This story was previously posted on Stratford Today.
Consider it a split decision.
Stratford city council voted to review its much-talked about Respectful Workplace Policy during it's meeting Monday, but not to suspend its use. These decisions came following a slew of delegations in support of Coun. Cody Sebben’s motion to suspend the RWP, all of which asked council to halt use of the policy while the city came up with other alternatives.
Originally tabled as one motion, council opted to separate the suspension and review into individual decisions - the motion to suspend was defeated 9-2 in a recorded vote with Sebben and Geza Wodorfa the lone supporters, while the motion to review passed unanimously.
There were seven delegations in support of Sebben’s motion, including Robert Roth of Save Our Speech Stratford, Barb Shaughnessy, Tim Forster, Jane Marie Mitchell and David Yates. Jason Davis also spoke on the motion to suspend the policy and put forth one of the more compelling presentations, talking about his first-hand experience in dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a physical attack he suffered and subsequent issues at his workplace.
“I used my own personal history to try and relay my understanding on the importance of mental health and protection of staff from cases of defamation, libel, and intimidation,” he said, referring to how he had felt threatened by a customer’s words at his workplace.
“On the other hand, I also know that we cannot go directly from complaint to action without a process to protect the public from being unjustly scrutinized or intimate. While staff’s feelings following an interaction are valid and are not up for debate, the city’s reaction to complaints require more nuance - especially when dealing with possible cases of unconscious bias. I understand that (the policy) is not only important for the protection and retention of staff but it is also legally required. However, the policy should not be implemented in a way that crosses into judicial jurisdiction.”
Davis went on to say that complaints involving ‘facial microaggressions’ not only lack definition but validity for response, saying that while the feelings of complainants are valid but they should not step on the rights of others who have their own feelings. He didn’t have a solution to the issue of what should come out of the policy’s review, but wants to see more dialogue from the city when it does.
“We are getting a lot of information and claims from one side yet little response from the city, and this leaves uncertainty in the public on where lines are being drawn,” he said. “That makes it difficult to judge if all accused are being treated fairly or if ‘collective punishment’ is occurring. I understand hesitance to be forthcoming on specifics … but in the interim, the public gets stuck battling opinions between the responsibility to protect freedom of speech and being held responsible for the repercussions of that speech.”
That sentiment was partially shared by Coun. Taylor Briscoe, one of the councillors to speak on the motion before the vote. Talking about how individual actions by those citizens affected by the ban had halted previous city business, Briscoe said she voted to keep the policy in place to avoid creating a loophole that would promote future bad behaviour. She added her thoughts on how she would like to see the policy change.
“First, the general process of what happens when the policy is not adhered to and when we go from a warning to a ban, the standard practice is to move towards a trespass order,” she said. “We don’t want to make the spectacle of someone being forcibly removed, but if we do move to a trespass order we have to find the best way of dealing with it if that order is not adhered to.”
Sebben said he felt the will to examine the policy at this time was lacking but hopes that will change.
“The policy states it should be reviewed annually, and I’m hopeful that we will take a look at it and there will be some real changes made,” he said. “But until then, I don’t know what will happen. I want to see real change to this policy in this situation - I want to see a policy that doesn’t impact council and committee meetings as much as this one has. Perhaps we need one that applies to interactions with staff outside of meetings more than during meetings because we already have policies in place and procedures for council and committee meetings and those can be followed and adhered to.”
While getting council to agree to reviewing the policy seems like a small victory, Sebben wasn’t ready to see things stop there. It’s the responsibility of he and his fellow council members to provide decisions that make sense - something he feels the policy does not provide for.
“It’s my opinion that we have a policy that is dysfunctional and not working properly, and council tonight has provided direction to continue this policy but to have it reviewed,” he said. “Ultimately, it’s our responsibility to make these decisions. I wanted the policy suspended today, but that wasn’t the will of council. I’ll wait to see what happens next.”
