Coun. Brian Skakun has to be censured, according to his political colleagues, to bring order back to council proceedings.
As Coun. Dave Wilbur said, council doesn't want to be seen to be doing nothing after one of their own admittedly breached the Privacy Act.
"That reflects on us," he said.
We couldn't agree more.
And you know what else reflects badly on you, council members? Refusing to address the possibility of a toxic workplace environment at city hall - even when a labour lawyer hired by the city to look into harassment allegations points to other related problems.
Over the duration of the Skakun trial, and now with this censure, it's easy to forget what started this dog and pony show.
A reminder: it was a municipal staff mess involving a perceived conflict of interest. So what's been done about that situation?
Nothing.
City management waived away the lawyer's disquieting observations without even considering its merits, and actually chastised her for going beyond her mandate in daring to criticize one of their own.
So it's business as usual at city hall, despite the perception that staff is allowed to behave inappropriately without recourse.
For example, Rob Whitwham, administrative services director, appeared to have been covering for himself and his colleagues when he held onto the lawyer's report that stated he should've taken steps to address a possible conflict of interest.
It was only finally revealed when media asked about it.
But revealing all to council didn't help. They refused to discuss the matter, which is what led a frustrated Skakun to his dramatic decision to expose the confidential material to media in the first place.
This move is straight out of the whistleblowers' playbook. When the system fails, turn to the media. Expose the wrongdoing so public pressure will force those in authority to make it right.
The longer staff and council refuse to look at all the other accountability problems happening at city hall, the harder it is to believe the Skakun censure is truly meant to "keep our house in order," as Wilbur put it.
It seems more like an attempt to muzzle an outspoken politician after he once again breached protocol by speaking out against what he says are dubious closed-door meetings.
The fact that city manager Derek Bates felt it necessary to indicate Skakun could not be shut out of closed-door meetings shows that council was considering ways to shut him out - or is that shut him up?
By the way, turning the tables on the whistleblower and making him the centre of negative attention is straight out of the cover-up playbook. And guess what? It's working.
-- Prince George Citizen
