ward3brighton.ca

Recently I was declared by the city’s solicitor to be in a conflict of interest over a request for a variance on a property adjacent to mine. The property owner had — without a permit — built a large deck that did not comply with the minimum side and rear yard setbacks and was belatedly applying for a variance. Admittedly, I have a history with the property in question, having publicly opposed a development that took place there prior to me being elected to council. But many of my neighbours expected me to oppose the variance on their behalf.

During an orientation session at the beginning of my term, our solicitor gave us a very thorough presentation on the concept of conflicts of interest, and the various forms by which they can present themselves. On the deck variance, firstly, I was deemed to have a bias because of my past opposition to the whole development, and secondly, there was a concern that because of the proximity, the non-conforming deck may affect the value of my property and I should not stand in judgment of anything in which I may have a material interest. Fair enough. I recused myself from the discussion at Planning Board, and when it came to a vote in council I left the chamber (Planning Board’s recommendation was to deny the request, Council disagreed).

Now, I don’t intend to question the character of our provincial Minister of Transportation, and perhaps I’m not exactly comparing apples to apples, but I see some parallels in the situation he currently finds himself in. If I can assume that conflict of interest guidelines are generally universal, then Ron MacKinley can very reasonably be deemed to have a material interest in a set of traffic lights that directly abuts his large, as-yet undeveloped piece of land. And perhaps you could argue he had a bias in favor of the new intersection.

I’m not trying to score political points against Ron MacKinley, or anyone else, but in my situation with the variance, I felt hamstrung and was very disappointed that I could not represent the wishes of my neighbours who clearly opposed the variance (I also believe this variance, which was ultimately granted, sets a very bad precedent). MacKinley probably just thought he was doing his job.

There have been a number of conflicts declared by various councillors since I began my term, some more tenuous than others. Councillors are always disappointed when they cannot represent their constituents, but we accept the old maxim, “justice must not only be done, but seen to be done”. I was disappointed in my case, but happy to step back and remove the possibility of someone applying the “sniff test” after the fact. When the provincial Conflict of Interest Commissioner reports back to the legislature, Ron MacKinley may be wishing he’d stepped back as well.

Interesting sidenote: The same developer is involved in both cases; my deck variance issue, and MacKinley’s Cornwall intersection (and also the Winslow intersection issue, in today’s Guardian).