Another HRM scandal

[Colin May]

"A Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice overturned an unsightly premises order against a Dartmouth man after it was discovered municipal councillor Gloria McCluskey made the complaint and then sat on a committee hearing it.

The May 5, 2014, complaint, made by McCluskey, was investigated within an hour and a half.

It read: "Have you seen the property at 92 Crichton Avenue recently. Would you like to have this in your neighbourhood or worse still next door? This is a total disgrace and has been going on for years with nothing happening to clean up the disgraceful look of it. "

Even though though municipal compliance manager James Donovan found that the work was proceeding properly, another inspector was sent out and an unsightly premises order issued.

Doucette appealed the order on July 10, 2014, and the committee which included McCluskey voted four to two to dismiss it. The homeowner sought a judicial review.

"Staff knew. Councillor McCluskey certainly knew. Perhaps other members of the appeal committee knew. Mr. Doucette did not know that the complaint had been lodged by Councillor Gloria McCluskey, who sat in judgment of her own complaint," Moir said in his decision.

"Mr. Doucette had a right to make submissions about the improper participation of Councillor McCluskey at the first appeal, the knowledge of that impropriety on the part of staff who participated in the hearing and the danger that the members at the December appeal hearing were themselves really or apparently biased."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...case-1.3084018

CAO Richard Butts should act quickly on this finding.
This is a serious blow to the claimed competence of the management and governance of HRM.

Update : A previous CBC report said that Gloria had conveyed complaints to staff.

[JET]

Colin, you've driven by that 'house', it was an eyesore for a very long time. I was planning to put in a complaint when I heard that one was in process; good for Gloria to initiate a complaint, although the process after that was pretty dodgy. The house is still not finished.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by JET

Colin, you've driven by that 'house', it was an eyesore for a very long time. I was planning to put in a complaint when I heard that one was in process; good for Gloria to initiate a complaint, although the process after that was pretty dodgy. The house is still not finished.

John, I know the couple. He is an architect. I have not spoken to them for a long time. He has been doing the work without a contractor and therefore it has been a slow process. He has operated within the rules.
Political intereference in a quasi judicial process is an abuse of process.
The 2nd staff report was BS by any interpretation of the English language.

There are serious problems in the legal department at HRM; I'll make a list.
Heads need to roll.

Here is the decision : http://www.courts.ns.ca/Decisions_Of...015nssc151.pdf

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

Colin, you've driven by that 'house', it was an eyesore for a very long time. I was planning to put in a complaint when I heard that one was in process; good for Gloria to initiate a complaint, although the process after that was pretty dodgy. The house is still not finished.

But don't you think there's another person somewhere in Dartmouth who could handle representing their constituents while following the rules at the same time? In this case, even if you want something to be done about the house, you should support procedural correctness, because that is what produces results and cuts down on government waste.

Other people ran in the last municipal election, and I hope they will win next time. If Gloria McCluskey were actually so great, there would be no need to regularly excuse her poor behaviour.

One can only dream that one day voters in the city will raise their standards a little.

[ILoveHalifax]

Can this guy not complain about an unsightly person (Gloria)?

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by JET

Colin, you've driven by that 'house', it was an eyesore for a very long time. I was planning to put in a complaint when I heard that one was in process; good for Gloria to initiate a complaint, although the process after that was pretty dodgy. The house is still not finished.

I don't think there's a problem with the complaint itself... she's been around long enough to know the rules, and having made the complaint, she should have excused herself from discussions of it.

[halifaxboyns]

He could probably launch some sort of lawsuit against her - although not being a legal expert outside of planning, I'm not sure on what basis. I'm sure there would be something though?

I don't see this as a scandal but certainly misteps were taken. If they wanted to handle it fairly, she would've left the committee that was handling the appeal and it would've been made clear she lodged it. This way, she couldn't speak on the matter and then the person the order was against would've known the complainant. That said - in Alberta, I don't believe (under freedom of information) that the person who made the complaint can be named. I believe it may be the same in NS.

Head's need to role is a bit strong but certainly I don't think that an order was necessary. Does make one wonder how to define a reasonable period to get a building built is written in municipal law though.

