Sherwood RM urges councillor to resign
In two reports into the RM of Sherwood, Saskatchewan’s ombudsman has ruled that Coun. Tim Probe and former councillor Joe Repetski were in a conflict of interest during a vote at a Jan. 13, 2016, council meeting.
The reports, by Saskatchewan ombudsman Mary McFadyen, found the pair “failed to take the steps required of them under the Municipalities Act to deal with their conflict of interest.” As a result, the ombudsman has asked that the RM vote on whether to seek an order for Probe’s dismissal. Repetski is no longer a councillor.
Rod Benroth, who served as the RM’s acting chief administrative officer until about a week ago, said council expects Probe’s voluntary resignation prior to its Feb. 8 meeting. If Probe does not resign before then, council will vote to apply to have a judge remove Probe under sections 147 and 148 of the Municipalities Act.
“Certainly Plan A is less complicated: He resigns, we accept the resignation, it’s done, right?” said Coun. Carl Husum, who replaced Probe as deputy reeve. Probe said Friday the report is not “accurate to where we felt it should be.”
He is still reviewing the reports and said he’d make a more complete statement next week.
The ombudsman says Probe and Repetski failed to declare a conflict when a delegation of concerned citizens made a presentation to council at that January 2016 meeting.
At that meeting, the residents asked that the RM take steps to recover money that councillors had been reimbursed for legal fees incurred during Justice Ron Barclay’s 2014 inquiry into the Sherwood’s Wascana Village proposal.
The Court of Queen’s Bench had, in September 2015, quashed a bylaw the RM had introduced, which enabled it to reimburse councillors for the fees.
Repetski had been reimbursed some $11,000, and Probe $50,000. Former reeve Kevin Eberle had incurred costs of $212,000, of which 75 per cent was reimbursed. Former councillor Barry Jijian received $27,000.
However, the ombudsman’s summary says “when a motion was made to take steps to recover the money paid to them, instead of declaring their conflict of interest and leaving the room, (Probe and Repetski) focused the council’s discussion on whether the motion was properly before council under Robert’s Rules of Order.” This matter was then voted on instead.
Some felt at the time that Probe and Repetski should have recused themselves owing to the perceived conflict, but the pair said then that the vote to seek legal advice — both voted in favour of doing so — had been merely procedural.
The motion on the reimbursement was thus postponed, but the ombudsman found that had municipal conflict of interest rules been properly followed, the postponement should never have happened.
“This motion (to instead seek legal advice) passed with only four votes, so if (Repetski and Probe) had properly declared their conflict of interests, the rest of the council would have discussed the reimbursement motion and, possibly, voted on it,” the ombudsman wrote.
Reeve Jeff Poissant couldn’t comment, as he is a potential witness in Probe’s trial.
Benroth, the RM’s director of public works and infrastructure, and Husum remember the meeting. “To be truthful with you, we have had so many different things going on lately, there really isn’t anything that feels unusual anymore,” said Husum. “Thinking with today’s perspective on (the meeting), certainly it was unusual.”