Edmonton City Councillor Michael Janz (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

Twenty-four complaints by the Edmonton Police Association claiming Councillor Michael Janz broke City Council’s code of conduct have all been dismissed as completely without merit by Edmonton Integrity Commissioner Jamie Pytel. 

“The complaint was retaliatory, as I have raised a number of concerns about police spending and conduct, and designed to put a ‘chill’ on the freedom of speech by elected officials who dare question the police,” Mr. Janz said in a statement released to media this morning. 

Edmonton Integrity Commissioner Jamie Pytel (Photo: Alberta Cancer Foundation).

The complaints were made by Sgt. Michael Elliott, president of the police union, on his own behalf and that of the association’s members. 

“Not only do I find it unusual that there are resources being put towards monitoring an elected official’s social media, it is of great concern that our municipal police union sought a reprimand,” Ward Papastew Councillor Janz said. 

“This was a blatant attempt at intimidation intended to silence an elected official in their first three months in office,” he stated.

“I want Edmontonians to know, it didn’t work, and I will continue to ask tough questions about their expenditures, misconduct, and commitment to anti-racism – just as I was elected to do.”

Ms. Pytel, who has an Edmonton law practice in addition to her role as integrity commissioner, dealt with each of Sgt. Elliott’s allegations on a separate page of her 43-page report.

In a Jan. 10 letter to the integrity commissioner, Sgt. Elliott complained that Councillor Janz had retweeted posts about the Edmonton Police Service and some of its members that “contained statements, language, and commentary that is completely inappropriate for a City of Edmonton Councillor.”

“Many of the posts show a serious lack of understanding of issues around and involving the Edmonton Police Service and its members,” Sgt. Elliott’s letter continued. “Further, the posts are not impartial and do not fairly consider all relevant facts, opinions, and perspectives as required by the Code. …

Edmonton Police Association President Michael Elliott (Photo: Twitter).

“Councillor Janz is not a private citizen who is simply sharing his views on social media. He is now an elected official of the City of Edmonton and he is required to follow the Council Code of Conduct with an appropriate level of decorum, respect, and professionalism.”

Well, welcome to the 2020s, Sgt. Elliott.

Each page of Ms. Pytel’s report that is devoted to one of Sgt. Elliott’s complaints, which provides specific reasons for her decision, ends with the words: “Dismissed. Not a breach of the Code.” The report was completed last week and provided to those involved. 

Some of Sgt. Elliott’s concerns seem astonishingly picayune, including “liking and retweeting known critics of the police service.” The nerve! 

One such “liked” tweet was posted by Tom Engel, a well-known civil rights and criminal defence lawyer in Edmonton and president of the Canadian Prison Law Association. “Invalid allegation,” Ms. Pytel said in her reasons. “No details given on what is misrepresented.” 

“Constituents and public are permitted to know a Council Member’s thinking on topics related to taxpayer expenditures and matters of public interest, and Council Members are permitted to express their opinions,” she chided in another instance. 

Edmonton civil rights lawyer Tom Engel (Photo: CBC).

“It is debatable that calling someone a ‘bureaucrat’ is disrespectful conduct lacking in decorum,” she said of another. “This is commentary on a matter of public interest relating to policing, including funding and efficiencies.” 

Sgt. Elliott also complained about tweets by Councillor Janz related to police in other jurisdictions. 

He even complained about a tweet in which Mr. Janz said, “Joining City of Edm Youth Council tonight to hear youth perspectives on equity, anti-racism, and community safety perspectives in Edmonton. I hope we all can recommit to anti-racism, community safety, and well-being in 2022.”

Mr. Janz said he learned of the complaint letter, dated Jan. 10, the same day from a Global News reporter.

“This complaint raises major concerns about the conduct of the police association,” he said this morning. “If they are willing to try and intimidate elected officials, what do they do to ordinary citizens? This should be of serious concern to all elected officials and Edmontonians.”

“Now more than ever we need more scrutiny over police expenditures not less, and as your elected councillor, I remain fully-committed to building an Edmonton Police Service that we can all be proud of.”

