Discussion paper highlights new option for Code of Conduct enforcement

Publishing Date

A new discussion paper for local government explores the potential of mandatory codes of conduct and models for their administration and enforcement. The paper, Potential for Change, follows a succession of UBCM resolutions that call for changes to the responsible conduct framework for local elected officials. It weighs the merits of a province-wide office of integrity and introduces a new option for local governments to consider to support code of conduct enforcement.

Responsible conduct is a developing policy area for local governments in Canada, and the search for effective legislative approaches continues to evolve. The paper aims to add to the current discussion in British Columbia by referencing efforts in other provinces and highlighting factors for further consideration as local governments weigh options to improve the current framework.

The current framework

British Columbia’s current framework gives local governments a high level of choice, including deciding whether to adopt a code of conduct. One rationale for this flexibility is that it enables local governments to create Council and Board cultures that foster responsible conduct. This enabling approach has supported considerable development, as approximately 130 of the province’s 188 local governments have now implemented codes of conduct.

The current approach, though, has also left considerable gaps in the system. Just under 30% of local governments currently do not have a code of conduct. For the remainder that do, there is significant diversity in the thoroughness and effectiveness of their codes. In addition, local governments have consistently said, through UBCM resolutions and other means, that additional resources are needed in order for them to administer and enforce codes of conduct. There also has been consistent feedback that the current model places a strain on administrators and, in cases where conduct issues have become entrenched, has not led to the effective resolution of issues.

Alternative models for administration and enforcement

A key point in the paper is that models of province wide administration and enforcement would require mandatory codes of conduct. Mandatory codes of conduct would also likely include a minimum set of standard elements, such as clearly defined process for vetting complaints and handling investigations. Lack of clarity on this point has led to local governments rejecting a resolution calling for a standard code of conduct for local governments in BC while endorsing successive resolutions calling for a province wide approach.

Potential for Change also outlines reasons why local governments may want to think twice about a centralized provide-wide service for administration and enforcement. A centralized province-wide service would face capacity challenges to respond in a timely fashion to the needs of 188 local governments. Given that timely intervention is essential to effectively dealing with problems when they arise, this is a critical factor. Cost containment for such an office would also pose an inherent risk, and local governments should not assume that the Province would agree to having a role in funding it.

Given the overall legislative framework that supports local government, a centralized province-wide office would not have additional sanctions beyond those already available, nor would such an office have the power to impose them on a local government. These are two points of common misunderstanding. Finally, local governments should also consider whether a shift to a centralized authority would weaken the current commitment shown by many local governments to fostering a culture of responsible conduct.

As a third option between the status quo and a provincial office, the paper outlines a model similar to those adopted in Ontario in Manitoba which require local governments to have a code of conduct (with varying degrees of standardization) and appoint an independent third party to support administration and enforcement. This approach would ensure that codes of conduct are in place before problems arise, and that they meet a basic standard of completeness. It also ensures there are sound procedures in place for every community for dealing with issues. This approach leaves the option open for local governments to work with neighbours within a regional district to share the cost for an independent third party.

Learn more and give feedback

A clinic will be held at the 2024 UBCM Convention (Tuesday, September 17, 7:30-8:30am) to explore the concepts of mandatory codes of conduct, and the strengths and weaknesses of the three options outlined in the discussion paper.

Co-authors of the paper – Local Government Management Association and UBCM – are inviting feedback from Councils/Boards, individual elected officials and CAOs on two questions:

  1. Should the Province be requested to develop legislation mandating codes of conduct modelled on established best practices for all local governments in BC?
  2. Are legislated changes needed to support code of conduct administration and enforcement? And, if so, what factors do you think are most important to the success of a new approach to code administration and enforcement?

Responses from Councils, Boards and elected officials may be sent to Paul Taylor, UBCM Director of Communications. Chief Administrative Officers may provide their comments to Candace Witkowskyj, LGMA Executive Director.