The City of Greater Sudbury has been cleared to begin adopting its Frivolous and Vexatious Complaints Policy through communications with staff and the public.
The policy aims to protect city staff from abusive behaviour, and as its name implies, formalize a policy around dealing with what can be interpreted as “frivolous or vexatious” complaints.
A key concern, which Ward 5 Coun. Mike Parent asked about during last week’s city council meeting, was whether the policy would result in advocacy groups being ignored.
After all, the policy flags a number of behaviours as “unreasonable,” including repeated complaints, which some advocacy groups have partaken in.
Canadian Association of Retired People Sudbury Chapter president John Lindsay expressed this concern in a letter sent to city council members and local media leading up to last week’s city council meeting.
His organization has consistently objected to a new library/art gallery project under consideration by city council
“Due to our expressed concerns presented to staff, councillors and reported in the media, it would appear we would satisfy some of the criteria of the proposed policy,” he wrote.
He also noted the list of criteria used to determine whether a person’s interactions with the city are “frivolous or vexatious” are “not exhaustive,” which leaves the door open to interpretation.
City director of communications and community engagement Marie Litalien explained that it’s not their intent to silence community groups.
“This is not about general complaints and questions,” she said. “This is not meant to just sever the connection for any complainant or any resident.”
No one criteria will necessarily dismiss a complaint or inquiry as frivolous or vexatious, she said, adding that it’s intended to kick in when multiple criteria are met, and/or repeated instances.
If deemed frivolous or vexatious, or if the complainant’s behaviour is considered unreasonable, the policy allows city staff to cut the complainant's access to city services to varying degrees, such as limiting access to staff and declining to acknowledge their complaints/requests.
That said, Litalien clarified that there’s an escalation process before it gets to that point, which includes a decision by a city director, notifying the resident, and an appeals process through CAO Ed Archer and then the ombudsman if necessary.
In cases where a resident’s complaints are deemed frivolous or vexatious, she noted they won’t be entirely cut off from city services, and that their access would be restricted in a specific way.
“They're not completely locked from ever communicating with the city again,” she said. The policy notes that its application can affect how people interact with city staff, such as only making contact through a third party, during a restricted time slot, or within a certain duration.
The policy doesn’t affect how people interact with the city’s elected officials, as Litalien said they can decide for themselves whom they speak with and how. It’s intended to formalize what is currently an informal scattering of policies among city staff to deal with problematic behaviour.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
