It has been nearly three weeks since former city councillor Gilles Prefontaine was hired for a managerial position with the City of St. Albert.
The move sparked controversy and in this space we questioned the optics and suggested, while it should have been common sense that Prefontaine step away from his duties as councillor before applying for the job, perhaps better policy is needed.
As council prepares to implement a code of conduct bylaw, a new requirement under the provincial Municipal Government Act, this is the perfect time to examine how a similar, although likely rare, situation would be handled if it were to arise in the future.
Pefontaine’s former colleagues around the council table had various responses when posed with the hypothetical moral question asking what they would have done had they been in Prefontaine’s shoes. Their answers are on page 6 in today’s Gazette.
While Mayor Nolan Crouse would not comment, councillors returned with answers varying from taking the absolute moral high ground to others who saw shades of grey in the situation.
Coun. Wes Broadhead said it was difficult to speculate on what he would have done in the same situation. Broadhead said, “I would like to think that I probably wouldn’t apply in the first place … but it’s hard to fault him in terms of him trying to benefit his family.”
Coun. Heron took a similar tack. Although she said she would have likely considered taking a leave of absence, she does not fault Prefontaine for going after a better opportunity.
Councillors Tim Osborne, Cam MacKay and Sheena Hughes all said they would not have applied for a job with the city in the first place and in the rare chance they would have they would have definitely resigned. Hughes and MacKay went steps further and condemned the move as a conflict of interest and a betrayal of the public trust.
“You’ve made a covenant to the voter for one, but two how do you not exercise undue influence when you’re a sitting councillor and apply for jobs at the city,” said MacKay.
Heron might be right when she said hindsight is 20-20. While we disagree with her statement that it was hard to predict how the public would react to this situation, Prefontaine was able to fall back on there being a lack of policy – as unneeded as it should be – to justify his choice.
Since common sense did not prevail in this instance, a review of policies is in order. Most of the councillors pointed out that a city employee wishing to run for council would have to resign to do so. A similar policy indicating the reverse is also in order. While none of the councillors stated they would bring forward such a motion, they each indicated willingness to review the policies.
A review, however, is not enough. If those councillors who have expressed their disapproval toward Prefontaine’s move are serious about ensuring it never happens again, they should be putting motions forward. Those councillors who are wishy-washy on where they stand will have to answer to the electorate.
