To code of conduct or not: Langford debates

This story was originally published in The Westshore newsletter, Feb. 10, 2022.

Following a feisty council meeting on Jan. 10, (covered here in case you missed it) Langford Coun. Lillian Szpak felt it was time for the seven-member council, many of whom have served together for over two decades, needed a code of conduct. She introduced a notice of motion for the Feb. 7 meeting that would have seen Langford prepare a code of conduct in advance of the Union of BC Municipalities which is currently developing a boilerplate code of conduct to be adopted province-wide.

The motion failed, 4-3 with Couns. Szpak, Denise Blackwell, and Norma Stewart in favour, and Mayor Stew Young, Couns. Lanny Seaton, Matt Sahlstrom, and Roger Wade opposed. A second motion passed 5-2 to wait for the province and UBCM to issue their guidelines and then “Langfordize” it.

The mayor seemed frustrated by the motion, both the procedure and the content of it. While notices of motion are procedurally correct, they haven’t often been used in Langford. Instead council will get staff to write a report first which is then brought forward to a council meeting for discussion. A notice of motion can be used to begin a discussion on something before staff are directed to write a report. Szpak has introduced two notice of motions recently, once for the code of conduct and also to propose a tree protection bylaw in January which was also voted down.

“It would have been more helpful if it actually was done as a proper staff report, not a notice of motion because Lillian got mad at Lanny,” Young said. So we have a problem here. This is not the rest of council fighting. It’s Lillian, usually, fighting Council now,” Young said. He also rankled against the idea that Langford even needs a code of conduct, saying the group has always gotten along and been able to have debate.

“There was nothing wrong with the conversation [in the Jan. 27 meeting] except Lillian had a problem with Lanny talking about her daughter. And so then all of a sudden the code of conduct came out. It’s not fair for the rest of council who get along really good to have one person say, ‘Well, you talked about my daughter. So I’m now going to bring a code of conduct.’ That is actually exactly how it happened.” Young said.

Young said he thinks Szpak was trying to “stifle Lanny from not talking about issues that bother him,” and disagrees with the need for a code of conduct at all. “We are going to have healthy debate. I will disagree with Lillian lots, and more so lately. I’ll disagree with Denise. But at the end of the day, my job here is to make a decision, yes or no. And I may raise my voice, I may do this. I may do that. And other councillors will interrupt me when they shouldn’t be and raise their voice as well. But we don’t mean anything by it. This is about what we’re doing and this is about dialogue and proper democracy,” he said.

The comment about Lillian Szpak’s daughter-in-law was part of a heated discussion in a January meeting when Seaton suggested Szpak had a conflict of interest in her proposed tree protection bylaw since her daughter-in-law had written on Facebook that one was needed. Szpak objected to her family being brought into the discussion.

Szpak told Young he was being inappropriate, “and I say that in all due respect.”

“Uh, no you don’t say it in respect,” the Mayor said over her, and went on to chide her for having “outbursts” and “calling Lanny ‘old and senile’ in that in-camera meeting.”

“I never used those words, and you are now out of line,” Szpak replied.

“The public needs to know this is not how Council is acting. We actually all get along, the only one that isn’t right now is Lillian and she’s bringing all these notice of motions forward, because her daughter puts it on the internet, and then Lillian brings it forward. So there you go. That’s exactly what happened. That’s all Lanny was saying. And it was the truth,” Young concluded.

From there the meeting—which also had four public hearings, received five-year financial plans from the departments, and had many spirited comments from callers about a dust bylaw that was actually only on the agenda to correct a clerical error— went into a closed, in-camera portion and was adjourned.