Opinion
City Council decides to keep investigation into one of it’s own a secret
When governments have to release information they really don’t want the public to know about, they’ll release it late Friday afternoon. That’s the one time in the week virtually no one is paying attention to the “news cycle”. In fact, a Friday before a long weekend is as close to a perfect time to bury some information as you can get. Reporters are people too. They’ve got long weekend plans and they’re trying to get done early like everyone else. Reporters are just as anxious as the average person to get home and desperately finish packing so they can rush out and pay more more to gas up (long weekend price hike coincidence/tradition). More likely in these days of covid they’re just rushing home to fill up a glass (also more expensive but worth it at virtually any price, right?).
That’s why it was so interesting to see this news release from Red Deer City Council on Friday afternoon at 4:09. It was actually posted to the city website at 4:05, so now I now it takes about 4 minutes for an email to get to me (It’s those fun little details that make the world go round eh?).
Actually I didn’t see it at 4:09 because like most people I don’t sit still in the afternoon watching my inbox to react immediately to every email. Maybe I should. Instead I typically check my email periodically, and typically that happens far less regularly late Friday afternoon.. especially on the Friday of a long weekend.. especially this particular Friday. Instead of seeing this at 4:09 I was rushing from a quick trip to Calgary to pick up our oldest boy (U of C student) and I was transitioning to hockey coach, going over some U13 drills on the Hockey Canada website to prepare for our late afternoon U13B West Country hockey practice. (The kids were awesome by the way). Then it was a meeting with team parents. Then it was home to late supper. Then it was movie night with our two boys. Then to bed without even checking email and phone messages.
Just as they hoped (in my own humble opinion) I and many others didn’t see this email right away. Now that I have seen it, I’m in quite a conundrum. It’s a long weekend and I have plans to continue painting trim on our house. I also plan to continue safe social distancing practices by staying away from loved ones for the second Thanksgiving in a row. While painting I’ll also wonder why our governments and doctors aren’t aggressively pushing for early treatment so we can relieve pressure on our hospitals and save some lives and stop living in fear.. but I digress.
Saturday morning I started the typical upkeep of Todayville.com and periodically checked email messages. Then I came across this beauty sent Friday afternoon at 4:09. In case you haven’t seen it yet, here it is….
News Release from the City of Red Deer
Second Code of Conduct investigation closes
(Red Deer, Alberta) – An investigation stemming from a code of conduct complaint received by City Council on May 7, 2021, has closed, and a majority of Council did not accept the investigation report at yesterday’s Council meeting. The investigation is considered complete and will remain confidential under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP).
“City Council’s Code of Conduct bylaw is a set of expectations for Council member’s conduct and behaviour. This is the second of two Code of Conduct complaints that were investigated in 2021,” said Deputy Mayor Lawrence Lee.
All municipalities in Alberta are required by the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to have a Code of Conduct Bylaw that sets shared expectations for conduct or behaviour. The bylaw outlines how members should conduct themselves while carrying out their responsibilities and establishes a review and investigation process when a complaint is received. The City of Red Deer passed its Code of Conduct Bylaw (2608-2018) on July 23, 2018.
After a review committee of three Council members initially reviewed the complaint, there was a majority vote to proceed to formal investigation. An investigator was hired to investigate and report back to City Council, and City Council had three meetings on this issue.
“Upholding City Council’s Code of Conduct, procedural fairness, relationships and role clarity are essential as we work to ensure good governance that is in the best interest of the organization and our community,” said Deputy Mayor Lawrence Lee.
Council passed a second resolution directing the confidential report be shared with the City Manager to prepare a confidential memorandum outlining “lessons learned” to be brought back to Council in the first quarter of 2022. The memorandum should make recommendations on the integration and relationships of the Mayor and Council’s office with administration. Through the City Manager, the staff and council will work together to move forward.
