After receiving a scathing report from the city's integrity commissioner urging Cambridge council to formally reprimand and remove the chair of the city's committee of adjustment (COA) over a breach of the city's code of conduct, council decided Tuesday to take no action on the matter.
Frances Seward retains her position as chair of the committee and will serve in that capacity at tonight's meeting deciding local minor variance and lot severance applications.
Seward was found to have deliberately breached conflict of interest in the code and abuse of office after failing to recuse herself from a decision last December about an application for a property she is a neighbour of.
Council's decision to ignore the recommendation from integrity commissioner Paula Boutis comes a week after the Ontario Land Tribunal overturned the decision on the Oak Street property in question.
The owner of that property then lodged the complaint against Seward.
The complainant sought to sever the property and asked the city to allow minor variances to zoning bylaws to permit the demolition of the current semi-detached home and build two new, three-storey homes.
Boutis appeared before council Tuesday to explain how Seward not only "deliberately" failed to recuse herself from the decision, but also failed to take the advice of the committee's secretary treasurer who Boutis believes gave "clear direction...that members who live within the notice area of an application ought to recuse themselves."
Boutis said the committee of adjustment is an "extremely important," quasi judicial body that decides on minor variances and lot creation applications under the Planning Act.
"Like any adjudicated body, it is critical that they are seen to be and do provide for an impartial hearing for those who appear in front of them. Members should have no interest in the matter in front of them."
"Applicants are entitled to be heard and have decisions made by those who are not in a conflict."
In this case, Seward not only lived in the notice area for the property in question, she spoke about it openly and sent emails about her preferences to neighbours in the lead up to the meeting.
These facts alone should have been enough for Seward to recuse herself, but instead "the facts demonstrated she had an actual bias related to the proposal." She failed to recuse herself from an initial meeting during which a decision was deferred to a further meeting, then spoke in opposition to it.
Boutis concluded the breach of Seward's obligations was "significant" and since a financial penalty is meaningless for a member of a volunteer committee, recommended reprimand. Since training isn't at "the root of the problem" and serves "no useful purpose" that wasn't recommended. Neither was an apology, since Seward could have apologized at any time since the breach and chose not to do so.
The recommendation to revoke Seward's position as chair was offered "to avoid future breaches."
Coun. Ross Earnshaw, noted the words "may be imposed" in commenting on the report's recommendations. "That's quite different from they shall be imposed," he said.
Earnshaw then clarified that it's "open to council to not, in fact, impose any remedial or corrective actions not withstanding your recommendation."
"It's open to council not to do anything at all," Boutis replied. "All of it is within your discretion."
Following that, the council decision to accept the report and do nothing was unanimous.
City clerk Danielle Manton confirmed to CambridgeToday there will be no further decisions on the matter.