Undoubtedly to the annoyance of police, Mr. Janz has published a web page on how citizens can hold the Edmonton Police Service accountable. 

Last fall, in an unrelated situation, Ms. Pytel was asked to look into human resource policies in Premier Jason Kenney’s office after serious allegations were made about inappropriate conduct in the Alberta Legislature. 

A wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed by Ariella Kimmel, a former chief of staff Mr. Kenney’s government, includes allegations of sexual harassment and day drinking by officials in the Legislature building in the fall of 2020, as well as complaints that the behaviour was never appropriately addressed.

Ms. Kimmel’s legal case continues.

Join the Conversation

14 Comments

  1. Tom Engel should close his office, he’s wasting money. He lives rent free in the heads of the EPS brass and rank and file.

    He’d probably lose the corgi though, so that wouldn’t be a fair trade.

  2. Elliott states “Further, the posts are not impartial and do not fairly by consider…” Not sure if this is a typo or sic situation?

    1. Mike: I’m not sure of that was Sgt. Elliott’s typo or mine. At any rate, I fixed it. DJC

  3. I’m old enough to remember when Edmonton police used to arrest young female university students walking alone at night for “vagrancy” and subjecting them to unwarranted strip searches. My opinion of Edmonton police has not changed in the interim. What we saw during the “truck convoy” in Edmonton did not help in that regard. I suppose Michael Elliott will be coming after me now, too?

  4. Given that all twenty four claims have been refuted as unmerited this individual’s relationship with fact could perhaps be suspected to be tenuous. The Edmonton Police Association owes Edmonton City Council and Edmonton residents an explanatory response.

  5. Sigh. Shouldn’t the police, and a union rep, better understand process and legal provisions?

    What’s the word for right-wing “fragile frozen-water-lattices that fall-from-the-sky”?
    You know the one they always want to shame their left-wing opponents as being? Ice holes? Snow f#%*ers?

  6. Police should play neither politicians nor politics.

    Now, just how did Sgt Elliot [oops! Spellcheck did a funny] elect to inflict an embarrassing 24 cuts on a public official?
    Did he figure his conduct a commission of integrity?
    Is there a police code for such offences? Like, “We got a 20-4, 24-4 in progress; Car 54 giving chase, over…”?

    Well, now it’s official: the integrity commissioner cut to the chase, finding for the elected public figure, 24-for-24, such that the code of conduct was not offended. How embarrassing for Sgt. Elliot [hey! Spellcheck did the same funny again!]

    Indeed, it is the professional duty of elected public officials to pay attention to public expenditures— like policing— and make their opinions on these matters publicly known. It is not indecorous and, with all due respect to the police union, indeedilly-doodilly it’s not, Sgt Elliot [hey! It did it again!]

    But at least now we know where Car 54 is.

  7. Dave, thank you for the link to the Integrity Commissioner’s report. Like the report, you linked to in your previous post, of the investigation of Kaycee Madu’s ticket, these reports give us a look at the nuts-&-bolts of the accountability process.

    As you noted above, Edmonton Integrity Commissioner Jamie Pytel found that, of those 24 twitter posts by Councillor Janz, that inspired Sgt. Michael Elliott to bring his complaint, not a one violated the Council Code of Conduct. All the complaints were dismissed.

    But what has happened today is very…meta? Is that the word I’m looking for? In the quotes from his press conference today, Councillor Janz has cherry picked the part of the report he liked, and, I can only say, he has directly contradicted the report’s other conclusions.

    In the Summary section (pg 19) the report states “The outcomes [of these kinds of investigations] are not to be viewed as wins or victories. Both the Complainants and the Respondent appear passionate in their views on these matters which is entirely understandable, but there were no winners, hopefully just some clarity.” Maybe one can dismiss Ms. Pytel’s advice as platitude. All the allegations were dismissed and Councillor Janz has a right to feel vindicated. Being merely mortal, as are we all, he just might gloat a little.

