issues are now in play as result of Barclay’s report, but Sherwood RM councillors sure don’t seem to think anyone did much wrong.

Later last week, Sherwood Reeve Kevin Eberle — the person clearly at the centre of the controversy because he also happens to own land upon which Wascana Village would be built — offered his resignation to council.

It took more than half an hour for the RM council to emerge from an in-camera meeting with the decision to not accept his resignation. All we know is the vote wasn’t unanimous.

When it comes to clarifying the many issues in play with the RM of Sherwood, all this has been about as helpful as Eberle recusing himself from each vote on Wascana Village, according to the RM’s past pronouncements.

“Every decision we make as a council is deliberate and thought through,” said Sherwood Deputy Reeve Tim Probe last week.

Some observers might disagree, but keep in mind the RM’s absolution that councillors are “volunteers” relying upon legal counsel’s advice to provide guidance.

The more cynical among us might view the RM’s public response to the still-private report as what the military would call a “pre-emptive strike”.

What does seem obvious, however, is the waiting for the report’s release isn’t particularly healthy for anyone. Frankly, we have already been waiting far too long for anything vaguely resembling an explanation of the behaviour of these elected officials.

In fairness, Government Relations Minister Jim Reiter intended to make public an interim report in July. However, Barclay recommended against that because it would have contained unproven allegations. It was about this time that the former Court of Queen’s Bench Justice found it necessary to expand the scope of his “inspection” to an “inquiry” into the conduct of council.

But it’s also about here where it would seem rather obvious that some action needs to accompany the clarity Barclay’s report will bring.

Government spokeswoman Kathy Young confirmed last week the report is being reviewed by government officials, including the Justice Ministry, to see if any personal information needs to be redacted.

Interestingly, Young was mum on whether her government might be contemplating changes to the Municipal Act to address any issues arising from the report.

The goings-on in Sherwood may very well be confined to that RM, but there might be bigger implications for RM councils and what they should be allowed to engage in when it comes to potential conflict involving lucrative developments and such small political entities.

There simply cannot be some special proviso for RM councillors who might not be meeting the standards expected of any other public servant just because they are “volunteers”.

Either reeves and RM councillors meet the standards we expect from any elected public servant or government needs to take a serious look at what economic development/ activities RMs should be allowed to engage in.

Clearly, the RM of Sherwood’s public response to Barclay’s report suggests that something has gone awry.

We still wait to find out just what it is and how it should be fixed.