[Colin May]

Good responses.
Let me clarify a few points for those who have not read the decision.
Bylaw enforcement was sent out 90 minutes after the complaint was received .
A person can complain through the 311 service and can complain anonymously.
A person can complain directly to bylaw enforcement and can do so anonymously.
At the first hearing, the staff, including an HRM lawyer, knew that Gloria had laid the complaint and should have privately advised her before the appeal hearing that she should excuse herself from the hearing.
The staff provided new documents to the the appellant's lawyer just before the appeal hearing and the appellant's lawyer asked the committee for a delay to enable him to look at the material. The committee refused the request and Gloria voted against providing time to review.
These two elements are a scandal. There was no procedural fairness.
In effect the committee bulldozed ahead and the HRM lawyer was in full support.
Gloria should be removed from council unless she issues a public apology.
The staff and especially the lawyer should be fired or severely reprimanded because they deliberately deprived the appellant of procedural fairness.
In addition, the committee restricted the appellant to a time of 10 minutes to present his response.
I anticipate an appeal by HRM - the city has deeper pockets than an ordinary taxpaying citizen.

As Justice Moir stated " Mr. Doucette had a right to make submissions about the improper participation of Councillor McCluskey at the first
appeal, the knowledge of that impropriety on the part of staff who participated in the hearing, and the danger that the members at the December appeal hearing were themselves really or apparently biased. The chairperson stopped him from making any submissions in that regard. "

Update : A previous CBC report several months ago cited evidence that Gloria had relayed several complaints to HRM staff regarding the property. This case shows how careful a councillor must be in relaying citizen complaints to staff and the necessity to avoid any written or verbal comment that may indicate bias.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Good responses.
Let me clarify a few points for those who have not read the decision.
Bylaw enforcement was sent out 90 minutes after the complaint was received .
A person can complain through the 311 service and can complain anonymously.
A person can complain directly to bylaw enforcement and can do so anonymously.
At the first hearing, the staff, including an HRM lawyer, knew that Gloria had laid the complaint and should have privately advised her before the appeal hearing that she should excuse herself from the hearing.
The staff provided new documents to the the appellant's lawyer just before the appeal hearing and the appellant's lawyer asked the committee for a delay to enable him to look at the material. The committee refused the request and Gloria voted against providing time to review.
These two elements are a scandal. There was no procedural fairness.
In effect the committee bulldozed ahead and the HRM lawyer was in full support.
Gloria should be removed from council unless she issues a public apology.
The staff and especially the lawyer should be fired or severely reprimanded because they deliberately deprived the appellant of procedural fairness.
In addition, the committee restricted the appellant to a time of 10 minutes to present his response.
I anticipate an appeal by HRM - the city has deeper pockets than an ordinary taxpaying citizen.

As Justice Moir stated " Mr. Doucette had a right to make submissions about the improper participation of Councillor McCluskey at the first
appeal, the knowledge of that impropriety on the part of staff who participated in the hearing, and the danger that the members at the December appeal hearing were themselves really or apparently biased. The chairperson stopped him from making any submissions in that regard. "

I have to agree with Colin May on this issue. In my opinion, this really stinks.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I have to agree with Colin May on this issue. In my opinion, this really stinks.

Not too different from how Gloria refused to even allow a constituent in her district to have a proposal considered on the potential redevelopment of Brightwood a number of years ago by lobbying Council to turn down the usually non-issue of a motion to proceed to a hearing. I believe she did the same on the proposal to develop the site on Prince Albert Rd where the funeral home now is. She does not seem big on procedure when she is against something.

[kph06]

This house puzzled me for many years, looked like a smorgasbord of styles, then all of a sudden it looked like scrapped the second floor and started over, I think it looked like it will turn out nice now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Heard on the radio this morning that she was apparently just forwarding a complaint sent to her from a neighbour of said house. I'm not an expert on the details of political protocol, but as a councilor wouldn't this be part of her job?

Just curious: scandal, misstep, or business as usual?

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Heard on the radio this morning that she was apparently just forwarding a complaint sent to her from a neighbour of said house. I'm not an expert on the details of political protocol, but as a councilor wouldn't this be part of her job?

Just curious: scandal, misstep, or business as usual?

Mark, I agree, I find it hard to believe that her's was the first complaint, and I expect that there were many others, neighbors, who had put in a complaint about that property; I don't even live in that neighborhood, I just drive up that street, and I was going to call with a complaint. The house is still a mess, and now he's adding on some other bizarre stucture on the side. Sort of reminds me of the Winchester mansion. http://www.hiemorganhill.com/blog/th...mystery-house/
He might be an architect, but I think his cheese slid off his cracker. I have called Gloria when I've had concerns about properties, and she always follows through. Thinking about the process, I don't see it as unreasonable that she was present when the committee reviewed the appeal, even though she had forwarded complaint(s); she didn't attend the second appeal, which was also denied. Perhaps the judge got it wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Heard on the radio this morning that she was apparently just forwarding a complaint sent to her from a neighbour of said house. I'm not an expert on the details of political protocol, but as a councilor wouldn't this be part of her job?

