Something equal parts special, interesting and compelling happened at Calgary city council on Feb. 17, 2026.

A significant land use development matter was before council. It involved the proposed “Augusta Villas” 35 townhouse development in the community of Springbank Hill.

Here’s the special/interesting/compelling part: Mayor Jeromy Farkas took what one may consider to be a noteworthy position with respect to the need for council members to be candid and transparent, and to scrupulously avoid conflicts of interest in their roles — be it material, pecuniary, indirect or perceived.

Citing sections 170(1)(b), and sections 172.1(1) and (2) of the Municipal Government Act and a “perceived personal conflict of interest”, specifying that he did not have a “pecuniary interest”, in the matter, the mayor vacated the chair, recused himself from the council matter, left the chamber, and abstained from voting.

Your weekday lunchtime roundup of curated links, news highlights, analysis and features.

There was an error, please provide a valid email address.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Noon News Roundup will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Interested in more newsletters? Browse here.

As “fiduciaries” of and for the City of Calgary and the people they represent, councillors, in my view, must not only do right in their actions as representatives on council, but must be seen to do right in those actions. Fiduciaries bear a standard of “utmost good faith” — placing the interests of their constituents and the integrity of their office above and ahead of all personal interests.

The council agenda item in question affected, specifically, only a small portion of the city in a small community with strong feelings about — read “opposition” to — the proposed Augusta Villas development.

The ramification of the mayor’s decision, however, was anything but small. It mattered. It set the standard. It has consequential implications for the ongoing blanket rezoning public hearings. Unlike the contained scope of the Augusta Villas matter, which arguably only directly affected Springbank Hill, the rezoning hearings have far-reaching and profound consequences for the entire city and its property owners.

Some interesting background on this issue: There was — until very recently — a requirement for council members to publicly disclose their real estate, corporate and financial holdings. “Best practices” would also necessitate disclosing personal holdings, shares and offices held in corporations and business ventures, as well as those for persons not at “arm’s length” to the council member, such as close family members.

Make no mistake, there is consequential — read “big” — money involved in the development of densified inner-city housing. When one can turn a single dwelling on a standard city lot into four, six, eight, or even 12 dwellings on that lot — each selling for as much or more than the single dwelling they supplanted — it is a material, pecuniary or financial pursuit. By extension, if one has two, three or five of these properties, the significant profits at stake are multiplied accordingly.

If a council member has an interest in a property — beyond the one that they live in personally — that is eligible for densified development under an endorsement/facilitation through blanket rezoning, with very limited exception, there is a pecuniary interest that should be disclosed before the public hearing. Action of the “utmost good faith” should be taken by the councillor — recuse and abstain. It is a simple matter.

RCMP corruption investigation search warrants target Jyoti Gondek, Andre Chabot, Sean Chu Local News

RCMP corruption investigation search warrants target Jyoti Gondek, Andre Chabot, Sean Chu

Smugglers suspends operations, donates remaining food and drink inventory to Calgary Food Bank Local News

Smugglers suspends operations, donates remaining food and drink inventory to Calgary Food Bank

Advertisement 1Story continues belowThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.document.addEventListener(`DOMContentLoaded`,function(){let template=document.getElementById(`oop-ad-template`);if(template&&!template.dataset.adInjected){let clone=template.content.cloneNode(!0);template.replaceWith(clone),template.parentElement&&(template.parentElement.dataset.adInjected=`true`)}});

Snowfall in Calgary causing treacherous road conditions Local News

Snowfall in Calgary causing treacherous road conditions

Calgary firm sold for US$4.75B in city’s biggest ever tech deal — and may not be the last Local Business

Calgary firm sold for US$4.75B in city’s biggest ever tech deal — and may not be the last

Varcoe: ‘Damage has already been done’: New report expects $100 oil in 2027, amid draw on global inventories Columnists

Varcoe: ‘Damage has already been done’: New report expects $100 oil in 2027, amid draw on global inventories

If a councillor with such property chooses to remain engaged in the public hearing and proceed to vote, they should, at the very least, declare and explain their perceived conflict of interest and let their constituents decide at election time if they did the right and ethical thing.

With the puzzling repeal in 2025 f the city bylaw — Code of Conduct for Elected Officials — and the disappearance of the Disclosure Policy for Members of Council, the disclosure requirements for council appear to have become “voluntary” and “discretionary”, and such disclosures of real estate, corporate and financial holdings that used to appear on the City of Calgary website are now nowhere to found.

Under the current system, there is no way for the public to readily see what financial, business and property interests a councillor holds and how such interests might be assessed for conflicts of interest, breaches of fiduciary duties, and the need for councillors to recuse themselves from matters in which they may have a conflict of interest.

In light of the current public hearing on the repeal of the blanket rezoning bylaw, and the example set by Mayor Farkas, it would seem timely for members of council to diligently consider whether their interests in real estate, corporate matters and financial holdings, out of an abundance of caution, candour and transparency, ought to be disclosed, and to take appropriate action to recuse themselves from the public hearing.

If a councillor has nothing to disclose, they should say that, too.

Let’s just clear the air on conflicts. Wouldn’t it be great if all council members simply voluntarily declared their personal holdings, shares and offices held in corporations and business ventures, as well as those of close family members?

And going just one step further — maybe if a councillor has a conflict of interest — be it material, pecuniary, indirect, or perceived — they could declare if they intend to recuse themselves from the public hearing, and to let the public know if they intend to abstain from the votes.

Anthony D. Cox is a lifelong Calgarian and lawyer with nearly 30 years of practice, with extensive experience in corporate commercial law, corporate governance, and civil litigation.

© Calgary Herald