Councillor’s error requires more than an apology

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/06/2024 (693 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Coun. Markus Chambers says he plans to apologize this week for voting last year in favour of parking lot and landscape changes that benefited a friend and former campaign manager.

That’s good, but it’s not good enough. Chambers should also explain why failing to recuse oneself as an elected official on matters where there is a conflict of interest is improper and unethical.

A year ago this week Chambers moved a motion at a Riel community committee meeting to reduce the width of a landscape buffer on the south side of 180 Creek Bend Rd., increase the property’s surface parking spots, and cut down on the number of underground stalls.

The friend who stood to benefit from those changes is Amit Bindra, who also served as Chambers’ campaign manager in 2018 and his official agent in 2022. The two have a personal and professional relationship. Under no circumstances should elected officials debate and vote on matters that involve friends, family members or anyone else with whom they have a personal connection.

Chambers knew that, or ought to have known that, at the time, when he not only took part in those discussions and voted on them, but also moved the original motion.

Sherri Walsh, the city’s integrity commissioner, investigated the matter and concluded Chambers participated in a meeting of council “where he influenced, discussed and voted on a decision regarding a matter in which he had a conflict of interest.”

Walsh has recommended that Chambers, who also serves as the chairman of the Winnipeg Police Board, issue a public apology, which he has agreed to do.

However, Chambers has made public statements that bring into question whether he truly understands the gravity of his actions. While he has acknowledged they were wrong, he also appears to justify them to some degree by claiming the changes were made for the betterment of the community.

“It was my bad that I didn’t recuse myself, but I had no ill intent… there was nothing untoward,” he said last week. “This was trying to achieve the best outcome for the community.”

By trying to justify the conflict of interest he placed himself in, Chambers minimizes it. The presumed benefits of the parking lot and landscape changes are irrelevant. The only thing that matters in this case is he used his power and influence as an elected official in a manner that benefited a friend. That is wrong and it is unethical, regardless of the outcome of the changes or how it may affect the community.

The public has a right to feel confident that elected officials are making decisions on behalf of their constituents for the betterment of the broader community and are not using their influence to benefit friends or family members. Mr. Chambers violated that principle.

He claims there was nothing “untoward” about what he did, which demonstrates that he does not fully grasp how improper his actions were.

Chambers should rethink his position on how he plans to apologize this week. A qualified apology won’t do. The councillor should explain to council and to the public why debating and voting on matters that involve friends or family members is always wrong, regardless of the nature of what is being discussed. It’s not enough to say it was an error in judgment.

Chambers needs to show that he fully understands the seriousness of his offence.