Where is the line between appropriate and inappropriate criticism? Mayor says its clearly defined in respectful workplace policy
News of the recent banning of Stratford residents from city property has quickly spread across the region, with many residents questioning what can and can’t be said in the Festival City.
Stratford Mayor Martin Ritsma believes that the line between appropriate and inappropriate criticism is clearly defined in the respectful workplace policy – and that he full-heartedly believes that the action taken by the city is the right thing to do.
“They're really intellectual people that are not foreign to politics,” Ritsma said about the residents who were suspended when asked whether the line between what is appropriate and what is not is clearly defined. “I believe it's clear, and if it wasn't clear, then I believe as well that they had time since it's been implemented to now to say, ‘Hey, can you explain why that is like that? And why is that?’
“You're entitled to your thoughts, but there's a fine line between, your rights to express your thoughts, but also the rights of those people that are receiving some of those thoughts.”
Ritsma made that statement following the city council meeting May 13 when Tim Forster, the husband of recently suspended resident Barb Shaughnessy, delegated at council.
Though Forster asked to speak to council on the respectful-workplace-policy training session that was held in-camera on May 6, the majority of his delegation had to do with the recent suspensions.
Ritsma cautioned Forster partway through his delegation, urging him to stick to the agenda item.
Forster claimed city CAO Joan Thomson did not follow the procedure in the policy since alleged threats of violence were made but the police were not called, which is what is defined in the policy.
Forster went on to call the proceeding events a “kangaroo court” that is wasting time, taxpayer money and sowing division.
“You can stop this obscenity,” Forster said, asking for council to rescind the respectful-workplace policy and any banning currently in place. “Go back to the drawing board and get it right this time.”
Coun. Cody Sebben put forward two motions on the subject following the delegation, saying that he would have preferred a warning be issued rather than an outright suspension.
He put forward a motion for staff to investigate having these decisions come through council.
Thomson said the decision to suspend the affected parties is an operational one.
“So, I would ask for some clarification,” Thomson said. “Are you asking for all operational decisions made by staff to come before council before they are implemented?”
“Of course not,” Sebben said, clarifying that certain operational decisions are brought to council’s attention and when that happens, he would like council to review them.
That motion was defeated with only Sebben, Coun. Lesley Biehn and Coun. Geza Wordofa supporting it. A subsequent motion to have an alternate form of mediation be used instead of the current suspensions also died on the floor with only Sebben, Biehn and Wordofa supporting it.
After the meeting, Ritsma did not want “to get into that,” regarding the accusations which resulted in the ban, saying that it is not useful at this point.
“I think the useful piece is that we have a workplace policy,” Ritsma said. “(It) specifically states that … creating a safe and respectful workplace and public space is a shared responsibility.”
Connor Luczka, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Stratford Times
