Good Rules – Good Governance

If you follow local government across Canada for any length of time, you start to see two kinds of councils.

Some argue loudly, often, and productively and still manage to govern.

Others can’t get out of their own way. Meetings become theatre. Personal grievances replace policy debate. And what should be the everyday work of democratic decision-making turns into a weekly exercise in damage control.

The difference is rarely ideology. It’s rarely even competence.

More often, the difference is behaviour and whether a council has agreed-upon rules to manage it.

The Golden Rule would probably cover most of what we need. But it’s also vague, easy to ignore, and short on detail when the stakes are high and tempers are higher.

That’s where municipal codes of conduct come in. Done well, they don’t eliminate conflict.

They keep conflict from turning into chaos.

And right now, Canada needs more of the ‘done well’ version.

Across the country, provincial and territorial governments have been moving toward mandatory municipal codes of conduct. With the notable exception of Alberta, which repealed its code of conduct requirements and related bylaws almost a year ago, the trend has been toward clearer expectations for mayors, reeves, wardens, and other council members.

What a Good Code Needs

In my mind, a good code of conduct, whether mandated by a province or developed locally, needs to do more than gesture at civility. It must function as a genuine governance tool.

At minimum, it should:

1. Define expected behaviours (respect, professionalism, confidentiality, appropriate use of authority)

2. Define prohibited behaviours (harassment, bullying, intimidation, retaliation, discrimination)

3. Require reporting and resolution (informal when possible, formal when necessary)

4. Prevent misuse and weaponization (vexatious or political complaints)

5. Establish fair, proportional consequences for confirmed breaches

6. Guarantee due process (clear timelines, impartial review, right to respond)

That last point matters more than people sometimes admit. Codes of conduct aren’t just about stopping bad behaviour; they’re also about ensuring accusations are handled fairly. A code that can be used as a political weapon isn’t a code of conduct. It’s a new kind of dysfunction.

In most of Canada, councils can’t remove one of their own from office and trigger a byelection. This mirrors the way provincial and federal governments can’t simply expel an MP, MLA, MPP, or MHA for being a chronic problem.

So, the goal of a code of conduct can’t be just to get rid of the troublemaker. It has to be more realistic: set expectations, correct behaviour, and protect the community.

Ideally, the alleged offender sees the writing on the wall and either corrects course, or maybe they decide it’s time to choose another line of work.

A Rule That Isn’t Enforced Isn’t a Rule

A rule only works if it’s known, understood, and enforced. If any one of those is missing, the rule doesn’t really exist in practice.

It’s like having a bylaw against unsightly premises but never funding bylaw enforcement. On paper it’s real. On the ground, it’s not.

That’s why posting the code on the municipal website is necessary, but it’s really not enough.

Understanding and practicing the code of conduct should be treated like part of the job, not an optional reading assignment. That means:

• including it in candidate information packages before the election

• making it part of the mandatory orientation after the election

• reinforcing it through ongoing training, especially as conflicts arise

And importantly, training shouldn’t only cover what the code says. It should cover what happens when someone tries to use the code improperly, like to harass colleagues, score political points, or grind governance to a halt through constant complaints.

Write the Code Before Things Go Sideways

If councils want their codes of conduct to actually work, they should draft them and updated them in the good times.

Early in a term, when everyone is still speaking to one another and the atmosphere is collaborative, councils are more likely to agree on what acceptable and unacceptable behaviour looks like. That matters, because the whole point is to have a shared standard before conflict becomes personal.

Pointing out poor behaviour is much easier when the behaviour has already been defined and agreed to months earlier. It’s also far more legitimate. Nobody can credibly argue the standard was invented on the fly to target them.

Clear, detailed codes also reduce the odds that courts will be asked to arbitrate disputes that should never have reached that level in the first place. For truly egregious conduct, the judicial system will always have a role. But most council conflict doesn’t belong in court, it belongs with the practice of good governance.

Before provincial mandates became widespread, many municipalities already had their own codes of conduct. In many cases, they worked fairly well. Some were even used as templates by other councils that saw them functioning effectively in practice.

Which brings us to the problem.

The Trouble with Universal Codes

Since provincial governments started mandating codes of conduct, we’ve seen many of them watered down to the lowest common denominator.

When codes are too vague, they’re hard to enforce consistently. When enforcement is inconsistent, people stop trusting the process. And when trust collapses, the code becomes one more instrument for conflict rather than a guardrail against it.

This is where local context matters. Councils don’t just operate under legislation — they operate under culture. The best codes don’t ignore that. They build on it.

Why Independent Review Matters

Another issue that hasn’t been embraced consistently across Canada is the role of integrity commissioners or independent third-party reviewers.

For minor matters, an independent review may not be necessary. Not every sharp comment needs a formal investigation. But in complex cases, especially those involving multiple (or even a majority of) members of council, asking council to police itself becomes a problem.

In those situations, council is being asked to act as judge and jury in its own conflict. That’s not a recipe for credibility.

In some parts of Canada, integrity commissioners have authority to impose sanctions. In most jurisdictions, they can only make recommendations, and then council decides whether to act.

That distinction matters. If consequences depend entirely on council’s willingness to discipline itself, enforcement can quickly become political. And once enforcement is political, the code loses legitimacy even when the complaint is valid.

Good Rules Make Good Governance

There’s an old adage about good fences making good neighbours. The same logic applies to codes of conduct: good rules make good governance.

In my work life, discussion about the use (and misuse) of codes of conduct is practically a weekly occurrence. And what I see most often is this: many codes are directionally correct, but specifically wrong.

They sound good. They look good. But when conflict arrives, they don’t actually help councils govern.

To me, the ultimate test of a council isn’t whether members argue with one another; because the members should hold differing opinions, and debate makes the outcome better.

The real test is what happens when behaviour crosses the line between robust disagreement and personal transgression.

Do council members hold each other to account? Do they have a process that’s fair, consistent, and trusted? Or do they spiral into grievance, retaliation, and unnecessary procedural conflict?

Codes of conduct won’t solve every problem in local government. But without them and the desire to use them as they are intended to be used, councils will keep repeating the same cycle: conflict, dysfunction, public cynicism, and institutional decline.

That’s not just bad politics; it’s also bad governance.

What’s your experience with municipal codes of conduct?

Are they respected? Are they enforced consistently? Are they used to improve governance, or maybe to inflame conflict?

I’d be interested in hearing about it. You can reach me at ian@strategicsteps.ca.