Voice readers have continued to raise questions about certain assertions made by Pelham Town Councillors Marianne Stewart and Lisa Haun, as well as conduct engaged in by Councillors Bob Hildbrandt and Ron Kore, at council’s regular meeting on June 15.
Assertion that CannTrust is “suing” the Town
On various occasions, both Stewart and Haun have stated that the cannabis producer CannTrust, located in Fenwick, is “suing the Town.” This is false.
CannTrust is appealing the Town’s Development Charge (DC) assessment, in front of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), regarding their planned expansion in Fenwick. This is not a lawsuit.
CannTrust’s action is analogous to a Pelham homeowner appealing their home’s assessed value in front of the tax tribunal, in hopes of lowering their property tax bill. The homeowner doesn’t “sue” the tribunal. CannTrust isn’t suing LPAT or the Town.
Such appeals are standard corporate maneuvers, aimed at lowering taxes and fees. Large corporations, such as Walmart or Canadian Tire, arrive in a new town and decide that the DCs which the local municipality wants to charge them are excessive, so they appeal. It’s a calculated gamble that their request will be granted, or partly granted, potentially saving the business hundred of thousands of dollars.
Pelham CAO David Cribbs told the Voice that while LPAT hearings have now resumed over video-conference, there is a considerable backlog and that it may be October or later before CannTrust’s appeal is heard. “It is likely that the Town will learn of a new date in relatively short order,” said Cribbs.
“Why didn’t someone stop them”
In response to news that Councillors Kore and Hildebrandt appeared to directly violate the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act during the June 15 meeting, readers asked on social media why no one tried to stop them.
The apparent violation came near the end of the meeting, when it was time for council to debate what sort of penalty should be imposed on Mayor Marvin Junkin, for various technical violations of the Town’s Code of Conduct. Before debate started, Kore said that he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. (Kore has not responded to a Voice request that he explain the nature of the conflict.)
Given that it was Kore himself who instigated the investigations, this was unexpected by itself. However, after Kore exited, and before debate did get underway, Hildebrandt announced that he would read a prepared statement given to him by Kore, which he proceeded to do— thus apparently violating the Act, which forbids a council member from attempting “in any way whether before during or after the meeting to influence the voting” on the issue being debated.
The reason that neither Pelham CAO David Cribbs nor Town Clerk Nancy Bozzato flagged this end-run around the rules is that neither has the power to do so.
“Because staff have no actual standing, they cannot object to real or perceived violations of the rules,” Cribbs told the Voice. “When questioned or consulted [by councillors], the Clerk or CAO can and should provide their position on a procedural question, such as a Point of Order. However, challenging an action or statement requires standing that staff do not have.”
By “standing,” Cribbs is referring to elected office, that is, being a member of council.
Bozzato concurred.
“Staff does not have the jurisdictional authority to intervene in a procedural breach such as this. The role of staff would be to provide procedural advice, when and if asked by the presiding officer….The appropriate mechanism under parliamentary rules is through the calling of a Point of Order by one of the voting members. Under parliamentary rules, only [a councillor] may raise a Point of Order and the ruling on the point is made by the presiding officer.”
Staff does not have jurisdictional authority to intervene in a procedural breach such as this
The presiding officer in this case—the person running the meeting—was Hildebrandt, since the Mayor had left the meeting before debate began. Hildebrandt did not respond to a Voice request for comment on why he agreed to read Kore’s statement after Kore had declared a conflict of interest.
Over the weekend the Voice reached out to all members of council for comment on why none of them raised a Point of Order challenging the Kore-Hildebrandt maneuver. No one acknowledged the request.
Recalling councillors
Readers have also asked whether it is possible to recall councillors. The answer is no. While several nations around the world allow recall referendums, Canada does not have a recall mechanism at the federal level, and only the Province of British Columbia allows recalls of members of the provincial Legislative Assembly. Over the years there have been several calls across Canada for the introduction of recall legislation. For the time being, though, you vote them in, you’re stuck with them, until the next election.
