Council's Shrug:
When Citizens Must Sue Their Own Government to Protect Democracy
There is something deeply troubling about the City of Port Moody's response to concerns over a potential conflict of interest involving an elected official.
Not because the City refuted the allegations. It didn't.
Not because the City explained why the alleged conflict does not exist. It didn't do that either.
Instead, the City's response can be distilled to a simple message: if residents believe there is a conflict of interest, they are free to take it to court themselves.
Technically, that may be correct. Morally, it is an abdication of responsibility.
The Community Charter exists because British Columbians expect public officials to uphold the highest standards of integrity. Its conflict-of-interest provisions are designed to protect the public from divided loyalties and to ensure that municipal decisions are made solely in the public interest. The courts have repeatedly recognized that public office is a public trust and that citizens are entitled to the undivided loyalty of those they elect.
Yet when residents raised a serious concern supported by legal argument and case law, the City's response was not to reassure the public that the matter would be carefully examined. It was not to explain why the allegations lacked merit. It was not even to acknowledge the underlying ethical concern.
Instead, the City emphasized that Council has "absolute discretion" and that electors remain free to bring their own court application.
Think about what that means.
Ordinary residents are expected to finance legal counsel, organize evidence, dedicate months or years of volunteer time, and risk substantial legal costs simply to determine whether their elected representatives are complying with the standards imposed by law. Meanwhile, the very institution entrusted with safeguarding public confidence takes the position that it has no obligation to act.
That is not accountability.
That is outsourcing accountability to the taxpayers.
The City's position may be legally defensible. But legality and leadership are not the same thing.
A council committed to ethical governance should not need to be dragged kicking and screaming into court before it takes allegations of conflict of interest seriously. It should not hide behind procedural discretion while citizens bear the burden of enforcement. It should recognize that maintaining public trust is not merely a legal requirement—it is a moral obligation.
What makes the response particularly disappointing is its failure to engage with the substance of the concern. The electors' complaint was not that they lacked access to the courts. Everyone already knew that. The complaint was that a credible allegation of conflict had been raised and that Council had an opportunity to demonstrate leadership, safeguard the integrity of local government, and reassure the public that ethical standards matter.
Instead, the response amounted to: "See you in court."
That approach sends a dangerous message. It tells residents that ethical governance is not something their municipal government will actively protect. It tells them that if they want accountability, they must buy it themselves through litigation.
Democracy cannot function this way.
The public should not have to launch fundraising campaigns, retain lawyers, and spend their valuable time in legal proceedings to secure something as basic as honest and impartial decision-making from elected officials. The burden of maintaining public trust belongs first and foremost to those who hold public office, not to the citizens who placed them there.
The Community Charter was created to protect the integrity of local government. When municipal leaders respond to serious ethical concerns not with action but with indifference, they may satisfy the minimum requirements of the law, but they fail a far more important test: the test of public trust.
And when citizens are told that the only way to keep their government honest is to sue it themselves, the real conflict is no longer about one councillor. It is about a system of governance that appears more interested in protecting itself and its special interests than in protecting the public it serves.