The possible bias of a Rocky View County (RVC) councillor was called into question after administration received a letter regarding a community meeting held in Springbank Oct. 21, 2014.
According to a report from RVC administration, the letter was received Nov. 7 from a land use redesignation applicant, “challenging the handling and fairness of his matter” at the meeting hosted by RVC councillor Jerry Arshinoff and community member Gloria Wilkinson.
“This was completely unknown to me,” said Arshinoff, who explained that the letter and his advertisement for the community meeting were then forwarded to a lawyer for an opinion.
“Basically, the lawyer said it might be a good idea if I did not participate in certain matters that may come before council.”
The county’s Code of Conduct policy, which was adopted in January 2015, allows councillors to decide for themselves whether they feel a bias would prevent them from changing their opinion of a potential development during the public hearing process.
However, according to administration’s report, a Code of Conduct workshop during the summer of 2014 indicated that after a development application has been submitted, councillors should not meet with applicants, developers, or special interest groups to discuss the development prior to the public hearing.
“At the time (of the meeting), the Code of Conduct was not in place,” Arshinoff said. “Over and above that, it is a councillor’s function to have community meetings, so people can say whatever they like. I fully intend to have quite a few more similar meetings, because I think that’s my job.”
Guy Buchanan, who attended the Oct. 21 meeting and whose current project, the Gardner Ranch development, was one of the projects discussed, said he felt the meeting “might reflect bias” in community members who participated. According to Buchanan, the presenter who discussed the Gardner project at the meeting was someone who had voiced opposition to the development in the past.
“I was concerned that following that presentation, we weren’t afforded the opportunity to respond,” he said. “Unless people can ask the question right to the source, they might not have their facts straight. Speculation isn’t the way to go.”
Arshinoff said the meeting was an opportunity for residents to speak to each other about potential development in the area and that the topics selected for the meeting were chosen based on the volume of calls and emails he received from residents within his division.
“In some cases, residents may have fears that are unfounded, but in others, they have some very legitimate fears,” he said. “It would be a real big stretch to say that I had violated any kind of perceived fairness just by virtue of the fact that I heard that speaker – and two thirds of council were present and they all heard him. If I became biased listening to this fellow speak, why didn’t the others?”
At the Feb. 10 meeting of RVC council, Arshinoff presented a Notice of Motion requesting an investigation into the legal review, which was conducted without his knowledge. However, his motion failed 5-4, with councillors Kendall, Boehlke, Solberg, Habberfield and Ashdown voting in opposition.
“I don’t support it, and it’s because we as an organization, the corporate body of (RVC), has a legal budget, and it specifies who engages that legal entity,” said deputy reeve Lois Habberfield. “There is a way to do it and this is going outside our policy and outside our budget. It’s ridiculous.”
Councillor Bruce Kendall made a motion to table the item until the Feb. 24 meeting, which passed 7-2, with Boehlke and Solberg opposed.
“I’m not looking for something to defend myself in making such a request, I’m more looking for some sort of precedent where no one can arbitrarily decide to go and spend a bunch of taxpayers’ money to see if they can embarrass or intimidate someone,” Arshinoff said. “I find it highly objectionable, and overall, there has to be fairness.”
