ELORA – A proposed policy about respectful interactions and frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable complaints didn’t sit well with Centre Wellington council.
Nor was it well received by some members of the public, who felt the policy specifically targets them.
Rashid Hasan, manager of human resources, is updating policies to protect the mental health of township staff.
He presented a Respectful Interactions Policy and Frivolous, Vexatious and Unreasonable Complaints Policy to council at the committee of the whole meeting on Oct. 18.
Hasan said he drew on similar policies in other municipalities in crafting one for Centre Wellington.
“Staff at Centre Wellington are spending substantial time to repeatedly respond to a few inquiries raised consistently by the same members of the public,” Hasan wrote in his report.
“Although a response is provided by staff, and the concern is considered addressed multiple times, it’s continuously raised by the same members of the public.:
He continued, “This costs immensely in terms of staff time, level of effort required to respond to such inquiries, and raises the level of frustration amongst staff who are kept from serving the majority of our citizens’ needs for their legitimate inquiries.
“Some inquiries by a few members of the public clearly attack staff personally and the nature and tone of their inquiries is sometimes disrespectful, frivolous, vexatious and/or unreasonable.”
Beverley Cairns, an Elora resident, spoke to council as a delegate and acknowledged she has frequent correspondence with staff on matters that concern her, such as heritage, arts, and environmental issues.
“Citizens have a strong role to play in government,” she said. “We have a right to express ourselves.”
She provided a letter from 2014 in which CAO Andy Goldie wrote that staff would not respond to her inquiries on a specific matter anymore, and she was outraged.
“Who decides what is frivolous?” she asked. “You should be looking at the root cause of the dissent and disillusionment of staff. The problem is with the leadership.”
She continued, “Leadership is a skill. It takes skill to deal with divergent views.”
Some councillors tended to agree.
“I almost find this motion frivolous and vexatious,” said councillor Kirk McElwain. “I don’t think citizens should be considered that way.”
Councillor Stephan Kitras said there needs to be a customer service policy to balance such a complaint policy and more data to support the claim that this is an issue for staff.
“This doesn’t look good to the public,” he said. “It seems subjective and anecdotal.”
Councillor Neil Dunsmore recognized the policy sprang from his notice of motion to provide a safe workplace for township staff that includes their mental health, while councillor Ian MacRae said he has received vexatious emails from citizens who ask for assistance but don’t accept his response.
“It’s not about limiting freedom of speech, it’s about acceptable behaviour,” MacRae said. “Unfortunately these policies are needed.”
Mayor Kelly Linton noted that since 2015 there have been numerous changes at the township to encourage engagement and open government, including an interactive website, social media, the Connect CW portal, regular updates in the newspaper and on the radio, and prior to COVID-19 there were four town halls a year and open houses on key projects.
“It’s critical to have widespread engagement and that people have a say,” Linton said.
“This policy is to protect staff from unreasonable, disrespectful, frivolous and vexatious behaviour. We have to look after the mental health of our staff.”
“We need to protect our staff. It is the law. I have no problem with that,” McElwain agreed. “But that is not what this document does.”
Kitras said the two policies should be separated and put forward a motion that the respectful interactions section should be part of a violence in the workplace policy and the frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable complaints policy should also have a matching public service policy.
Council voted in favour of referring the policies back to staff for more work and public engagement on the issues.
Linton and Dunsmore voted against the motion but the rest of council was in favour.
