Penticton council has supported a notice of motion asking municipalities to suspend the pay and benefits of elected officials who are placed on mandatory leave after being charged with crimes.
Coun. Shannon Stewart introduced the notice of motion near the end of Tuesday’s regular council meeting.
Council also voted to forward the motion to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) for discussion at its annual conference in September in Vancouver.
Because local governments have limited authority under the Community Charter to adjust remuneration when an elected official is unable to perform their duties due to mandatory leave, Stewart’s motion asks UBCM to request that the provincial government amend the Charter.
The proposed amendment would remove the requirement that councillor pay and benefits continue during periods of mandatory leave and give municipalities discretion to determine remuneration based on individual circumstances.
Only the Province has the authority to amend the Community Charter. Stewart’s motion asks UBCM to request the B.C. Legislature change the rules regarding remuneration for officials on mandatory leave and give municipalities more flexibility “in accordance with local circumstances.”
Four years ago, the provincial government passed legislation requiring elected officials in B.C. to go on mandatory paid leave if charged with a criminal offence.
“I would like the province to provide local governments with the discretion to determine if and when remuneration would be provided to a member of council while they are on mandatory leave and unable to perform their elected duties,” said Stewart Tuesday.
“The rationale is that the change allows councils to respond to public expectations and what works for their communities.”
The proposed changes would demonstrate respect for the community because an elected official on leave is unable to perform the duties they were elected to fulfill and is not able to act in a manner that voters originally determined was deserving of remuneration and benefits, she said.
Council should be able to hold remuneration in trust until an elected official is found not guilty following a criminal trial, Stewart said.
Coun. Isaac Gilbert said while he understands the reasons for bringing the motion forward, he couldn’t support it because it would conflict with the principle that accused persons in Canada are considered innocent until proven guilty.
“I understand there’s a lot of frustration in regards to the current situation … that we have right now,” he said.
“I can’t support this motion because, at the end of the day, this becomes punitive and I think it ruins the integrity of how our courts work.”
Gilbert said if other Canadians facing criminal charges were released on bail without onerous restrictions, they could still go to work and receive pay.
“You’re innocent until you’re proven guilty and everyone is going to have their opinions on what’s happening in the media right now with the court cases going on,” he said. “This mandatory leave tries to balance the fact that the perception of having a councillor or mayor on council that has been charged with a crime, it is better for them to be on mandatory leave then it would be to continue their job.”
Taking away pay and benefits from elected officials facing criminal charges, while they are still considered innocent until proven guilty, is punitive and unfair.
“I think it’s a dangerous route to go down,” he said.
Stewart said the intention of her motion was to allow each municipality to deal with suspended elected officials based on the individual circumstances of each situation.
She stood behind forwarding the motion, saying paying elected officials when they are unable to fulfill the duties and requirements of their jobs while on mandatory leave does not make sense.
Stewart said she supported the policy of placing remuneration in trust and paying it back to elected officials if they are found innocent of criminal charges following trial.
Gilbert reiterated he did not believe important sections of the motion were “legally sound” and that concerned him.
“I understand the frustration from the public in regards to this, but this was a compromise that was created by the province to ensure the integrity of council when someone is charged,” he said. “But people also have rights in this country as well. They are innocent until proven guilty.”
The motion was brought forward to protect the interests of taxpayers who pay the salary and benefits of elected officials, said Stewart.
Mayor Julius Bloomfield said he understands why Stewart brought the motion forward, noting the provincial government’s decision to place elected officials on mandatory leave if charged with a crime was controversial and heavily debated.
“It’s a blanket policy for all the municipalities so that they don’t get themselves into (legal) trouble, they don’t fall foul of the law,” he said.
If the provincial government gave individual municipalities the authority to decide what to do when an elected official is charged, they “run the risk of allowing those municipalities to get themselves into some difficult waters when it comes to complying to the law of the land at the time.”
Having a larger, influential body like UBCM discuss the issue and provide information to the provincial government is a good idea, said Bloomfield.
Even if UBCM officials approve Stewart’s motion, it would still have to go through the provincial legislature and be approved by elected provincial officials, he said.
“It’s worthy of having the discussion, but, to be quite honest, I’m not sure how successful that is going to be,” he said.
Coun. Campbell Watt supported forwarding the motion to UBCM officials at their annual conference this fall in Vancouver.
Gilbert was the only member of council to object to Stewart’s motion and sending it to the UBCM conference.
By , Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on Jun 12, 2026 at 14:24
Recent Comments