According to its critics, the newly adopted version of Stratford’s Respectful Workplace Policy is at best the same as the previous policy and at worst another way of silencing critical comments directed at council and the municipality.
At the head of that line is Coun. Cody Sebben, who had issues with the previous policy and was hoping to see substantive changes when it was taken up by staff for review and options back in July.
“My issues with this policy are the same as they were with the old one when I wanted it suspended back in July,” he said. “Council voted to review the policy but I think that this is too similar; the process and things are exactly the same and I foresee the same potential problems with this policy.”
Sebben was asked about a middle ground between the two perspectives this policy has: the desire for personal accountability versus the ability to freely express viewpoints however critical they may be of decisions or the decision-makers. He pointed out that council had three options to choose from Monday night when the topic came up at council and they opted not to take one that might have been more middle-of-the-road.
“There was an option in the management report to take out the public piece from this policy altogether and use the other existing policies – like the code of conduct and things like that which exist for the public,” he said. “It may not be the intention to discourage people from bringing their concerns forward and disagreeing with policies and council, but I think that based on what has happened with this identical policy in the past and what the parameters are in the new policy, it puts into people’s minds that there’s a chance that if they say the wrong thing or say the right thing in the wrong way, they may receive a letter from the city. We want to do everything we can to encourage engagement and this is just another hurdle to discourage people from sharing their opinions.”
Mike Sullivan, who delegated with his concerns about the new policy prior to the vote adopting it, believes that whatever safeguards existed in the previous policy are now gone.
“If I say something negative about a council decision, a councillor can file a complaint against me under the new public policy,” he said. “And I can be banned for having spoken about council, and that wasn’t in the old policy. I believe there are grounds to challenge this policy, and all I have to do is look at my case with the city. Their practice has been to ban individuals – I know that the CAO was the originator of the complaint against me and she made the decision to ban me and then made the decision to deny my appeal. That’s why I said (on Monday) they're the complainant, judge, jury, executioner and appeal judge. But if that’s what this new policy means, then the policy is challengeable.”
Sharon Collingwood, a member of Get Concerned Stratford who spoke in support of Sullivan on Monday night, highlighted the fact that the city already has many codes that cover workplace misbehaviour and questioned if the municipality needs to weigh in on regulating the public when they’re already governed by civil codes.
“In their disregard for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our city is leaving itself open to some very expensive legal repercussions,” Collingwood said. “As a citizen, I am naturally concerned about the treatment of city employees, and I suggested improvements in the code. However, I am deeply concerned that some aspects of the Respectful Workplace Policy are being used to suppress free speech.”
Collingwood pointed out that the following existing policies are duplicated by the Respectful Worplace Policy:
- Employee Code of Conduct
- Public Conduct Policy
- Facilities Code of Conduct
- The Code of Conduct for Council, Local Boards and Committees
- Health and Safety Policy Health and Safety manual
- Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act
- Ontario Human Rights Code
She added that a major problem with the new policy (as well as the old one) was the matter of interpretation and how the ambiguity of some terms in the policy can lead to gray areas when interpreting various actions.
“I spoke about the difficulty of defining a leer,” she said. “Is it the same as looking, or is it longer than a look? Does a leer include body language? Can you be convicted of leering? Can you measure it? Can you even photograph it? It’s at this level, the ‘micro-aggressions’ level, that the Respectful Workplace Policy becomes useless. Narrow, leagalistic definitions of harassment are impossible to make, and this is an inevitable complication in the regulation of a safe environment for workers, but it is inappropriate and illegal to use personal interpretations like this in denying an individual’s civil right.”
Sebben thought that the city was in no better position now than they were in July, and doesn’t believe the spirit of the staff review was to rename the policy but keep the processes contained within it the same.
“I think the spirit was to review it because it wasn’t working and to change it,” he said. “I don’t think that’s been done. We have a policy that is essentially the same and I think that we’ll run into the same problems.”
