RE: Unreasonable Behaviour Policy

Ed Puszkar | Oct 11, 2023

Your editorial presents some interesting observations. I applaud that Addington Highlands Council “has seen steady improvement” in their access to information. Regardless, one should look at the whole process pertaining to this policy.

In the proposed Procedure of this Policy, only Council personnel (supervisor and CAO) determine the “unreasonableness” of the behaviour. Furthermore, it is documented within this Policy, that there is “no rigid test or criteria” and that the key question is “whether the behaviour is reasonably likely (guilt before it happens) to cause distress (no definition), disruption or irritation (subjective term, no definition), without proper or justified cause (determined by which unbiased individual)”.

In the proposed Procedure of this Policy, prior to a determination of “Unreasonable Behaviour”, not once is the accused member of the public required to be notified and to verify the documented points of accusation, nor is any attempt required to be made to understand why the member of the public is ‘acting’ this way. The only recourse the member of the public has is in appeal (within 14 days), only to the CAO (lack of impartiality, since they are reviewing their own decision). Furthermore, the Council has no documented requirement to provide the individual that is being censured, at any time, with all the documentation pertaining to the accusation, other than to inform the accused ‘of the outcome of the review and, where restrictions are being maintained or modified, an explanation of the reasons for the decision’.

I have no doubt that, on occasion, questions pertaining to the actions of members, and requesting associated accountability of certain actions, may seem “malicious complaints” to Council, especially if a number of relevant members of the Council are being queried. Nevertheless, holding Council members accountable for their actions would seem to be the right of every citizen, regardless of how annoyingly pointed and accusatory it may appear to the Council at the time. There does not appear to be any vehicle within this Policy to try to ameliorate a situation between citizens and Council prior to incorporating the ‘dreaded’ Available Restrictions. Nowhere, within this Policy, is there any procedure documented requiring the Council representative (or any unbiased adjudicator) to determine if there had been ‘unreasonable behaviour’ on the part of the Township Representative. Also, there is no procedure documented if the CAO is the affected Township Representative. There is also no requirement to officially document the results of this Policy, when it occurs, for reference purposes.

I appreciate that other Councils have developed and approved such policies; notwithstanding, that substantiation, in and of itself, does not make this specific Policy correct, fair and supportable.

In my humble opinion, this policy, as it is currently proposed, can and may be used to limit public access to township staff and information resources, and could be viewed by some as the basis for a ‘kangaroo court’, of sorts, where the accused are informed after the fact and without an appropriate and timely opportunity to ‘defend’ themselves prior to the decision.

Ed Puszkar