Just curious: scandal, misstep, or business as usual?

She sent an email to a staffer and it included her personal opinion as well as details about several complaintsIf she had left her personal opinion out of the issue she would not have been in a conflict.
It was a meeting of a body which makes a determination in a manner similar to a jury.

Here are her words ;
The May 5, 2014, complaint, made by McCluskey, was investigated within an hour and a half.

It read: "Have you seen the property at 92 Crichton Avenue recently. Would you like to have this in your neighbourhood or worse still next door? This is a total disgrace and has been going on for years with nothing happening to clean up the disgraceful look of it. "

Even though though municipal compliance manager James Donovan found that the work was proceeding properly, another inspector was sent out and an unsightly premises order issued. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...case-1.3084018

It is a scandal because once again legal staff failed in their duty to properly advise the Appeals Committee. The hearing should have been adjourned until Gloria recused herself.
And dropping documents on the appellant just before the start of the hearing is a disgrace, you cannot do that in a court unless the other party agrees to proceed.

[JET]

I expect that when I call a councillor, she will pass that along and quote what I say to her; looks like Gloria did that. It does sound pretty well what I would have said. The disgrace is that municipal compliance manager James Donovan thought that everything was OK, sounds like he might have a cheese/cracker problem too. Just to let you know, my cheese /cracker situation is fine, I hope.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

cheese slid off his cracker

That's a new one for me! I now look forward to an opportunity to use that in conversation...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

She sent an email to a staffer and it included her personal opinion as well as details about several complaintsIf she had left her personal opinion out of the issue she would not have been in a conflict.
It was a meeting of a body which makes a determination in a manner similar to a jury.

Here are her words ;
The May 5, 2014, complaint, made by McCluskey, was investigated within an hour and a half.

It read: "Have you seen the property at 92 Crichton Avenue recently. Would you like to have this in your neighbourhood or worse still next door? This is a total disgrace and has been going on for years with nothing happening to clean up the disgraceful look of it. "

Even though though municipal compliance manager James Donovan found that the work was proceeding properly, another inspector was sent out and an unsightly premises order issued. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...case-1.3084018

It is a scandal because once again legal staff failed in their duty to properly advise the Appeals Committee. The hearing should have been adjourned until Gloria recused herself.
And dropping documents on the appellant just before the start of the hearing is a disgrace, you cannot do that in a court unless the other party agrees to proceed.

I can see your point, Colin, but it must be a fine line between addressing the needs of your constituents and being considered in conflict of interest.

It seems in this case that simply expressing her opinion is what caused the issue. Regardless of whether she said anything or not, she would still have an opinion (as we all do), so the difference between conflict and not is a simple statement.

The thing is, anybody who does a job for as long as she has develops a feel for it - you develop a pretty keen understanding of the level of the issue from experience, it almost becomes a sixth sense. In this case I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the appearance of that property being in perpetual construction over several years has been bothering a lot of people for a long time. It doesn't seem unreasonable that she should use this sense in how to handle the issue, but perhaps just not verbalize it...

IHMO, to call it a scandal might be a little too strong.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's a new one for me! I now look forward to an opportunity to use that in conversation...

It's from The Green Mile, it's a great line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpE6tmau7jQ

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can see your point, Colin, but it must be a fine line between addressing the needs of your constituents and being considered in conflict of interest.

It seems in this case that simply expressing her opinion is what caused the issue. Regardless of whether she said anything or not, she would still have an opinion (as we all do), so the difference between conflict and not is a simple statement.

The thing is, anybody who does a job for as long as she has develops a feel for it - you develop a pretty keen understanding of the level of the issue from experience, it almost becomes a sixth sense. In this case I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the appearance of that property being in perpetual construction over several years has been bothering a lot of people for a long time. It doesn't seem unreasonable that she should use this sense in how to handle the issue, but perhaps just not verbalize it...

IHMO, to call it a scandal might be a little too strong.

I appreciate your comments.
If your accuser was on the jury you wouldn't be too happy. I'd make the same remarks if any other councillor did the same. And I voted for her based on her performance at HRM.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I appreciate your comments.
If your accuser was on the jury you wouldn't be too happy. I'd make the same remarks if any other councillor did the same. And I voted for her based on her performance at HRM.

Is there an Ethics code that says that a coucillor cannot bring forth a constituent(s)'s concern, and be present if an appeal of the complaint is being heard? If the answer is yes, then I agree with you. If not...
Colin, there is a building, that is 1/2 block from both of us. I have called to complain about unsightly premises there for years, and still it declines. I think that the real disgrace in Halifax is that staff have their hands tied by an inadequate/toothless enforcement program.