For more information about City Council’s Code of Conduct Bylaw, visit www.reddeer.ca
So what does all this mean? Well we know there was an investigation into the conduct of at least one member of city council. We know three councillors reviewed this complaint. Then the majority of council decided we (taxpayers) should pay an investigator to look into this complaint. (That doesn’t sound cheap). We know council met three times to discuss this complaint. Then the report came back and the majority of Red Deer City Council did not accept the investigator’s report that we (taxpayers) paid for. And.. we know the investigation is considered complete and that it will “remain confidential” until someone pays for and goes through the process of applying for a Freedom of Information Request.
WE also know this might be the last time this council will meet before the 2021 Municipal Election. What a brutal meeting to have hanging over your head as you gun for re-election! Makes me feel horrible for all those candidates I know (and in some cases REALLY like) who have to face the electorate in a few days. Kind of makes me SUPER curious about the contents of this second investigation. Seems like precisely the kind of information I’d like to have before I decide who to vote for in a few days. But as is happening so much these days, our elected officials are saving us from the details and we should rest easy knowing that they have our best interests in mind (you know, before their own).
So we’ll have to imagine how Thursday’s “in-camera” conversation went (and thousands of voters will be doing just that). I guess someone must have said something like “I know this seemed like a big deal back in the spring. I know we talked about it in three separate meetings and that three of us reviewed it and we all decided we should hire an investigator to look into this. Buuuuuuut. That was such a long time ago. Now it’s fall and with an election just days away, frankly we’ve got better things to worry about.” To which the majority of council must have said something like “You know. You’re right! I don’t know what we were thinking back there in the spring. The truth is there’s nothing to see here. Why don’t we prove it by telling the people who pay us absolutely nothing about why we spent our time and their money investigating a complaint that three of us reviewed in the spring and the majority of us voted to proceed to formal investigation.” Then I guess someone called for a vote. When only Buck Buchanan and Dianne Wyntjes disagreed, (as reported here in this really interesting opinion piece/video by 2017 Council candidate Calvin Goulet-Jones) those seeking reelection all took off to presumably check on their election signs.
Actually this being the “Second” Code of Conduct investigation, it reminds me there was a “First” Code of Conduct investigation back in April. Although that investigation started 1 month before this one, it actually wrapped up more than two months ago. Investigation #1 resulted in Councillor Buck Buchanan facing some embarrassing disciplinary measures. Remember that? That news release was also released late in the afternoon, but NOT late Friday afternoon. The news release regarding investigation number 1 was released at 4:59 Monday, July 26. Media types know this means it’s going to be all the rage come Tuesday morning and will have lots of time to build up for the rest of the week. Here’s what that looked like (in case you’re keeping score of the Council Code of Conduct investigations at home)….
News Release from the City of Red Deer
Code of Conduct investigation closes with sanctions for Councillor Buchanan
After a review committee of three Council members initially reviewed the complaint, and by majority vote determined that it should proceed to formal investigation, SAGE Analytics Inc. was hired to investigate and report back to City Council.
SAGE is a municipal consulting firm with expertise in governance evaluation, dispute resolution, and council code of conduct complaint investigations. SAGE utilized a process that included interviews and follow-up with both parties, witness interviews, a review of related correspondence received by The City, document review, analysis and report writing.
With the investigation complete, the findings conclude that Councillor Buchanan breached three sections in the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw:
- 7.1, which states “members shall uphold the law established by the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Alberta and the bylaws, policies and procedures adopted by Council.”
- 7.2, which states “members shall respect the Municipality as an institution, its bylaws, policies and procedures and shall encourage public respect for the Municipality, its bylaws, policies and procedures” and
- 4.1(d), which states, City Council must “arrange their private affairs and conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence.”
According to the findings, a social media post made by Councillor Buchanan in January 2021, combined with his prior actions, amounted to a breach of the bylaw. SAGE determined these actions were disrespectful to the local pandemic response efforts and increased a division in the community between individuals in favour of and opposed to health restrictions. SAGE’s report finds that through Councillor Buchanan’s actions, The City’s reputation was damaged, and The City’s pandemic response efforts were negatively impacted. They also determined he demonstrated a pattern of conduct where he made negative comments that did not promote public confidence in The City’s pandemic response efforts.
