Despite conflict, council tells Nugent to carry on

Published Wednesday March 25th, 2009
C3

SAINT JOHN - City solicitor John Nugent told common council this week he would be in a conflict of interest when drafting legislative changes to the city's pension plan, but the politicians voted to allow Nugent to carry on with the work anyway.

Click to Enlarge
Peter Walsh/Telegraph-Journal
City solicitor John Nugent, shown in a file photo, told common council this week he would be in a conflict of interest when drafting legislative changes to the city’s pension plan because he would be affected by any pension reforms.

Council asked Nugent last month to prepare amendments to provincial laws that would change pension benefits, but the city solicitor said in a report Monday night the changes could "cut too close to the bone."

Nugent, a city employee who would be directly affected by any pension reforms, said he had already finished a preliminary draft of the amendments, but he asked council to hire a private lawyer to continue with the work.

"Obviously, providing advice to council with respect to potential changes to my benefits under the plan would place me in a conflict position," Nugent wrote to council.

He said council passed a resolution in 2007 that said the politicians would ask David O'Brien, a lawyer with Saint John-based Barry Spalding, to provide legal advice when the city solicitor was in a conflict of interest.

But council narrowly turned down Nugent's recommendation to seek outside advice and instead voted to allow Nugent to continue his work.

Coun. Bill Farren said he didn't want to spend any more tax dollars on pension reforms when council could not be assured the province would approve the changes.

An MLA must introduce a private member's bill in the legislature and secure a majority vote before the reforms could take place, but Farren was skeptical the bill would pass.

The city's unions have staunchly opposed the pension reforms and Farren said MLAs would not likely endorse a plan that has garnered such resistance.

Farren has said the proposed reforms offer only a piecemeal approach toward reducing the plan's burden on taxpayers while ensuring employees are properly compensated when they retire.

The councillor has said the city could achieve the desired result only by introducing more substantial changes to the plan.

"If any one of the five union groups opposes this, then it's a wash," Farren said. "Now we're going to spend more money to get another lawyer to form in his own words the work that Mr. Nugent has already done - and for what?"

Coun. Bruce Court said he had faith in Nugent's ability to draft changes to the pension plan, but he stressed the city must negotiate with the unions before formally asking the legislature to pass a bill.

"I trust the city solicitor but I am 100 per cent against forced changes to the pension fund without negotiations," Court said.

 

Disabled

Commenting has been disabled for this item. Existing comments appear below but you may not add a new comment at this time.

Comments (6)

All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.

Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.

This is a sad commentary on the ability of educated politicians and bureaucrats to see the difference between right and wrong.
The City solicitor has a number of conflicts that should cause him to step aside, including as he noted the fact he benefits from what he would write. More importantly, wasn't he named as one of the people suing Councillor Ferguson who was ordered by Justice McLellan to pay Ferguson's costs? That shows he has a monetary interest in the workings of the Pension Board of which he is a Trustee.
The Municipalities Act states:
90.2(1)Subject to subsection (1.1) and section 90.3, for the purposes of this Act a member or a senior appointed officer has a conflict of interest if
(a) he or a family associate
(a)(ii) has an interest in any other matter in which such council or local board is concerned that would be of financial benefit to him or the family associate;

continued.
33
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Anonymous Reader, Saint John on 25/03/09 08:37:10 AM AST
continued.

90.4(3) Where a member has a conflict of interest with respect to any matter in which the council or local board is concerned and he is present at a meeting of council or the local board, a meeting of a committee of council or the local board, or any other meeting at which business of council or the local board is conducted, at which the matter is a subject of consideration he shall,
(a) as soon as the matter is introduced, disclose that he has a conflict of interest in the matter; and
(b) forthwith withdraw from the meeting room while the matter is under consideration or vote.
The fact the Court of Appeal dismissed the summary Judgement and ordered a full trial does not excuse him as the he is part of an action where costs inevitably will be awarded and win or lose he has a monetary interest in the work he does on behalf of the Plan's future.
CONFLICT Perception = reality!
If it's black with a white stripe down its and it smells like a skunk, it probably is a skunk.
33
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Anonymous Reader, Saint John on 25/03/09 08:37:33 AM AST
Mr. Nugent operates under the system if he declares the conflict that obliterates it & he has convinced council to do the same. His very membership on the pension board causes the taxpayers to pay twice for services we are already paying Mr. Nugent to do. David O'Brien, it would appear,is his backup in doing his job as city solicitor.Wonder what his hourly rate is? Is he the guy we keep asking if it's legally alright for Mr. Nugent to stay on the pension board? He'd be in conflict himself! "Conflict of interest" was created for a good reason-we have already seen Mr. Nugent's bias in dealing with the Ferguson lawsuit-he pieced together the gravel to make the imaginary rocks to throw at a councillor whose seat, position and rights Mr. Nugent is being well paid to defend and protect. This is about integrity and doing the right thing for our city and our citizens. Mr. Nugent is doing neither and by supporting his ignoring of serious conflicts of interest, council is doing thr same.
23
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
trust is earned, Saint John on 25/03/09 09:05:19 AM AST
Bill Farren is right - this whole issue is going nowhere, so why spend any more money on it. Mr. Nugent's participation at this point is of no significance.

The whole pension plan is un-workable, and eventually a completely different arrangement will have to be made with all city pensioners. The ones that will be hurt most are those already on pension.
21
Thumbs Up
2
Thumbs Down
Don Leaman, Saint John on 25/03/09 09:18:19 AM AST
Declarations of conflict of interests by city solicitor John Nugent aren't worth a spit. City taxpayers and residents of the city have a major stake in a city official promoting a policy in which he faces competing duties to himself vs. the city at our expense. Nugent's another reason not to do business in Saint John. You cross the wrong person at City Hall and ask for a city building permit, city property easement, or permission to amend a residential zone bylaw to permit a commercial establishment and you'll just have to jump through endless smaller and smaller regulatory hoops while each year our city services and tax bills only cost us more. Common Council's vote to ignore the Nugent conflict of interest smacks of cronyism, a sign of corruption. It's not the way to attract new firms to move or expand operations here. Cronyism at City Hall tells local businesses to get out of town. No wonder the city looks like a ghost town at night. Saint John is not a fun living or workplace.
21
Thumbs Up
1
Thumbs Down
West Ender, Saint John on 25/03/09 09:48:03 AM AST
While part of me agrees with Counl. Farren, I have to agree with Mr. Nugent that he is in a conflict of interest and should step down from this file. He's in a position where he's dammed if does and dammed if he dosen't and will likely come out of this tarred and feathered.

We need independant council on this file and an independant review.
21
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Colin H., Saint John on 25/03/09 10:35:47 AM AST
Advertisement
Advertisement

Search Articles