Carbonear councillors not in conflict: Lawyer

By Craig Westcott / June 29

It’s not every council meeting when you see a majority of the council members facing accusations of conflict of interest, but that was exactly what happened at the June 13 regular meeting of council in Carbonear.

Just minutes into the session, Mayor Frank Butt and four other members of council had to step away from the table so the two remaining councillors, Chris O’Grady and Danielle Butt, could deal with a lawyer’s report on whether they were in a conflict of interest over a motion they had voted on last fall.

The Town hired law firm Stewart McKelvey to examine the matter after someone, who has not been publicly identified, accused Deputy Mayor Sam Slade, and councillors Ray Noel and Malcolm Seymour of being in conflict when they voted last November on a motion affecting travel trailers on Line Road, because they, or family members, or in the case of Seymour, a neighbour, own property on the road.

The motion at the time was to order the removal of travel trailers from five properties on Line Road. Councillor Doyle made the motion, which was seconded by O’Grady. Butt and the other four councillors voted against it.

The motion had come forward as a recommendation from staff who were concerned the trailers were a breach of Carbonear’s development regulations because they were placed on the properties without permits from the Town or the Department of Environment. The area is also part of the municipal watershed. Staff advised the trailers were being used as cabins on properties that already had cabins, which meant there was one than one cabin on each lot, which is not permitted. 

Trailers are sometimes allowed in the area, if they meet certain conditions and as long as it’s only within the period from May 24th Weekend to Labour Day Weekend. 

The councillors who voted against the removal orders argued the trailers were only being used in the summer for increased sleeping accommodations, and that leaving them there in the winter when they are empty is no harm. They also argued that any bathroom usage on the properties is being done inside the permanent cabins.

About a month after the 5 to 2 decision rejecting Doyle’s motion, the Town was e-mailed by someone who accused Slade, Noel and Seymour of having been in a conflict of interest. Mayor Butt and councillor Peter Snow, while not named in the complaint, were also identified as having similar connections to people owning property on the road.

In February, after taking advice from the Department of Municipal Affairs, the Town hired law firm Stewart McKelvey to examine the complaint. Lawyer Stephen Penney reviewed all the minutes attached to the decision, written responses from “witnesses” and conducted interviews with the three councillors named in the complaint.

“Based on my review of the documentary record and my interviews with the parties, I find that Councillors Seymour, Noel and Slade were not in conflict of interest when they voted on the Motion,” Penney determined.
Penney added that while “the factual background is not in dispute, the context I learned from the various parties was helpful.”

With the lawyers’ report in hand for the June 13 meeting, Doyle and O’Grady had to vote whether to accept the report’s findings that the councillors were not in breach of the Municipal Conduct Act.

Chief Administrative Officer Cynthia Snow clarified that under the new conduct Act, as few as two councillors can make a decision for council, which is a change from the previous legislation, which required a quorum of council.

Doyle moved to dismiss the conflict-of-interest allegations and O’Grady seconded it. The pair then voted to approve that motion.

The five councillors who were the subjects of the complaint returned to the table and the meeting resumed with no discussion of what had just occurred.

In an interview later, Mayor Butt said he wasn’t sure he could talk about the matter for fear of breaching conflict of interest rules. He couldn’t recall the cost of hiring the law firm to investigate the complaint. But the mayor did have an opinion on the future of Line Road, which is a popular recreational area. Butt said he even approached the town’s MHA a few years ago about lobbying to get the Province to make the full length of the road passable, but there was no appetite to do it.

“It was always the spot to go from May 24th on,” said Butt. “There are all kinds of cabins in there… We should really get that road opened up from Carbonear to Heart’s Delight-Islington, for a couple of reasons. One, it would certainly be a good economic boost for the Town of Carbonear, but most importantly it would give a quicker access to Carbonear General Hospital.”

Butt said the road doesn’t have to be paved all the way through, but should be made more drivable. Right now, he pointed out, if someone from the Trinity Bay side of the peninsula wants to come to Carbonear they have to take either Route 74 from Heart’s Content, or Route 73 from New Harbour, whereas coming across Line Road, if it was safe to drive, would be a lot shorter.

“And it would also open up more land in there,” Butt said. “I know most of it is controlled by the (provincial) government, but I think it would be good economic development for the Town of Carbonear and a good safety thing for those on the Trinity Bay side. So, I’m going to mention it to the council members again. Maybe we can lobby for it. I don’t expect it to get paved right away, but if it takes five years to get it upgraded, and maybe a bit more pavement on it… I mean, both sides, the Trinity Bay side and the Carbonear side are fairly good when you go in to probably eight kilometres. It’s only the distance in between that’s causing any grief.”

Meanwhile, the cost of the investigation into the alleged conflict of interest involving the councillors, cost the Town some $17,909.