Things are getting turbulent in the municipality of Cookshire-Eaton, not far from where we live. After a by-election marked by the presence of a candidate linked to the biker “farm club”—who was ultimately defeated—the new mayor and the entire municipal council now find themselves at the centre of a storm, under investigation by the CMQ (Québec Municipal Commission).
Less than three weeks after the new council took office, four elected officials accused Mayor Daphnée Raymond of having committed serious ethical breaches. The CMQ is now investigating and has raised concerns about deficient management of senior staff and conflicts of interest in the awarding of construction contracts. As the saying goes—not a great start.
One of the actions that triggered the crisis was the suspension of the interim Director General, Jean-Charles Bellemare, by the mayor, who stated the following in the Radio-Canada article:
“There was no collaboration. I want to hold meetings, and I get no follow-up. He left for two days of telework and then a week of vacation. I had four days to evaluate him—I felt that was a bit short. My only power was to suspend him,” said Mayor Daphnée Raymond.
Mayor Raymond suspended the Director General without presenting the reasons in writing to the council—something that appears to have set off the chain of events.
It should be noted that the mayor does indeed have the authority to suspend any municipal officer or employee at any time. However, the law requires that this decision be reported to the council at the following session, with written reasons, as set out in the Cities and Towns Act.
According to the councillors, Mayor Raymond was also conducting “her own investigation” into certain municipal files. This constitutes interference, as it implies direct involvement in the administrative apparatus—something that exceeds the political role and is not permitted.
A situation that exposes a blind spot in municipal governance
From a governance perspective, the situation is fascinating: a mayor wanting to “investigate” files and question her Director General, while councillors object on the basis that such involvement constitutes improper interference.
Is the municipal Director General sovereign?
Legally, no. The DG is subordinate to the municipal council, which holds actual decision-making authority.
But in practical terms, because the DG controls the administrative machinery and access to the information required to initiate or fuel an investigation, the DG sometimes finds themself in a position of uncomfortable power vis-à-vis the elected officials.
So if neither the mayor nor the councillors can conduct their own investigation into the municipal administration (operations), who can?
In my view, detecting a problem requires the ability to verify, analyze, and ask questions. Ideally, if I were mayor, I would want to dig into the administration’s operations, under the DG’s supervision. But municipal laws heavily restrict these types of interventions.
And of course, the DG cannot credibly investigate themselves.
This creates a kind of “blind spot” in municipal governance: elected officials are accountable to the population, yet they do not always have the concrete means to verify what is happening within the administration—unless they resort to heavy mechanisms such as formal complaints, audits, or the Municipal Commission.
Few elected officials want to trigger a CMQ investigation
If I put myself in the shoes of an elected official, triggering a CMQ investigation is something I would want to avoid at all costs—especially knowing the risk of negative media exposure for the municipality. In the most serious situations, a municipality can even be placed under trusteeship.
There is therefore a real void—or “blind spot”—in municipal management. As long as everything runs smoothly within the administration, nobody worries about this void. But that’s precisely the issue: how can we know everything is going well if we cannot truly verify what is happening?
In such circumstances, who supervises the Director General? The mayor? And how can they do so if they are not allowed to conduct an “investigation”?
It’s almost as if a business owner—who chairs the board—were prohibited from checking what is happening within their own company’s operations to ensure everything functions correctly.
A watertight wall between operations and politics
This creates a genuine watertight wall between the administration and the elected officials. So how can elected representatives be informed of ethical breaches by DG and management staff when they are legally forbidden from digging into files or questioning municipal employees?
In my view, this watertight structure has paradoxical effects:
- It protects employees and strengthens their position, especially when a mistake or sensitive situation arises;
- but it also weakens them, because when they face issues with DG, who can they actually turn to?
This compartmentalization:
- places elected officials in a position of blindness, since they cannot clearly see what is happening on the ground;
- and undermines transparency, making it impossible to have an accurate picture of municipal operations.
In my opinion, this represents a significant risk to local democracy.
With that, food for thought!
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2210079/cookshire-eaton-conseil-dg-rapport
