For the last several weeks, we have been running stories concerning conflict of interest allegations against councillor Mike Greaves and his defence against those accusations.

In the back and forth on this issue, one thing stands clear — the system in place to determine conflict breaches is unfair to the public and elected officials alike.

Any conflict of interest challenge would cost thousands of dollars and months of time. While there may be a winner and loser at the end of the day, the only people certain to capitalize are lawyers.

Over the years this paper has watched councillors declare conflicts when they probably didn’t need to, and in other instances has been left asking why they didn’t speak up. If we travelled across Muskoka, we’d expect to find a wide range of opinions from municipal councillors on what constitutes conflict and when they need to make a declaration. Certainly, the onus is on anyone elected to municipal office to know the rules. That should be understood before they run for office.

But with this kind of wide-reaching interpretation, there needs to be a better way to determine if conflict rules have been breached. The rules need to be more black and white and less influenced by the sway of lawyer-setting precedent.

Currently, the province has made changes around private sessions. The public now has an avenue, through a municipally appointed official or Ontario’s ombudsman, to level complaints. Perhaps that mandate could be extended to conflict issues.

For members of the public to pay a lawyer to challenge a potential conflict of interest breach is wrong. Money should not be the determining factor when issues of accountability are at stake. Likewise, councillors shouldn’t have to reach into their pockets to defend against what could prove baseless allegations.

We suggest conflict complaints could be forwarded to these newly appointed private session officials or the Ombudsman. If the rules were less muddied by legal interpretation and clear penalties were attached, there is no reason why determinations around conflict could not be made at a local level.

B.H.