News

The good folks at city hall can’t catch a break, argues councillor Paula Fletcher.

Councillors are bending over backwards to ensure all politicking is clean and above-board: There’s an ombudsman, an integrity commissioner and, most recently, they’re in the final stages of banning deep-pocketed unions and corporations from donating to municipal campaigns.

They just wish people would call off the litigious hounds – especially when it comes to protracted, costly legal actions that increasingly seem to be politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.

That's what happened to councillor Adrian Heaps, who after being elected in 2006 faced first a complaint over his campaign spending (found to be without merit) followed by a defamation suit for distributing a Globe and Mail article endorsing him (also unsuccessful).

Council will vote Monday to reimburse him $36,000 in legal fees.

But Ms. Fletcher wants to ensure councillors are protected from the financial and emotional toll these kinds of legal actions can bring.

“We’re here in many ways trying to open up our democratic system … and if the second you get here and someone doesn’t like the fact that you’ve beaten them, they can now start you and your family on a three-year trajectory of hell. That seems to be a rather serious matter.”

It’s a bit of an awkward premise – to pursue transparency and openness at all costs but to object when the right to question politicians’ actions is taken too far.

Municipal politicians argue they leave themselves open to malicious or vindictive suits simply by being in the public eye – and unlike provincial or federal politicians they lack a bit of financial and political oomph backing them.

“We are right down with the people and we’re front-line – there’s no large party apparatus that’s supporting us.”

Council has the discretion to vote to reimburse a councillor’s legal costs, as is the plan with Mr. Heaps. But the idea of being left open to lawsuits causes concern.

Councillors of multiple political stripes are greatly distressed at proposed changes to the province’s Municipal Elections Act and the leeway it grants anyone to file complaints or bring legal action against councillors.

At the very least, Ms. Fletcher argues, court battles over spending should be obliged to take into account independent compliance audits that evaluate how well a candidate toed the campaign-spending line.

Many councillors would also like to see time limits on the amount of time a person has to make a complaint about a candidate’s campaign finances.

“I think electors should feel pretty good about the scrutiny that we put ourselves under every day here at the city. … [But] how long do you have the sword hanging over your head?”