Having accepted that Councillor Buchanan contravened three sections of the Bylaw, Council considered the sanctions recommended by SAGE and ultimately resolved by majority vote to require that Councillor Buchanan:
- Issue a public apology to Red Deer residents, businesses, staff, and Council for his actions and social media post on January 27, 2021, which caused increased confusion and division in the community during a time of crisis; and that this apology be provided to the satisfaction of Council, during a public portion of a Council meeting.
- Arrange an in-person meeting with the AHS Central Zone Medical Director, or designate to offer a personal apology to Alberta Health Services for any harm caused by his public comments during the pandemic response.
- Be suspended from all Council committees and all Deputy Mayor rotation duties until sincere apologies are provided.
- Complete social media training hired and paid for by The City of Red Deer that aligns with typical media training for City staff.
The investigation is considered complete. Councillor Buchanan continues to serve as Red Deer City Councillor.
This is the first formal Code of Conduct complaint received by The City of Red Deer.
So we have two Code of Conduct investigations against this council. The first looks kind of like an expensive slap on the wrist to Buch Buchanan for daring to ask on Twitter whether AHS had shown up at a restaurant in Sylvan Lake that was protesting covid restrictions. (The Horror). The second complaint? Well it looked like a bigger deal back in the spring.
Just before I let you go back to Turkey prep and avoiding your loved ones I’d like to offer some free advice to the members of City Council who voted to keep the details of investigation number two from the people who pay for everything they do and for their salaries (as insufficient as they may seem to those who have to cash the cheques). I admit this has to be free because in all likelihood no one in their right mind would pay for it. However I’m avoiding the paint brush for just a few more minutes. Here goes: I really think it might be a good idea to tell voters who was investigated and why. That’s it. The problem with keeping this quiet is that it will tarnish not just the unfortunate soul(s) who was investigated. Now all of you who voted this way will be part of that same embarrassment and presumably you could pay the price for this.
Yes 31 percent of the 60 percent of Canadians who vote, continually vote for Justin Trudeau no matter what aboriginal female minister he turfs for daring to question his friends at Canada’s most notorious construction firm, or how many times he wears black face or how many times he declares a holiday to recognize one of the most serious problems in Canada and then forgets he might be the most important person to appear at events on that day and accidentally takes his family on a private jet to an 18 million dollar hideaway (and then forgot to hide very well). No matter what, some elected officials will have a blind following. But you are definitely taking at least a small risk here. Some people are paying attention (hi Calvin). And some people talk to other people. And some of those people will be voting. And some people will jump to the conclusion that you voted to keep this quiet because you care about something else, anything else, more than you care about the voters who you are undoubtedly shaking hands with at the farmers market right now while you tell them that nothing is more important to you than they are. But something is more important. You should tell us.
Sorry for rambling. I’ve completely run out of things to say. If you want to run a beer over to our place to reward me for doing a second rate painting job.. just keep your distance. I’ve got a valid negative covid rapid test that has to last until I get another one and another one before my vaccine kicks in.
[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]
By Adam Zivo
A Canadian poll finds that racial minorities don’t believe drug enforcement is bigoted.
Is drug prohibition racist? Many left-wing institutions seem to think so. But their argument is historically illiterate—and it contradicts recent polling data, too, which show that minorities overwhelmingly reject that view.
Policies and laws are tools to establish order. Like any tool, they can be abused. The first drug laws in North America, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arguably fixated on opium as a legal pretext to harass Asian immigrants, for example. But no reasonable person would argue that laws against home invasion, murder, or theft are “racist” because they have been misapplied in past cases. Absent supporting evidence, leaping from “this tool is sometimes used in racist ways” to “this tool is essentially racist” is kindergarten-level reasoning.
