RM cases not treated equitably
On Nov. 7, the Saskatchewan ombudsman published a news release citing that, among other issues, since November 2015 her office has reached the 1,000th municipal-complaints mark in our province, and she highlighted three rural municipalities (RMs) where there had been alleged conflicts of interest.
These three cases are currently prominently featured on the ombudsman’s website; however, her office appears to be treating these cases quite differently than earlier RM of Sherwood cases.
First, the three RM cases do not cite rural councillors’ names. Councillors are simply referred to anonymously as “council member #1,” etc. By contrast, when reporting on two councillors in the RM of Sherwood (and full disclosure, I was one of them), the ombudsman’s office published the names of the council members.
Second, of the five RM councillors being investigated, four did not have to resign because in the ombudsman’s judgment there was no intent or “guilty mind” to do wrong, and she offered them instruction, if not grace, rather than forcing them to resign. In the fifth case, the council member chose to resign before the ombudsman’s final report was issued.
With the RM of Sherwood, the ombudsman acknowledged the finding that both council members did not participate in discussion about legal fees in a council meeting, as alleged, but sought procedural clarification. Still, she attributed “a guilty mind motive” and went for the jugular by recommending that the remaining councillor resign or be removed by the court, and be banned from holding office for 12 years. (My term had already expired).
Third, I stopped by the ombudsman’s office in Regina to pick up the published reports on the recent three RM cases. I received reports on loose copier paper without a cover; these reports were a mere three to four pages long. In the case of the RM of Sherwood, the reports had card stock covers with the names of council members on the front in large font, and were 24 and 28 pages in length.
With all due respect, do these differences not appear to present an uneven-handedness in the way the RM of Sherwood is being treated and portrayed? Doesn’t there seem to be more fanfare with Sherwood? If the ombudsman’s mandate is to be fair and impartial, why does it seem to amplify the RM of Sherwood cases over others? And what evidence is there that the ombudsman is also holding the provincial government to the same standard as municipal council members?
As a quasi-judicial entity, it is imperative that the ombudsman’s office be equitable if the public is to trust its findings.
Joe Repetski, retired councillor, RM of Sherwood