City manager Randy Patrick has been a big fan of professionalizing city staff through the introduction of specific internal policy initiatives since his arrival from Yellowknife in June 2008.

It’s not a subject that is going to automatically capture the public imagination – or raise their ire for that matter like an increase in dig fees for water breaks or a tax increase – because its primary impact is on the 136 full time equivalent (FTE) employees who work for the City of Thompson. Nonetheless the policies are important because they send out a larger and louder message about business practices at City Hall.

Last Oct. 19, city council adopted a new “Electronic Communications Policy,” which passed without discussion or debate. If you’re employed by the City of Thompson, you can use your corporate e-mail account for “occasional personal use,” but you better not be using it, or a city-owned BlackBerry, for accessing online porn, playing games, or updating your status at work on social networking sites such as Facebook or MSN Messenger – unless it’s “related to one's job function.”

Those are big no-nos and could lead to disciplinary action, up to and including getting you fired, according to the City of Thompson’s Electronic Communications Policy.

While the policy follows accepted business practices elsewhere in the public and private sectors, it is noteworthy for marking a comprehensive attempt by the City of Thompson to codify for the first time what is acceptable and what is not for its employees to do on the taxpayers’ dime with electronic gadgets and e-mail in the Internet age.

If there are two points for employees to keep in mind, it might well be described as follows: You should have no expectation of privacy when you use a city e-mail account – your manager can go into it, or your city-issued computer, and check it, or any other files, at any time; and don’t charge personal calls or text messages to the public on a city-issued cell phone or BlackBerry if the nature of the use is personal.

In its substance, it strikes us as a reasonable policy, although one that is important enough that it probably merited at least a few minutes discussion at city council. It’s not like members of council are shy about talking on Monday nights when Paul Andersen’s Shaw Cable TV Channel 11 camera is rolling.

Now, Patrick has a Code of Ethics policy he would like to see passed. It was introduced Feb. 16 and tabled for further study by the human resources committee to come back to council at later date.

“The maintenance of public trust and confidence in municipal government and the service it provides requires high standards of ethical conduct by municipal employees,” says a “policy statement” preamble.

“The proper operation of the city requires that employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the citizens; that their positions not be used for personal advantage; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of the city employees.”

As preambles go, there isn’t anything to argue with. All of it should be a given, but sadly public administration being a human task, undertaken by the flawed and imperfect, as are we all, a Code of Ethics is a good reminder of what the expectations of public service are.

The devil, as always, is in the details. In a section called “Public Comment,” the proposed policy states: “Employees shall display the reserve inherent in his/her position with the city when publicly expressing his/her personal opinions on matters of controversy or on existing or proposed municipal policy of administration.”

“Reserve inherent.” Wow that should be an interesting one for legal definition if it stays in the policy, the policy is eventually passed, and is litigated some day.

Does in their “position” translate to – don’t be speaking out of turn? Will managers be cut more or less slack when it comes to “reserve inherent” with their “position” than buddy down in public works fixing water breaks is with his or her “position” when it comes to explaining why the street is flooded with a foot of water?

The policy, presumably in a nod to the United Steelworkers, which represents many city employees, qualifies the policy a bit by explaining, “This policy is not intended to restrict the legitimate public comment of spokespersons of employee associations….” We take that to mean it would probably be OK for the local USW president to speak to the media: stewards or health and safety union representatives? We’re not so sure. And what will constitute “legitimate” public comment? We can’t wait until the next round of collective bargaining for an answer to that question if it winds up in the final version of the policy.

Besides public comment, there are lots of other sections, including topics such as “conflict or interest” and “conduct in one’s private life,” patronage – and this puzzler of a statement: “The moral standard an employee must adhere to will vary with the employee’s relationship with other employees, the city and the public.” Frankly, we have no idea what that is supposed to mean and even if we did, we’re not so sure we’d want to go there.

We’re not suggesting the idea of a Code of Ethics is wrong. What we are suggesting is the human resources committee would be well advised to take a very critical look at what is being proposed in the seven-page document – clause by clause, line by line. And if it gets back to council for consideration, here’s a novel idea: Discuss and debate it. Passing it without discussion or debate, like the Electronic Communications Policy, is a recipe for deferred grief, probably sooner than later.