By Connor Luczka | Stratford Times
After multiple cancelled council meetings and three residents were suspended from city property in Stratford, Ont., over the summer – all because of alleged infractions to a respectful workplace policy – the policy is remaining in place, albeit altered.
At the Oct. 28 Stratford city council meeting, council voted to separate Policy H.1.36, otherwise known as the respectful workplace policy, into three separate policies: a public-conduct policy, a code of conduct for elected or appointed officials and a respectful workplace policy for employees.
Dave Bush, the city’s human resources director, said that was due to some confusion caused by the “layering” of the policy. The recommendation made by staff was to provide separate avenues for Stratford residents and staff to address their concerns.
“We’re not looking to weaponize policies, to go on the attack,” Bush went on to say. “Everyone has the right to say their piece. Everyone has the right to debate. We can disagree. We can disagree with a lot of heated emotion, but the premise of all of this is to do it respectfully.”
The revised policy includes a list of inappropriate behaviours, including violence, vandalism, harassment, discrimination, abusive language, intimidation, humiliation, demeaning, frivolous or vexatious requests and the refusal to follow health-and-safety practices.
Deeming a behaviour as inappropriate is also defined in the policy, noting there may be “serious consequences” for the individual should that be the case.
“Determining whether particular behaviours are inappropriate behaviour can require a flexible balancing exercise considering all circumstances of a particular case,” the policy reads. “Before classifying a person’s behaviour as inappropriate behaviour, the assigned director and CAO must be satisfied that the incident has been thoroughly reviewed and investigated, including consultations with members of the public, city staff, or council members who reported or were involved in the incidents or previous incidents and that communication with the alleged offender has been adequate.
“Each case will be considered on an individual case-by-case basis as deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The director and CAO may consult with the city solicitor to seek legal advice or refer the incident to an external third party at any time for investigation if deemed necessary.”
Mike Sullivan, one of the three residents who were suspended due to alleged infractions of the policy, doesn’t think the revisions made were enough. In a delegation prior to the revision’s approval, he raised “serious problems” with the route staff were recommending.
“Nothing in the proposed changes would prevent city staff from banning me or others for similarly exercising their constitutional rights,” Sullivan said. “Nothing in the proposed changes would force the city to reveal the actual complaints or the findings of an appeal process – two serious flaws with the old policy. Nothing in the proposed changes would clarify the process, which currently permits one individual to act as complainant, judge, jury, executioner and appeal judge.
“In addition, though I gave notice of my intent to appeal the decision immediately, there was no action whatsoever on that appeal until a few days before the ban was up. That’s not dealt with in this policy change.”
Sullivan also took umbrage with the policy’s definition of “frivolous or vexatious requests,” which are an example of inappropriate behaviours. The policy says such requests are “incomprehensible, inflammatory or based on conspiracy theories” or initiated with the intent to embarrass or annoy the recipient of the request.
Sullivan has put in numerous Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests over the years, often for information he thinks should be accessible freely. He has concerns that the city requiring FOI requests could entrap him and other concerned citizens.
“The mind boggles,” Sullivan said.
In addition to Sullivan, Jane Marie Mitchell, a resident who received a warning letter from the city, and Sharon Collingwood, a member of Get Concerned Stratford, also delegated on the matter.
Similar to Sullivan, neither of them were supportive of the recommendation and wanted more done to address their concerns.
Additionally, Mitchell made it a point that the legal fees the city incurred enforcing the policy recently should be disclosed to the public before council makes a decision, although none were disclosed during the meeting.
Coun. Cody Sebben, who initially raised the review of the policy when he made a motion to suspend it outright, said the spirit of the review was to make fundamental changes given the issues raised in the summer.
“We’re talking as if this policy, the new policy, is somehow softer in implementation,” Sebben said. “When in fact, the processes are exactly the same. … So, if we don’t have a change, we are going to have the same outcome as we had back in July.”
That was a sentiment shared by Coun. Geza Wordofa, who said that citizens “have a right to speak up.”
Coun. Lesley Biehn on the other hand, said the revisions made were substantial enough and the policy was made better by them, and was in support of the revision.
In a recorded vote, only Sebben and Wordofa opposed the staff recommendation. Coun. Taylor Briscoe and Coun. Larry McCabe were absent.
According to Bush’s presentation, the next steps for the policy are to update the website, draft a communications plan to roll it out and to educate staff.
