The Board Chair says municipal appointees cease to represent the taxpayer once seated, effectively stripping the City of voting power ahead of a potential lawsuit.
The conflict at City Hall has escalated into a confusion of loyalty just 24 hours before a critical budget showdown.
Sarnia Police Services Board Chair Paul Wiersma has declared that the City Councillors sitting on his Board effectively cease to represent the municipality the moment they walk into the police station.
When asked if Councillors Anne Marie Gillis and Chrissy McRoberts represent the interests of the City of Sarnia during votes, Wiersma was blunt.
"The City Councillors on the police board don't represent City Council any more than the provincial board appointees represent the province," Wiersma stated in an email to The Sarnia Journal.
This declaration implies that the City of Sarnia holds no voting representation on the Board that consumes the largest share of the municipal budget.
It suggests that when Councillors Gillis and McRoberts vote this Thursday on whether to sue the City via arbitration to force funding for a new facility, they are doing so as independent agents.
Coinciding with this declaration is a new policy on Thursday’s agenda regarding board communications.
Item 11 introduces a protocol directing members to "refrain from providing official comments" on critical events, strictly centralizing public messaging through the Chair.
Wiersma defends the policy as a standard best practice from the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards. However, its timing arrives alongside a strategy to litigate against the City.
When The Journal asked Councillor Chrissy McRoberts if she agreed with the Chair’s view that she does not represent the City, she refused to answer directly.
"I've already sent a request to our Integrity Commissioner requesting legal advice regarding Failure of loyalty and Conflict of Interest regarding your questions," McRoberts wrote.
"In the meantime, I will navigate the situation to the best of my ability."
Councillor Anne Marie Gillis took a different approach. She did not disavow the Chair's position but framed the Solicitor General's recent directive as political vindication.
"I believe the letter is affirming the position of Sarnia City Council in the face of the Mayor's veto," Gillis wrote.
The Solicitor General’s letter was a directive regarding police board powers. Gillis interprets it as an affirmation of the five-member faction of Council that attempted to push the police budget through in December but failed to override Mayor Mike Bradley’s veto.
Gillis, a veteran councillor who unsuccessfully challenged Bradley for the mayoralty in 2018, has frequently clashed with the Mayor over the use of his new powers. Her interpretation suggests she views the Board's potential legal action as a necessary check on that authority.
While Board Chair Wiersma claimed he was "not personally aware" that the budget authority would revert to Council if the dispute drags past February 1, other members of Council are paying attention.
When The Journal pointed out the legislative trigger that would lower the vote threshold from a Super-Majority to a Simple Majority if the deadline is missed, Councillor Terry Burrell responded briefly.
"Good catch," Burrell wrote.
Councillor Bill Dennis took the implications of Wiersma's stance a step further, suggesting that if councillors truly do not represent the City, the system itself is flawed.
"Gentlemen, if this is the case, police board members should be elected by the public at large just like school board trustees," Dennis wrote to The Journal.
Chair Wiersma confirmed that Thursday's meeting will be used "to reflect on whether it ought to refer the matter to arbitration."
With the deadline to challenge the Mayor’s budget looming, the Board is preparing to trigger a legal battle while moving forward with a vacant seat and a new policy on member silence.
