You are here
Dealing with the Conflicts of Winnipeg's Mayor
Thursday, December 13th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Canadian mayors don't appear to be having a good time of it lately,
ethicswise. Montreal's
mayor resigned, Toronto's
mayor was dismissed by a judge, and now it looks like the
conflict situations of Winnipeg's mayor will be his downfall if
he runs for a fourth term, according to a
Canadian Broadcasting Service (CBC) News article and poll
yesterday.
The poll asked Winnipegers whether they believe that the mayor was definitely or probably involved, or not, in conflicts of interest during his time in office. 46% said he definitely was, 33% that he probably was, and 16% that he definitely or probably wasn't. Most amazing, only 1% said they hadn't seen or heard anything about his conflicts of interest.
The article discusses a few of these conflict situations. He allegedly held holiday parties, with public money, at a restaurant he owned in town ($2,900 total was allegedly involved). He bought a million-dollar house in Arizona from the sister-in-law of a local developer's president, while denying any connection with the developer beyond the developer's part-ownership of the mayor's local baseball team, which itself is a pretty important relationship. The denial was due to some questionable land exchanges and other real-estate transactions between the city and the developer.
That's a pretty serious list of conflict situations. And the mayor took things seriously enough to withdraw from some council votes. In fact, he thinks that it was his decision to withdraw from these votes that led the public to see him as having conflicts. If these withdrawals involved the developer and his baseball team, and went beyond simply not voting, and he was consistent in always withdrawing, it would be too bad if he were right.
But he could, at most, be only partly right. He wouldn't be right about the use of his restaurant, which involved the creation of a conflict where none otherwise existed. And he wouldn't be right to have purchased the house, which has the appearance of a gift or pay to play. And he should at least admit to his failure (1) to educate the public (including the CBC and other news media) about dealing responsibly with conflicts and (2) to help give the city an effective ethics program.
The CBC is also at fault here. Polls should not ask whether the public believes its officials have conflicts of interest. They should ask whether the public believes its officials deal responsibly with any conflicts they might have and do not create new conflicts, such as doing business with a major developer's family member or holding city events at one's restaurant.
The poll also found that few people would be willing to vote for the mayor's re-election. The connection between this and his conflict situations isn't clear, but this might be an instance where people, having seen what has happened in Montreal and Toronto, are sick and tired of mayors who appear to misuse their office for their personal benefit.
The Limits of the Law
According to an article in the Winnipeg Sun, purchases of property outside the province are not subject to the provincial conflict of interest law. The mayor noted this and added, “I purchased a home in Arizona, I paid fair market value ... that’s basically the gist of it. There’s nothing really more to say." When you purchase a property from a local developer's family member, it reasonably creates questions in the minds of the public. There is a great deal more for a mayor to say, and to do. The best thing would be to hand the property back, and buy a house from somebody whose family is not involved in questionable dealings with the city.
Some officials are calling for the city to hire a conflict of interest commissioner. The city certainly needs someone to advise officials and give the public the confidence that its officials are dealing responsibly with conflict situations, even when they are outside the boundaries of limited ethics laws.
It's not that the province doesn't have an ethics program. But it doesn't seem to be working, and it's rather unwieldy. For example, since a complaint has been filed relating to the mayor's use of his restaurant for city events, if he is found to have violated the law, the judge will, as in Toronto, have no choice but to dismiss him.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The poll asked Winnipegers whether they believe that the mayor was definitely or probably involved, or not, in conflicts of interest during his time in office. 46% said he definitely was, 33% that he probably was, and 16% that he definitely or probably wasn't. Most amazing, only 1% said they hadn't seen or heard anything about his conflicts of interest.
The article discusses a few of these conflict situations. He allegedly held holiday parties, with public money, at a restaurant he owned in town ($2,900 total was allegedly involved). He bought a million-dollar house in Arizona from the sister-in-law of a local developer's president, while denying any connection with the developer beyond the developer's part-ownership of the mayor's local baseball team, which itself is a pretty important relationship. The denial was due to some questionable land exchanges and other real-estate transactions between the city and the developer.
That's a pretty serious list of conflict situations. And the mayor took things seriously enough to withdraw from some council votes. In fact, he thinks that it was his decision to withdraw from these votes that led the public to see him as having conflicts. If these withdrawals involved the developer and his baseball team, and went beyond simply not voting, and he was consistent in always withdrawing, it would be too bad if he were right.
But he could, at most, be only partly right. He wouldn't be right about the use of his restaurant, which involved the creation of a conflict where none otherwise existed. And he wouldn't be right to have purchased the house, which has the appearance of a gift or pay to play. And he should at least admit to his failure (1) to educate the public (including the CBC and other news media) about dealing responsibly with conflicts and (2) to help give the city an effective ethics program.
The CBC is also at fault here. Polls should not ask whether the public believes its officials have conflicts of interest. They should ask whether the public believes its officials deal responsibly with any conflicts they might have and do not create new conflicts, such as doing business with a major developer's family member or holding city events at one's restaurant.
The poll also found that few people would be willing to vote for the mayor's re-election. The connection between this and his conflict situations isn't clear, but this might be an instance where people, having seen what has happened in Montreal and Toronto, are sick and tired of mayors who appear to misuse their office for their personal benefit.
The Limits of the Law
According to an article in the Winnipeg Sun, purchases of property outside the province are not subject to the provincial conflict of interest law. The mayor noted this and added, “I purchased a home in Arizona, I paid fair market value ... that’s basically the gist of it. There’s nothing really more to say." When you purchase a property from a local developer's family member, it reasonably creates questions in the minds of the public. There is a great deal more for a mayor to say, and to do. The best thing would be to hand the property back, and buy a house from somebody whose family is not involved in questionable dealings with the city.
Some officials are calling for the city to hire a conflict of interest commissioner. The city certainly needs someone to advise officials and give the public the confidence that its officials are dealing responsibly with conflict situations, even when they are outside the boundaries of limited ethics laws.
It's not that the province doesn't have an ethics program. But it doesn't seem to be working, and it's rather unwieldy. For example, since a complaint has been filed relating to the mayor's use of his restaurant for city events, if he is found to have violated the law, the judge will, as in Toronto, have no choice but to dismiss him.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
