I was dismayed to see Mayor Crouse vote on a motion involving a money matter related to the Healing Gardens Project, when his wife, Gwen, is the chair person of the Healing Gardens Planning Committee, which is seeking funds from City Council.
The Mayor’s defence is that he did not breach Section 172 of the Municipal Government Act because, this is not a matter in which either he or his wife have a pecuniary interest in the said project.
However, he failed to address the allegation that he breached Section 4 of the Council Members’ Code of Conduct. Section 4 of that Code of Conduct is remarkably unambiguous and states: “A council member must avoid conflicts of interest.”
A conflict of interest arises when a person is placed in a situation which creates competing loyalties. That occurs when a person is placed in a situation in which there is an incompatibility between one’s private interests and one’s public or fiduciary duties.
In this present case, Mayor Crouse had a public duty to ensure that the request for an additional $200,000 was justified and in the best interests of St. Albert residents. At the same time, it is obvious that by the very nature of the grant application, he and his wife wanted to obtain the grant money for the committee of which she is the chair person. The problem of divided loyalties and conflicting obligations is perfectly obvious.
Mayor Crouse cannot argue that he would have voted the same way, even if his wife were not the chair person of the committee because the rule states that a councillor must avoid conflicts of interest. When you participated in the debate and vote on the motion you did not do your duty, which is to avoid a situation you have a conflict in.
In the past, Mayor Crouse has publicly proclaimed the importance of a code of conduct. However, when it comes to his own actions, he exempts himself from the very rules he extols.
William Tuchak, St. Albert
