would be better placed -- or may already be duplicative of – provisions in the Procedure By-law.

For example, one provision states that the “Whole Council . . .must have a quorum in order to vote to amend or enact by-laws”.

Other provisions seem to stifle the creativity and initiative of Members of Council. See for example: The “expectations of Council, its committees, and its Members in fulfilling the above roles and responsibilities are [to] refrain from providing individual direction to the Chief Administrative Officer to initiate any action or prepare any report of a significant nature or initiate any project or study without the consent of the entire Council”. This is a very broad provision and seems to oppose any pro-active initiatives on the part of Members of Council.

Finally, there are, in fact, some thorny issues raised by the section entitled “Council Members on Agencies, Boards, and Commissions”. It is inescapable that Council Members who represent

the City on Local Agencies and Boards often find themselves in difficult situations where their fiduciary duties to the Agency or Board conflict with their fiduciary duties to Council and the City. Members can also find themselves in, what I will call, confidentiality straightjackets – where, for example, a Councillor receives confidential information as a representative on a Local Agency or Board but cannot share that information with Council without violating rules of confidentiality, or vice versa.

My point is not that any of these provisions are necessarily “bad” – as I said, the aim of Schedule “B” is laudatory; my point is that the actual provisions either do not belong in a Code of Conduct or need to be properly explained and clarified. Even the question of whether the Schedule is aspirational or proscriptive should be determined. A re-examination of Schedule “B” is necessary.