One New Westminster councillor has forced a public review of how the city recruits and appoints its ethics commissioner, saying residents deserve assurance that the person charged with advising council and adjudicating conduct complaints is impartial.
At the outset of council’s Aug. 31 meeting, Coun. Daniel Fontaine sought permission to add an item under new business asking staff to review the city’s recruitment, vetting and appointment process for the role. Fontaine told council publicly available records show the current interim ethics commissioner has made political contributions to the B.C. New Democratic Party and has been registered to conduct lobbying activities in the province — activities Fontaine said raise questions about perceived or actual conflicts.
“We only have two more meetings of regular council. This information has come to my attention, and if this were to go through the regular process, I believe that this motion may not make it into this council in time for the Oct. 17 election,” Fontaine said.
What council asked staff to do
Council voted 4–3 to accept Fontaine’s motion as a late agenda item, waiving the usual requirement that notices of motion be submitted in advance for inclusion on a subsequent meeting agenda. The measure asks staff to prepare a report covering how the city recruits, evaluates, vets and recommends candidates for the ethics commissioner appointment, with particular attention to conflict-of-interest safeguards.
- Confirm whether political contributions, lobbying registrations or other political activities were identified or considered in the selection of the current interim ethics commissioner.
- Explain what due diligence was carried out during the appointment process.
- Recommend any changes to strengthen disclosure, due diligence and safeguards that protect the perceived and actual independence of the office.
| Requested report items | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Recruitment and vetting process | Assess current practices and transparency |
| Consideration of political activity | Determine whether conflicts were identified or disclosed |
| Recommended changes | Strengthen future independence and impartiality |
Timing and political context
Fontaine raised concerns with urgency because regular council sits only twice more before the municipal election on Oct. 17. He argued the matter should be considered during the current council term so any recommended changes can be implemented or at least tabled before a new council is sworn in.
The procedural move to accept a late item was controversial. The 4–3 vote reflects a divided council on whether to bypass the usual notice period — a routine intended to give staff time to prepare background information and ensure informed debate. Fontaine said the exception was warranted by the perceived risk to the integrity of the office that advises councillors and hears code-of-conduct complaints.
Local implications
The ethics commissioner plays a central role in municipal accountability. The office provides advice to councillors on conflicts and interprets the council code of conduct bylaw, and it can adjudicate complaints that touch on councillors’ behaviour. Any suggestion that the person in that role has political ties or registrations that could influence decisions is likely to prompt scrutiny from residents, community groups and candidates in the fall election.
Council did not debate the substance of the allegations during the Aug. 31 meeting; instead the vote focused on whether to instruct staff to compile the requested information and recommendations. The staff report will be watched closely by residents concerned about transparency, by candidates seeking election this autumn and by civic watchdogs who monitor municipal integrity frameworks.
How the city conducts that review — and whether it identifies gaps in disclosure or vetting — could shape future policy on the independence of advisory and adjudicative roles at city hall. The report back to council will also clarify what checks were or were not applied when the current interim commissioner was appointed.
Council has not yet set a date for when staff must return with the requested information. In the meantime, the motion has put the appointment processes for municipal ethics oversight under the public microscope as New Westminster approaches an election in which governance and trust are central themes.
