Ward 14 Councillor Landon Johnston wasn’t successful in getting a conflict-of-interest motion involving himself on the floor, but he remained defiant that it needed to by daylighted.

Coun. Johnston put the urgent notice of motion forward at the Nov. 18 Public Hearing Meeting of Council, asking for a letter involving the City’s Calgary’s wholly owned subsidiary, Calgary Housing, “incorrectly declaring” he had a conflict of interest with them be made public.

The councillor’s motion stated that the information in the letter prevented him from being involved as a city-council appointed board member to Calgary Housing.

In Tuesday’s council meeting Coun. Johnston said that he was told by Mayor Jeromy Farkas that they’d received a letter from one of the subsidiaries.

“That letter questioned my past business holdings, even though I’d already confirmed no conflict of interest. From there, the whole thing was taken behind closed doors,” Coun. Johnston said.

“I wasn’t able to speak to it publicly, and incomplete, withheld information was allowed to influence the process without any chance for me or anyone else to set the record straight.”

Coun. Johnston said that letter was later circulated to councillors, with what he said was incorrect information. He said it ultimately stopped him from getting a seat on that board, but that wasn’t necessarily what it was about.

“This isn’t about trying to get a position. It’s about fairness, accuracy and transparency. If something about any councillor, me or anyone else comes up and it’s wrong, we should have all the right to address it openly. Decisions shouldn’t be shaped by confidential misinformation that never sees the light of day,” he said.

Outside council, Coun. Johnston later confirmed that the perceived conflict was due to a contract he had with the provincial government through Calgary Housing. He said his knowledge of Calgary Housing and its challenges uniquely positioned him to take part as a member of the board.

“The contract was actually managed by the province, so there was never any financial conflict of interest with Calgary Housing,” he said.

Calgary Housing issued an emailed statement to LWC on Tuesday afternoon.

“The Board of Calgary Housing is committed to working with our shareholder, The City of Calgary, on matters under the Business Corporations Act, including disclosure of conflict of interest,” read the statement from Anna Nelson, Board Chair for Calgary Housing.

Issue should be heard, just not today: Mayor Farkas

Outside council chambers, Mayor Farkas said that he has a responsibility, when something comes to his attention confidentially, to ensure that it goes through the proper channels to ensure there’s no legal or ethical exposure for the City of Calgary.

“In many ways, the confidentiality is not to hide anything,” he said.  

“It’s more to protect the individual as they undertake that process, to make sure that if there’s some third party that’s weighing in on a certain matter, that it’s done in a proper way, rather than just announced to the world in a way that it’s assumed to be fact.”

“I am duty-bound to maintain the confidentiality of what’s provided to me. It’s not my own personal decision in terms of whether correspondence sent to me is kept confidential; I have to seek the approval of the author to be able to waive that privilege or confidentiality.”

Coun. Johnston said he was disappointed in the mayor’s response to the media, stating that he believed Mayor Farkas ran—and won—on a platform of transparency. He said that he believed the memo was used to prejudice the decision-making process.

‘It does set a precedent that administration can send anything they want through the mayor, and he can now use that again to either keep you on or off a board,” said Coun. Johnston.

“I’m not OK with that.”

No details have been provided on the contents of the letter from Calgary Housing. Mayor Farkas did say that the vote on Tuesday was not to say that the item shouldn’t be brought forward. It just didn’t meet the threshold of being an urgent matter, particularly as it wasn’t circulated to members of council beforehand.

“It was challenging for me to vote, sight unseen, to a motion that had just been presented on the screen,” he said.

“I want to make sure that if I’m voting in favour of putting something on the agenda or voting in favour of the merits, that I really know what I’m voting for, and the vote to not put this on the agenda as urgent business shouldn’t be seen as a rejection of the merits of it.”