In their decision to maintain the city’s Respectful Workplace Policy while also authorizing a review, Stratford’s council heard from supporters who wanted to see the municipality suspend its use while coming up with a new policy to replace it with.
Among those speaking in support of the motion to suspend the policy by Coun. Cody Sebben was Jane Marie Mitchell, who said in her comments that the policy is wrongly being used to stop people from speaking their minds and that the right to free speech has been ignored. That argument was countered by Stratford’s Chief Administrative Officer Joan Thompson who said that while the city has heard the concerns of residents the policy is needed and that having an expectation of respectful behaviour doesn’t limit speech.
The legal argument was taken a step further by Coun. Mark Hunter, who cited the city’s duty to adhere to the Occupational Health and Safety Act’s guidelines on protecting city employees against harassment.
“If we voted to suspend the policy, we would be voting to willfully disobey provincial law,” he said. “We have no authority to change that law, and we aren’t required to have this specific policy but we can’t suspend it without a replacement.”
Asked if maintaining this policy was risking a legal battle over suppressing one’s right to free speech versus the right of working in a harassment-free workplace, Hunter indicated he didn’t see that as a valid argument.
“When the people who violated our policy were suspended, they were banned from attending public buildings. We did not limit their speech - they were still welcome and encouraged to delegate to council by way of written submission which would have been read in open council,” he said. “What we did was to limit the forum in which they could speak. They were still able to communicate with council and staff via email, though the channeling changed. During the ban, they were instructed to send email to the city solicitor, who would forward the email to the appropriate party. I received two emails from one of the banned persons through this mechanism, and in these two instances, at least, the person was able to freely communicate with me.”
He added that the only legal consequence for the city would be if one or more of the parties filed a claim against the city, but he feels confident that council acted according to the law. And while he voted against suspending the policy, Hunter did vote in favour of a review. Being that this was the city’s first time having to enact the policy and see what its effects would be, he would like to see something that replaces it that accounts for the ability of the municipality to continue with business instead of suffering through multiple disruptions.
“I think it’s always prudent to review policies, and this was the first time we had to use this policy and you can’t always prepare for every contingency - we didn’t contemplate that banned persons would ignore the ban and show up in council as a further violation of the rules,” he said. “As one of the delegates noted last night, our lack of an enforcement mechanism allowed two of the banned persons to hijack the proceedings of council. This was unfair to everyone in the city and, for my part in it, I apologize that we allowed two people to disrupt the entire community. I hope we never have to ban people in the future, but if we do, we need a better mechanism to ensure they can’t impede city business. I’m sure there will be other changes too, but I’d like to hear from the broader community before deciding on any specifics.”
The vote to review the policy passed with an 11-0 margin, but no timeline was given for a staff review and recommendations to be returned. The next regular council meeting is scheduled for Monday, Aug. 12, at 7 p.m.