Yet this is precisely what institutions and activist groups throughout the Western world have done. The Drug Policy Alliance, a U.S.-based organization, suggests that drug prohibition is rooted in “racism and fear.” Harm Reduction International, a British NGO, argues for legalization on the grounds that drug prohibition entrenches “racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today.” In Canada, where I live, the top public health official in British Columbia, our most drug-permissive province, released a pro-legalization report last summer claiming that prohibition is “based on a history of racism, white supremacy, paternalism, colonialism, classism and human rights violations.”
These claims ignore how drug prohibition has been and remains popular in many non-European societies. Sharia law has banned the use of mind-altering substances since the seventh century. When Indigenous leaders negotiated treaties with Canadian colonists in the late 1800s, they asked for “the exclusion of fire water (whiskey)” from their communities. That same century, China’s Qing Empire banned opium amid a national addiction crisis. “Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality,” the Daoguang emperor wrote in an 1810 edict.
Today, Asian and Muslim jurisdictions impose much stiffer penalties on drug offenders than do Western nations. In countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore, and Thailand, addicts and traffickers are given lengthy prison sentences or executed. Meantime, in Canada and the United States, de facto decriminalization has left urban cores littered with syringes and shrouded in clouds of meth.
The anti-drug backlash building in North America appears to be spearheaded by racial minorities. When Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s former district attorney, was recalled in 2022, support for his ouster was highest among Asian voters. Last fall, 73 percent of Latinos backed California’s Proposition 36, which heightened penalties for drug crimes, while only 58 percent of white respondents did.
In Canada, the first signs of a parallel trend emerged during Vancouver’s 2022 municipal election, where an apparent surge in Chinese Canadian support helped install a slate of pro-police candidates. Then, in British Columbia’s provincial election last autumn, nonwhite voters strongly preferred the BC Conservatives, who campaigned on stricter drug laws. And in last month’s federal election, within both Vancouver and Toronto’s metropolitan areas, tough-on-crime conservatives received considerable support from South Asian communities.
These are all strong indicators that racial minorities do not, in fact, universally favor drug legalization. But their small population share means there is relatively little polling data to measure their preferences. Since only 7.6 percent of Americans are Asian, for example, a poll of 1,000 randomly selected people will yield an average of only 76 Asian respondents—too small a sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions. You can overcome this barrier by commissioning very large polls, but that’s expensive.
Nonetheless, last autumn, the Centre for Responsible Drug Policy (a nonprofit I founded and operate) did just that. In partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we contracted Mainstreet Research to ask over 12,000 British Columbians: “Do you agree or disagree that criminalizing drugs is racist?”
The results undermine progressives’ assumptions. Only 26 percent of nonwhite respondents agreed (either strongly or weakly) that drug criminalization is racist, while over twice as many (56 percent) disagreed. The share of nonwhite respondents who strongly disagreed was three times larger than the share that strongly agreed (43.2 percent versus 14.3 percent). These results are fairly conclusive for this jurisdiction, given the poll’s sample size of 2,233 nonwhite respondents and a margin of error of 2 percent.
Notably, Indigenous respondents seemed to be the most anti-drug ethnic group: only 20 percent agreed (weakly or strongly) with the “criminalization is racist” narrative, while 61 percent disagreed. Once again, those who disagreed were much more vehement than those who agreed. With a sample size of 399 respondents, the margin of error here (5 percent) is too small to confound these dramatic results.
We saw similar outcomes for other minority groups, such as South Asians, Southeast Asians, Latinos, and blacks. While Middle Eastern respondents also seemed to follow this trend, the poll included too few of them to draw definitive conclusions. Only East Asians were divided on the issue, though a clear majority still disagreed that criminalization is racist.
As this poll was limited to British Columbian respondents, our findings cannot necessarily be assumed to hold throughout Canada and the United States. But since the province is arguably the most drug-permissive jurisdiction within the two countries, these results could represent the ceiling of pro-drug, anti-criminalization attitudes among minority communities.
Legalization proponents and their progressive allies take pride in being “anti-racist.” Our polling, however, suggests that they are not listening to the communities they profess to care about.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
From The Center Square
By
After the self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson invited New Yorkers and others to move to Dallas.
