Hunter voted over legal concerns in policy suspension vote

Stratford City Council voted to keep the city’s Respectful Workplace Policy while authorizing a review, but supporters faced backlash calling for the municipality to stop using it and instead develop a new policy.

Among those supporting Council Member Cody Sebben’s motion to suspend the policy was Jane Marie Mitchell. She said in her comments that the policy is wrongly being used to prevent people from expressing their opinions and that the right to free speech is being ignored. This argument was countered by Stratford’s Chief Administrative Officer Joan Thompson, who said that while the city has heard residents’ concerns, the policy is necessary and that expecting respectful behavior does not limit expression.

City Councilman Mark Hunter took his legal argument a step further, pointing out the city’s obligation to adhere to the guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to protect city employees from harassment.

“If we were to vote to suspend this policy, we would be deliberately voting against the provincial law,” he said. “We have no authority to change this law and we are not required to have this particular policy, but we cannot suspend it without a replacement.”

When asked whether maintaining this policy would risk litigation over the suppression of free speech and the right to a harassment-free workplace, Hunter stated that this was not a valid argument for him.

“When the individuals who violated our policies were suspended, they were barred from entering public buildings. We did not restrict their freedom of speech – they were still welcome and encouraged to share their opinions with council in the form of written submissions that would have been read in open session,” he said. “We restricted the forum in which they could speak. They could continue to communicate with council and staff via email, although the mode of communication changed. While banned, they were instructed to send emails to the city attorney, who would forward the email to the appropriate party. I received two emails from one of the banned individuals through this mechanism, and in those two cases, the person was at least able to communicate freely with me.”

He added that the only legal consequence for the city would be if one or more of the parties filed a lawsuit against the city, but he is confident the council acted according to the law. And while he voted against suspending the policy, Hunter voted to review it. Since this was the first time the city had to enact this policy and see its effects, he would like to see something that replaces it and takes into account the community’s ability to continue to conduct its business rather than suffer numerous disruptions.

“I think it is always wise to review policies and this was the first time we have had to use this policy and you can’t always prepare for every eventuality – we did not anticipate that banned people would ignore the ban and turn up at council, which is another breach of the rules,” he said. “As one of the delegates noted last night, our lack of enforcement mechanisms allowed two of the banned people to hijack council meetings. This was unfair to everyone in the city and for my part in this I apologise for allowing two people to disrupt the whole community. I hope we never have to ban people again in the future but if it does happen we need a better mechanism to ensure they cannot disrupt the city’s business. I am sure there will be other changes as well but I would like to hear from the wider public before I decide on any specifics.”

The vote to review the policy passed 11-0, but no timeline was given for staff to review and make recommendations. The next regular council meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 12 at 7 p.m.