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.
Crime
The Uncomfortable Demographics of Islamist Bloodshed—and Why “Islamophobia” Deflection Increases the Threat
Addressing realities directly is the only path toward protecting communities, confronting extremism, and preventing further loss of life, Canadian national security expert argues.
After attacks by Islamic extremists, a familiar pattern follows. Debate erupts. Commentary and interviews flood the media. Op-eds, narratives, talking points, and competing interpretations proliferate in the immediate aftermath of bloodshed. The brief interval since the Bondi beach attack is no exception.
Many of these responses condemn the violence and call for solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as for broader societal unity. Their core message is commendable, and I support it: extremist violence is horrific, societies must stand united, and communities most commonly targeted by Islamic extremists—Jews, Christians, non-Muslim minorities, and moderate Muslims—deserve to live in safety and be protected.
Yet many of these info-space engagements miss the mark or cater to a narrow audience of wonks. A recurring concern is that, at some point, many of these engagements suggest, infer, or outright insinuate that non-Muslims, or predominantly non-Muslim societies, are somehow expected or obligated to interpret these attacks through an Islamic or Muslim-impact lens. This framing is frequently reinforced by a familiar “not a true Muslim” narrative regarding the perpetrators, alongside warnings about the risks of Islamophobia.
These misaligned expectations collide with a number of uncomfortable but unavoidable truths. Extremist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and decentralized attackers with no formal affiliations have repeatedly and explicitly justified their violence through interpretations of Islamic texts and Islamic history. While most Muslims reject these interpretations, it remains equally true that large, dynamic groups of Muslims worldwide do not—and that these groups are well prepared to, and regularly do, use violence to advance their version of Islam.
Islamic extremist movements do not, and did not, emerge in a vacuum. They draw from the broader Islamic context. This fact is observable, persistent, and cannot be wished or washed away, no matter how hard some may try or many may wish otherwise.
Given this reality, it follows that for most non-Muslims—many of whom do not have detailed knowledge of Islam, its internal theological debates, historical divisions, or political evolution—and for a considerable number of Muslims as well, Islamic extremist violence is perceived as connected to Islam as it manifests globally. This perception persists regardless of nuance, disclaimers, or internal distinctions within the faith and among its followers.
THE COST OF DENIAL AND DEFLECTION
Denying or deflecting from these observable connections prevents society from addressing the central issues following an Islamic extremist attack in a Western country: the fatalities and injuries, how the violence is perceived and experienced by surviving victims, how it is experienced and understood by the majority non-Muslim population, how it is interpreted by non-Muslim governments responsible for public safety, and how it is received by allied nations. Worse, refusing to confront these difficult truths—or branding legitimate concerns as Islamophobia—creates a vacuum, one readily filled by extremist voices and adversarial actors eager to poison and pollute the discussion.
Following such attacks, in addition to thinking first of the direct victims, I sympathize with my Muslim family, friends, colleagues, moderate Muslims worldwide, and Muslim victims of Islamic extremism, particularly given that anti-Muslim bigotry is a real problem they face. For Muslim victims of Islamic extremism, that bigotry constitutes a second blow they must endure. Personal sympathy, however, does not translate into an obligation to center Muslim communal concerns when they were not the targets of the attack. Nor does it impose a public obligation or override how societies can, do, or should process and respond to violence directed at them by Islamic extremists.
As it applies to the general public in Western nations, the principle is simple: there should be no expectation that non-Muslims consider Islam, inter-Islamic identity conflicts, internal theological disputes, or the broader impact on the global Muslim community, when responding to attacks carried out by Islamic extremists. That is, unless Muslims were the victims, in which case some consideration is appropriate.
Quite bluntly, non-Muslims are not required to do so and are entitled to reject and push back against any suggestion that they must or should. Pointedly, they are not Muslims, a fact far too many now seem to overlook.
The arguments presented here will be uncomfortable for many and will likely provoke polarizing discussion. Nonetheless, they articulate an important, human-centered position regarding how Islamic extremist attacks in Western nations are commonly interpreted and understood by non-Muslim majority populations.
Non-Muslims are free to give no consideration to Muslim interests at any time, particularly following an Islamic extremist attack against non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country. The sole exception is that governments retain an obligation to ensure the safety and protection of their Muslim citizens, who face real and heightened threats during these periods. This does not suggest that non-Muslims cannot consider Muslim community members; it simply affirms that they are under no obligation to do so.
The impulse for Muslims to distance moderate Muslims and Islam from extremist attacks—such as the targeting of Jews in Australia or foiled Christmas market plots in Poland and Germany—is understandable.
Muslims do so to protect their own interests, the interests of fellow Muslims, and the reputation of Islam itself. Yet this impulse frequently collapses into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, pointing to peaceful Muslims as the baseline while asserting that the attackers were not “true Muslims.”
Such claims oversimplify the reality of Islam as it manifests globally and fail to address the legitimate political and social consequences that follow Islamic extremist attacks in predominantly non-Muslim Western societies. These deflections frequently produce unintended effects, such as strengthening anti-Muslim extremist sentiments and movements and undermining efforts to diminish them.
The central issue for public discourse after an Islamic extremist attack is not debating whether the perpetrators were “true” or “false” Muslims, nor assessing downstream impacts on Muslim communities—unless they were the targets.
It is a societal effort to understand why radical ideologies continue to emerge from varying—yet often overlapping—interpretations of Islam, how political struggles within the Muslim world contribute to these ideologies, and how non-Muslim-majority Western countries can realistically and effectively confront and mitigate threats related to Islamic extremism before the next attack occurs and more non-Muslim and Muslim lives are lost.
Addressing these realities directly is the only path toward protecting communities, confronting extremism, and preventing further loss of life.
Ian Bradbury, a global security specialist with over 25 years experience, transitioned from Defence and NatSec roles to found Terra Nova Strategic Management (2009) and 1NAEF (2014). A TEDx, UN, NATO, and Parliament speaker, he focuses on terrorism, hybrid warfare, conflict aid, stability operations, and geo-strategy.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
By
Individuals and communities must take responsibility for their own safety.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
-
Digital ID2 days agoCanada releases new digital ID app for personal documents despite privacy concerns
-
Community1 day agoCharitable giving on the decline in Canada
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoNFL Ice Bowls Turn Down The Thermostat on Climate Change Hysteria
-
Energy2 days agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
Crime2 days agoTrump designates fentanyl a ‘weapon of mass destruction’
-
Energy2 days agoCan we not be hysterical about AI and energy usage?
-
Energy2 days agoEnergy security matters more than political rhetoric
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s New Green Deal