Mamdani has vowed to implement a wide range of tax increases on corporations and property and to “shift the tax burden” to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.”
New York businesses and individuals have already been relocating to states like Texas, which has no corporate or personal income taxes.
Johnson, a Black mayor and former Democrat, switched parties to become a Republican in 2023 after opposing a city council tax hike, The Center Square reported.
“Dear Concerned New York City Resident or Business Owner: Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “Just move to Dallas, where we strongly support our police, value our partners in the business community, embrace free markets, shun excessive regulation, and protect the American Dream!”
Fortune 500 companies and others in recent years continue to relocate their headquarters to Dallas; it’s also home to the new Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). The TXSE will provide an alternative to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq and there are already more finance professionals in Texas than in New York, TXSE Group Inc. founder and CEO James Lee argues.
From 2020-2023, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA reported the greatest percentage of growth in the country of 34%, The Center Square reported.
Johnson on Thursday continued his invitation to New Yorkers and others living in “socialist” sanctuary cities, saying on social media, “If your city is (or is about to be) a sanctuary for criminals, mayhem, job-killing regulations, and failed socialist experiments, I have a modest invitation for you: MOVE TO DALLAS. You can call us the nation’s first official ‘Sanctuary City from Socialism.’”
“We value free enterprise, law and order, and our first responders. Common sense and the American Dream still reside here. We have all your big-city comforts and conveniences without the suffocating vice grip of government bureaucrats.”
As many Democratic-led cities joined a movement to defund their police departments, Johnson prioritized police funding and supporting law and order.
“Back in the 1800s, people moving to Texas for greater opportunities would etch ‘GTT’ for ‘Gone to Texas’ on their doors moving to the Mexican colony of Tejas,” Johnson continued, referring to Americans who moved to the Mexican colony of Tejas to acquire land grants from the Mexican government.
“If you’re a New Yorker heading to Dallas, maybe try ‘GTD’ to let fellow lovers of law and order know where you’ve gone,” Johnson said.
Modern-day GTT movers, including a large number of New Yorkers, cite high personal income taxes, high property taxes, high costs of living, high crime, and other factors as their reasons for leaving their states and moving to Texas, according to multiple reports over the last few years.
In response to Johnson’s invitation, Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Dallas is the first self-declared “Sanctuary City from Socialism. The State of Texas will provide whatever support is needed to fulfill that mission.”
The governor has already been doing this by signing pro-business bills into law and awarding Texas Enterprise Grants to businesses that relocate or expand operations in Texas, many of which are doing so in the Dallas area.
“Texas truly is the Best State for Business and stands as a model for the nation,” Abbott said. “Freedom is a magnet, and Texas offers entrepreneurs and hardworking Texans the freedom to succeed. When choosing where to relocate or expand their businesses, more innovative industry leaders recognize the competitive advantages found only in Texas. The nation’s leading CEOs continually cite our pro-growth economic policies – with no corporate income tax and no personal income tax – along with our young, skilled, diverse, and growing workforce, easy access to global markets, robust infrastructure, and predictable business-friendly regulations.”
New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
Ottawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
The permanent CO2 storage site at the end of the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line is just getting started
Canada’s euthanasia regime is not health care, but a death machine for the unwanted
-
Alberta11 hours agoAlberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
-
Crime10 hours agoNational Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Health9 hours agoRFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
-
Bruce Dowbiggin12 hours agoThe Game That Let Canadians Forgive The Liberals — Again
-
Alberta1 day agoCOVID mandates protester in Canada released on bail after over 2 years in jail
-
Crime2 days agoProject Sleeping Giant: Inside the Chinese Mercantile Machine Linking Beijing’s Underground Banks and the Sinaloa Cartel
-
Business1 day agoCanada’s loyalty to globalism is bleeding our economy dry
-
armed forces1 day agoCanada’s Military Can’t Be Fixed With Cash Alone