County Code of Conduct violation report released

By John Watson Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Information regarding a Code of Conduct violation complaint made against Wheatland County Coun. Rick Laursen has officially been made public. 

Via Resolution CM-2023-06-36, the investigation report was voted to be made public knowledge in alignment with the updated Code of Conduct bylaw.

The report, which was prepared by Mike Koziol, from Transitional Solutions Inc. was approved for release to the public during open discussion, following an in-camera meeting of Wheatland County council. 

County Council received the Code of Conduct violation complaint from Coun. Tom Ikert, dated Oct. 27, 2022 against Laursen, alleging he attended a meeting of the Wheatland Regional Partnership (WRP), Oct. 18, 2022 after council had previously established it would be deferring attendance at such meetings.

Ikert’s complaint alleged Laursen had violated sections 4.1.a and 4.1.c of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, which states at all times, county councillors and members shall act honestly and in good faith, and will support the majority decision of council or the board.

Wheatland County council in July 2022 passed two motions in regards to their deferring of attendance at WRP meetings, including CM2022-07-08 and CM 2022-07-15. 

These motions, respectively, refer to a defeated resolution (2-4) that council continue to attend scheduled WRP meetings, and a carried resolution (4-2) that council send a letter to the WRP clarifying its commitment to the partnership and outlining the county’s deference until outstanding legal matters have been addressed by the Village of Rockyford and the Village of Standard. 

The complaint also alleged “some of the conversations that occurred at the WRP meeting were not positive of Wheatland County….”

Laursen has contested the complaint since its submission, by way of attending the meeting as a ratepayer, not as a representative of the county. This instance is reported to be acknowledged in the WRP meeting minutes for that date.

Additionally, following receipt of Ikert’s complaint, Laursen noted it was not made clear how or who brought information of his attendance at the WRP meeting to Ikert, and therefore the claim was hearsay until proven by evidence. 

It is also noted in Laursen’s response to the complaint, Reeve Amber Link had admitted in closed session to having spoken with Strathmore Mayor Pat Fule regarding Laursen’s attendance. Laursen, noting to have spoken with Fule both prior to and after the violation complaint, confirmed no such conversation had occurred which was untoward of the county. 

As Ikert had noted Laursen did not inform the county of his attendance at the meeting, Laursen responded that he had no such duty to do so as he was in attendance as a private citizen as opposed to as a county representative.

Ikert also suggested, without evidence to support the claim, that Laursen could only have known about the scheduled WRP meeting via his position as a councillor. This was disputed by Laursen, who said he had received an invitation to attend via a personal connection.

Laursen supported his argument, reiterating his having stated on the recorded meeting minutes he would not be representing the county, as well as noting he did not take part in the meeting discussion or voting.

At the request of Chief Administrative Officer Brian Henderson, the investigation was put on hold throughout March and April 2023, resuming at the beginning of May. 

Prior to the ultimate release of the investigation report to the public, Laursen commented to council the investigator (Kozial) has on multiple occasions refused to provide his qualifications as an investigator. This objection, Laursen added, is both in writing and verbal recording.

In the analysis of the report, it is stated as the opinion of the investigator that Laursen should have personally suppressed his right to attend the meeting as a county ratepayer, and instead honouring a “higher obligation” to support the wishes of council.

In Kozial’s report, it is indicated Laursen had indeed violated the County’s Code of Conduct bylaw, by failing to act honestly and in good faith, and by failing to support the majority decision of council.

The report also states a belief that none of the sanctions included in the Code of Conduct bylaw would benefit Laursen. It was instead recommended that council hold a refresher on the bylaw which would include discussion regarding grey areas where “the high road should be taken.”

The vote from county council following the in-camera meeting to release the investigation report to the public was carried unanimously, 7-0 in favour.