Rejecting the Integrity Commissioner RFP

Yesterday there was a motion in regards to the Integrity Commissioner to “re-issue the RFP in effort to seek additional proposals and broaden the scope of potential bidders in the interest of the Corporation” in hopes that more local candidates would apply.

I voted against this motion (though the motion passed) for the following reasons:

1) We were given a report on the RFP (Request for Proposal) process (that we are obligated to follow), and there was multiple bidders, including one local. Re-issuing the RFP undermines the process that had already occurred giving unfair advantage to new candidates.

2) Robert Swayze was by far the lowest bidder, has a strong background in this kind of role (with us and many other municipalities) and knows our municipality better than anyone else since he currently serves in this role for us.

3) I think that any one of us who has already been investigated by Robert Swayze should have instantly declared a conflict of interest in regards to any decision surrounding his role with us and not been able to vote on renewing his contract. Obviously they wouldn’t want him back, which in my opinion is a good reason to bring him back. It keeps us all more honest. (Update: It is only a conflict of interest if there is a current investigation open).

4) We have a deadline mandated by the municipal act to appoint an integrity commissioner by March 1, 2019 and stalling this process puts us in a precarious position.

Be the first to leave a comment. Don’t be shy.

Join the Discussion