Council decides to review the RVP but not to suspend its application

Think of it as a shared decision.

The Stratford City Council voted to review, but not suspend, its much-discussed Respectful Workplace Policy during its July 22 meeting. These decisions came after a number of delegations supported Councilman Cody Sebben’s motion to suspend the policy. All called on the council to stop implementing the policy until the city presents other alternatives.

The motion was originally submitted as a single motion, but the Council decided to split the suspension and review into separate decisions. The motion for suspension was rejected by 9 votes to 2 in a roll-call vote, with Sebben and Geza Wodorfa as the only supporters, while the motion for review was passed unanimously.

Seven delegations supported Sebben’s motion, including Robert Roth of Save Our Speech Stratford, Barb Shaughnessy, Tim Forster, Jane Marie Mitchell and David Yates. Jason Davis also spoke on the motion to suspend the directive and gave one of the most compelling presentations, speaking about his own experience of dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a physical attack and the subsequent problems in his workplace.

“I used my own personal story to convey my understanding of the importance of mental health and protecting staff from instances of defamation, abuse and intimidation,” he said, referring to how he had felt threatened by a customer’s words in his workplace. “On the other hand, I also know that we cannot go directly from complaint to action without a process in place to protect the public from unwarranted scrutiny or intimacy. While staff’s feelings after an interaction are valid and not up for debate, the city’s response to complaints requires more nuance — especially in potential instances of unconscious bias. I understand that (the policy) is not only important for protecting and retaining staff, but is also required by law. However, the policy should not be implemented in a way that spills over into jurisdiction.”

Davis went on to say that complaints about “facial microaggressions” are not only not defined, but also not a sufficient response option. He said that while the complainants’ feelings are valid, they should not trample on the rights of others who have their own feelings. He did not have a resolution on what should come out of the policy review, but would like to see more dialogue from the city when it happens.

“We get a lot of information and allegations from one side but little response from the city, and that leaves the public uncertain about where the lines are drawn,” he said. “That makes it difficult to judge whether all defendants are being treated fairly or whether this is ‘collective punishment.’ I understand the reluctance to give details … but in the meantime, the public is stuck in a conflict of opinion between the responsibility to protect free speech and the responsibility for the consequences of that speech.”

That sentiment was partially echoed by Councilwoman Taylor Briscoe, who spoke on the motion before the vote. Briscoe spoke about how individual actions by citizens affected by the ban have brought previous city affairs to a halt, and said she voted to keep the policy in place to avoid a loophole that would encourage future misconduct. She added her thoughts on how she would like to see the policy changed.

“First, the general process that happens when the policies are not followed and when we move from a warning to a ban, the standard practice is to move to a trespass,” she said. “We don’t want to create the spectacle of someone being forcibly removed, but when we move to a trespass, we need to find the best way to deal with that when it is not followed.”

Sebben said he had lacked the will to review the policy at this point, but hoped that this would change.

“The policy says to review it annually, and I’m hopeful that we’ll look at that and some real changes will be made,” he said. “But until then, I don’t know what’s going to happen. I’d like to see real changes to that policy in this situation — I’d like to see a policy that doesn’t impact council and committee meetings as much as this one does. Maybe we need a policy that applies to interactions with staff outside of meetings rather than during meetings, because we already have policies and procedures for council and committee meetings and those can be followed and adhered to.”

Although it seems like a small victory that the Council has agreed to revise the directive, Sebben did not want to leave it at that. He and his fellow Council members have a responsibility to make sensible decisions – something he believes the directive does not provide for.

“In my opinion, we have a policy that is dysfunctional and not working properly and the council gave the direction tonight to continue that policy but to review it,” he said. “Ultimately, it is our responsibility to make those decisions. I wanted the policy to be suspended today but that was not the will of the council. I will wait and see what happens next.”