Ottawa: A Mayor on Trial Refuses to Deal Responsibly with an Unrelated Conflict
Ottawa is currently in the grips of its mayor's influence-peddling
trial. The allegations are that the mayor tried to get another mayoral
candidate out of the race by offering him money and a federal position.
The Ottawa <span>Citizen</span> has <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Larry+Brien+Trial+chronology/1555208/…; target="”_blank”">an
excellent chronology</a> of what allegedly occurred. There is a lot of
evidence, but most of it appears to be hearsay, at least so far. But I'm more interested in an unrelated ethics matter that occurred a
couple of months ago.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mayor+called+ethics+over+show/1446340…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Ottawa </a><span><a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mayor+called+ethics+over+show/1446340…; target="”_blank”">Citizen</a>,
</span>just before the trial, the mayor was pushing to hold a defense
industry trade show on city property, despite the fact that such trade
shows were banned in 1989 (pre-amalgamation of the city and regional
governments) and despite the fact that a company he founded, Calian
Technologies, is a member of the industry association putting on the
show, and a subsidiary of Calian would be exhibiting at the show.<br>
<br>
The mayor left Calian just before becoming mayor two years ago, but he remains a member of
its board and a shareholder.<br>
<br>
The mayor said that he has no conflict of interest because he is not
involved in the "day-to-day" management of Calian or of its marketing
decisions. But this is not the basis for a conflict. According to the
article, "Ontario's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act says that if a
local
politician is a director of a publicly traded company, he or she has
"an indirect pecuniary interest" in any issue that comes before council
that affects the company's financial interests."<br>
<br>
You would think that an official about to go to trial would think a bit
about appearances of impropriety. But instead the mayor has focused on
technicalities: whether the ban still exists after amalgamation, and
exactly what constitutes an "indirect pecuniary interest."<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>