Is Provenzano too persnickety on potential conflicts of interest?

Does Christian Provenzano remove himself from too many council debates because of possible conflicts of interest?

Sault Ste. Marie's mayor raised the issue himself last month, asking the city's integrity commissioner for advice on whether he really needed to excuse himself from discussions about Spruce Haven Zoo and a local development project, because of remote connections to his law firm.

"I offer two examples wherein I declared a conflict and did not participate in the ultimate decision made by council," Provenzano said in a Dec. 11 letter to Antoinette Blunt of Prince Township-based Ironside Consulting Services Inc.

"The first was the matter of the animal control bylaw and a specific resolution moved by two city councillors to ban zoos within the City of Sault Ste. Marie city limits," the mayor said.

"The effect of the ban would have been to shut down the operation known locally as Spruce Haven. The proprietors of Spruce Haven had sought legal advice from me in my capacity as a lawyer in 2013, prior to my election as mayor. I did not ultimately act for the proprietors but I did have some preliminary discussions with them about the legal issue. The proprietors retained legal assistance to deal with the matter when it was before council and it was suggested to me by their legal representation that, due to my brief history with the proprietors, they perceived me to be in a conflict. I declared a conflict on that basis and I did not participate in the ultimate decision."

Provenzano also sought the integrity commissioner's advice on a high-density development issue that came before City Council.

The matter wasn't specifically identified in his letter to Blunt, but Provenzano has declined to participate in discussions or votes about the 22 MacDonald Ave. high-rise, on grounds that both the proponent and objector are clients of his law firm.

"The second matter is the matter of a high-density development that came before council because the developers required council's approval for an official plan amendment," Provenzano wrote.

"My law firm did not act for the developers on the development in any capacity. One of the principals of the development company was historically a client of a lawyer employed by my law firm. I declared a conflict on that basis and I did not participate in the ultimate decision."

"I have reflected on both these decisions since, reviewed the governing legislation and our code of conduct. While it may appear in both situations that I have a conflict, it does not seem to me or at the least it is not clear to me, that I am actually conflicted (in either matter) as that is defined by the relevant law and code."

"I would appreciate your opinion in this specific request in order that I may ensure, on a going-forward basis, that I do not recuse myself from any decisions before council unless it is lawfully necessary that I do so. My role as mayor is important to me and I feel responsible to make the decisions I was elected to make provided I do so within the legal and ethical framework."

Blunt wrote back to Provenzano on Dec. 30.

"With respect to the two specific matters noted in your letter where you declared a conflict of interest, I have considered your actions to determine if you had either a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matters before council under discussion or consideration," she said.

"The first matter you referenced was with respect to the animal-control bylaw and a specific resolution moved by two city councillors to ban zoos within the City of Sault Ste. Marie city limits. You state you had some preliminary discussions with the proprietors; you did not act for the proprietors and the matter occurred prior to your being elected as mayor. I find you had neither a direct nor indirect pecuniary interest with the proprietors of Spruce Haven, according to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act."

"The second matter you referenced was a high-density residential development that came before council because the developers required council’s approval for an official plan amendment. You state your firm did not act for the developers on the development and was not involved in the development or retained for the development in any capacity. You also state that one of the principals of the development company was historically a client of a lawyer employed by your law firm but always on unrelated matters. Also, that additionally, there was some objection to the development and one of the objectors was also, on unrelated matters, a client of your law firm. I find you had neither either a direct nor indirect pecuniary interest with the high-density residential development that came before council, according to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

"To confirm, in both matters noted above, you were not required to recuse yourself from these decisions before council," the integrity commissioner told the mayor.

The issue is on the agenda for next week's City Council meeting.

The meeting will be livestreamed on SooToday starting at 4:30 p.m. Monday.