2 councillors await word on whether they can vote on all BRT decisions

Just days before crucial votes on London's transit future, two city councillors are awaiting word from the city's integrity commissioner on whether or not they will be free to vote on key components of the proposed bus rapid transit plan (BRT).

At issue are rules in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that prohibit members of council from speaking and voting on matters that could benefit them financially. 

Councillors Steve Lehman and Stephen Turner may be forced to sit out certain votes at Monday's strategic priorities and policy committee, where council will vote on which local transit projects go forward in an application for $375 million in senior government funding. 

Lehman: Could tie councillors' hands

Coun. Lehman owns Life Styles, a clothing business on Richmond Row where the North Connection BRT route would run between downtown and Western University. Lehman has asked integrity commissioner Greg Stewart to advise him on whether voting on the route would amount to a potential conflict of interest, and therefore stop him from voting on that specific leg of the BRT's four main proposed routes. 

Lehman admits he has "mixed feelings" at the prospect of being barred from voting on the most controversial element of the largest public works project in London's history. 

"Obviously I'm hoping he will rule that I do not have a conflict because I want to participate in all decisions on this contentious issue that this last election was fought on," he said. "Sometimes, it could seem to tie the hands of a lot of councillors if it's strenuously applied, then who's left to vote?"

Lehman expects to have Stewart's ruling ahead of Monday's vote. 

Coun. Turner: It could come down to metres

Coun. Stephen Turner has also asked for a ruling because his house in Old South is within a few hundred metres of the proposed Wellington Road Gateway BRT line. Turner's case is far from clear cut. One staff report outlined about a potential rise in value for any property within 500 metres of a rapid transit line. "My house is 480 metres or something like that," said Turner.  

Another wrinkle: The act includes an exemption in cases where the councillor's pecuniary interest is in common with voters in general. About 40 per cent of Londoners live within walking distance of proposed rapid transit lines so the exemption may apply to Turner, but he's sought the advice of the integrity commissioner just to be sure.  

Morgan, Helmer can't vote on the line into Western

Vote bans on certain BRT elements for Turner and Lehman add to two long-declared conflicts for Councillors Jesse Helmer and Josh Morgan. Both work at Western University and have declared conflicts in the past because the proposed North Connection would require a bridge to be built on University Drive, a benefit to Western pegged at $11 million. 

A section of the Act says a member has an "indirect pecuniary interest" if they are employed by a body that has a direct pecuniary interest in a matter.

Recusals could affect BRT vote

Moves by councillors to stay in compliance with conflict-of-interest rules come as council prepares to vote on which local transit projects go into an application for millions in senior government funding. The projects will include the four main routes that comprise BRT, but a number of non-BRT projects are also on the menu. The projects will come to a committee vote Monday before being ratified by full council on Tuesday.

The decision to break the $500 million BRT plan into its component parts makes things easier; councillors can now simply sit out the votes that pose potential conflicts instead of being barred from voting on the entire plan. But support for BRT appears to be split among London's 14 councillors, so any missed vote could prove decisive. 

Rules tightened on March 1

Toronto lawyer John Mascarin is an expert on municipal law. He also serves as integrity commissioner for more than 30 Ontario municipalities.

He said the rules may seem too stringent for some but like Morgan, he believes the guiding principle of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict-of-interest is what's most important. 

"I do see the frustrations of residents who say 'Wow, here's my voice, and the person can't speak so my representation is effectively gone,'" said Mascarin.

Adding to the complexity are amendments to Ontario's Conflict of Interest Act that came into effect on March 1. Now councillors must declare any conflicts in writing — not just verbally — and submit them to the clerk's office.

But there's also help for councillors who want to stay above board. 

They can now ask the integrity commissioner for specific, proactive rulings about potential conflicts before heading into a vote. 

Coun. Morgan said he's grateful to have that advice, and with good reason. Breaking the rules could trigger punishments that range from simple fines up to removal from office in extreme cases. 

"Acting with integrity and following the rules is the number 1 job as a councillor," said Morgan.