    But he has made the formal statement that “The complaint was retaliatory, as I have raised a number of concerns about police spending and conduct, and designed to put a ‘chill’ on the freedom of speech by elected officials who dare question the police.” That’s not just gloating. That’s actually a really serious allegation right there, and *not* supported by the report. The report states (pg 19 again) that “The Complainants were entitled to bring their concerns to me for review and consideration. I do not find the Complaint was brought in bad faith.”

    So,on the one hand, Councillor Janz may have now overstepped. There may be some repercussions to his recent incendiary remarks. He may have snatched a real defeat from the jaws of non-victory. We shall see.

    On the other hand, though, what if he is correct; what if elements within the EPS are genuinely seeking to impose a bit of a police state by “threatening” public officials who cross them? It certainly puts a different light on Kaycee Madu’s ticket. He claimed he made his fateful phone call, in part, from concern about police activity targeting politicians, based on revelations from Lethbridge. Former Justice Adèle Kent breezily dismissed these “highly speculative” concerns on pg 13 of her report. “There is nothing that I have been shown to suggest that whatever may have happened in Lethbridge has infected other police forces.” Maybe she was too hasty there.

    Great rabbit hole Dave! Thank you!
    DB

  8. Police should not have unions anymore than soldiers should. Hell, the reason most of us don’t have unions is ‘back in the day our ancestors tried and the cops beat their faces in.’

    There should also be a full inquiry into Sgt. Michael Elliott’s decision to apparently attempt to intimidate an elected official. Shocking that a police officer would think that action to be prudent, appropriate, or in the public interest.

    1. Neil: Notwithstanding some of the well-understood problems with the behaviour of police unions, Canadians are now recognized to have a fundamental right to free collective bargaining. This includes police. As for keeping enemies lists and publicly engaging in politics, that is another matter entirely. Perhaps the Kenney Government could use this as a test case of its recent legislative changes restricting the rights of unions to engage in “non-core” political activities? DJC

      1. DJC – what you say is correct, but I believe that if we had a general strike tomorrow, it would be ended by the cops busting our heads in, “rights” or no, and to the best of my knowledge, the historical record supports this conclusion (would welcome correction from those more knowledgeable than I). I am concerned that police unions are easily abused to shield police officers from legal consequences to illegal actions, as has happened in America to the point of absurdity. I am also concerned that even before we had a union for police officers, our mechanisms for holding police officers accountable were laughably feeble. Put simply, I believe Canadians lack the political will to hold police officers accountable on the (hopefully) rare occasions where they break the law.

        Rights are often described as being “God-given” which is absurd. Pretty sure that if they really were created and distributed by a divine agency, there wouldn’t be much controversy about them. Our rights exist because our fellow citizens are persuaded that we should have them. The RCMP did not have a union until 2015, and soldiers still do not have the “right” to a union today, because it was/is recognized that them doing so would be against the public interest. We gave the RCMP the “right” to unionize, and we can take that “right” away, just like all other “rights” that we have given and taken.

        Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of time for the deontological perspective of “create the correct rules then follow them no matter what the consequences are”, but I do still view us as being responsible for the consequences of our decisions. At the end of the day, it’s hard to be an adult without having to try to grapple with the consequences of our actions, and deontology struggles with this reality.

        Definitely got a chuckle out of the idea of the Kenney Government enforcing rules they created in a way that is not profitable and expedient for them though 🙂

  9. Perhaps Councillor Janz has disturbed the previously cozy relationship between Edmonton City Council too much for the liking of the Edmonton Police Association, but this is what elected officials do. They discuss and debate issues of the day and engage with various groups and members of society. Some of those people have issues with the police for various and legitimate reasons.

    I don’t think going after Janz will achieve what the Police Association wants, particularly with such frivolous complaints that just make those making the complaints look foolish. If anything they have shot themselves in the foot and policing will probably be prominently on this Councillors radar going forward, whereas if this hadn’t happened, he might have just moved on to some other issue.

    Also, the current council as a whole seems willing to question matters around policing than in the past. If this attack on Janz was meant to try intimidate them, I suspect this has also backfired.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.