In my day job as a REALTOR®, “multiple representation” refers to when the same agent or brokerage represents both sides of a transaction. It’s an important issue, because when the same agent represents two parties at the same time they have opportunities for a conflict of interest, or simply favouring one side over the other. It is possible for a brokerage or agent to do this legally and ethically, and sometimes there are even benefits to it: sometimes having a close knowledge of both parties gives the agent more opportunity to achieve a win/win/win outcome.
Like a REALTOR®, a politician has a representative role: we make decisions on behalf of the residents of our municipality, in their interests rather than in our own. But we also have a type of multiple representation, because we often serve on multiple committees and boards in our capacity as councillors.
Committees are pretty straightforward, and I can wear both hats comfortably because the committee is explicitly responsible to council. Boards are a bit different.
Boards and Councils
Boards and councils are a little different from committees. The Board of Directors of any organization has a specific responsibility to that organization. When I sit at a Board table I’m supposed to put the interests of that organization ahead of anything else in the decisions that I make, even if I have other interests — for example, the interests of council, or of my own family.
Consider the position of the Mayor, who also serves on County Council. Every county councillor is mayor of their respective municipality, but when they sit at county council they must wear their county councillor hat; they are not there to represent the interests of their respective municipalities, they are there to represent the interests of the county as a whole. The decisions they make on behalf of the county should be informed by their experience and knowledge of conditions in their respective municipalities, but if a given decision is good for the whole county except for their own municipality, they should still support it; and if a decision is good for their own municipality but bad for the rest of the county, they should vote against it. This is not always easy to do. It is rare, maybe even impossible, for there to be an issue that can’t be resolved in a way that is more or less better for everyone, but nonetheless county councillors need to be careful to ensure that they’re wearing the right hat!
Conservation Authority Boards
The way I’ve described representation on a board of directors (and county council) above is the standard: no matter what other interests I may have, when I sit at a board table, I have to put the best interests of that organization first. But in 2020, Bill 229 changed that process for conservation authorities.
The Conservation Authority Act includes a description of the responsibilities of members: “Every member of an authority shall act honestly and in good faith with a view to furthering the objects of the authority.” That’s how representation on a board generally works, and it’s written that way in the Business Corporations Act. But Bill 229 changed that to “generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities” (section 2 (3)). That is, the provincial government has required the board of directors of every conservation authority in the province to wear their municipal councillor hats at the board table. They’ve legislated a conflict of interests.
This plays out most obviously in the budgeting process. If every board member were to act in accordance with the best interests of the conservation authority, we would make decisions that ensure the sustainability of our finances and operations, support our staff, and further our Strategic Plan, knowing that we will have to make the case for any increase in the budget at our respective council tables (because most of the authority’s budget is paid by member municipalities). But if every board member is supposed to act on behalf of their respective municipalities, we have tremendous pressure (and some would even say a duty) to keep tax increases low and cut costs wherever possible. And because the province pays less and less of the total costs of conservation authorities, shifting more of that financial burden to municipalities every year, there’s more pressure on municipalities to avoid increasing the already-tight budget. We find ourselves sitting around the board table ordering the impoverishment of the organization we’re supposed to be governing, because we’ve been ordered to put another interest first.
You can see how that played out at Lower Trent Conservation Authority this year by looking at the meeting minutes. In November we heard how dire the staffing situation is, and how badly more funding is needed (see point 18 in the minutes). Later in November we had a special meeting to discuss the budget; I prepared my comments in advance so that they could be included in the minutes verbatim (see point 9). In December we discussed it again (see pages 4-5 for my comments), ultimately passing a budget that fell short of the needs of the organization, though still much higher than some municipalities would have liked. I wrestled with this conflict of interest then, and despite the province’s view of our role as board members I ultimately stuck with the more traditional understanding of the role of a board member: we should not have worn our municipal councillor hats at the board table. Our organization has suffered, and will continue to, until this is corrected.
These changes under Bill 229 were immediately objected to by numerous conservation authorities back in 2020, many of whom explicitly wrote to the province to point out these issues. The province opted not to address these concerns. This is not a mistake. There are numerous ways the changes of the past five years have set up conservation authorities to fail, and the province has not been responsive to feedback that shows how much damage is being done; this is just one of many. There are far too many problems that could easily be corrected for this to be a matter of sheer incompetence, so it must be deliberate. I recognize that this is a strong statement, but in a post about a blatant conflict of interest that has been forced upon us by a provincial government that refuses to correct it, I feel like it needs to be said bluntly: they’ve chosen this, they aren’t backing down, and our conservation authorities, municipal governments, and trust in institutions are all suffering as a result.