By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
RM of Corman Park councillors have approved a new “covenant” with the Chief Administrative officer (CAO) that outlines a framework for their working relationship in the future, with the aim of preventing future conflict between both entities.
Corman Park councillors voted to approve the covenant during their January 27 meeting, with Councillors John Saleski (Division 2), Lyndon Haduik (Division 3) and David Greenwood (Division 4) voting against the motion.
As explained by CAO Kerry Hilts, the covenant is an aspirational document that outlines how the CAO and council will work together “in a professional, respectful and constructive manner.”
The covenant is not legally binding and doesn’t replace any legislation, bylaws or employment contracts, he noted. However, it does provide a shared values framework to guide behaviour before conflict escalates.
As explained further in Hilts’ report, the relationship between council and the CAO is one of the most critical factors in a well-functioning municipality, but that relationship can deteriorate unless it is managed with clarity, discipline and mutual accountability.
Hilts recommended that council approve the document and have all of council sign it to demonstrate their commitment to upholding its principles, but they could have also approved the covenant without councll signatures or just not approve it at all.
Noting that he understood this document was developed by administration without the input of council, Greenwood said, “I feel we have a code of conduct now. I don’t think we need this. I think we should take Option 3 and leave the status quo.”
Division 1 Councillor John Germs asked if councillors were allowed to state their personal position if they disagreed with council on a particular decision. The covenant itself states that individual councillors should support council unity once a decision is made, even when individual votes differ.
Hilts said councillors can share how they voted on a particular issue, but they have to make it clear that a decision is the will of the entire council.
Reeve Joe Hargrave said that the document “should go through,” adding that it brings some additional professionalism to the council-CAO relationship and outlines where they should be.
He said it would be good not only for the CAO to approve this covenant, but the department heads and other staff who take part in their meetings and deserve as much respect as the CAO for their work.
Division 5 Councillor Arthur Pruim initially put forward a motion to approve the covenant without the signatures of councillors, indicating that he felt there was some opposition among his fellow councillors to doing so.
However, he rescinded that motion and put forward a new one after Germs suggested that he would rather attach his signature to the document if he agreed with it.
“If we support it and think this is a good document, why not put our signatures on it?” he said.
Hilts did clarify that there was no requirement, legal or otherwise, for all of council to sign the covenant.