City of Toronto Integrity Commissioner, David Mullan
Citation: Li Preti v. Augimeri, 2007 ONMIC 2 Date: 2007-03-22
REPORT ON VIOLATION OF CLAUSE XI OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
Notice: Municipal Integrity Commissioners provide investigation reports to their respective municipal council and, in most cases, make recommendations for imposition of penalty or other remedial action to the municipal Council. Therefore, reference should be made to the minutes of each particular municipal council to obtain information about the particular council's consideration of each report. When possible, a link to the relevant municipal council minutes is provided.
Please find below the link to the corresponding council decision. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/cc/decisions/2007-04-23-cc07-dd.pdf (see page 153)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY. 3
RECOMMENDATIONS.. 3
IMPLEMENTATION POINTS.. 3
FINANCIAL IMPACT. 3
DECISION HISTORY. 3
ISSUE BACKGROUND.. 3
COMMENTS.. 4
CONTACT. 5
SIGNATURE.. 5
ATTACHMENTS.. 5
APPENDIX.. 6
SUMMARY
During the 2006 municipal election campaign, Councillor Maria Augimeri, in an attempt to rally support against then Councillor Peter Li Preti’s candidacy for re-election, left a voice mail message with Judy Sgro M.P. to the effect that Councillor Li Preti was under active police investigation. Ms. Sgro passed a tape recording of that message on to Councillor Li Preti and he filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner alleging that Councillor Augimeri’s conduct amounted to a violation of then Clause XI (“Discreditable Conduct”) of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council (“Code of Conduct”).
For reasons developed more fully in my report to the parties on the complaint and attached to this report as an Appendix, I have concluded that Councillor Augimeri did violate the Code of Conduct as alleged.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Integrity Commissioner recommends:
(1) that Council request Councillor Augimeri to make a full and unconditional apology in writing to Dr. Peter Li Preti (with copies to the City Clerk and the Integrity Commissioner) for her violation of the Code of Conduct; and
(2) should Councillor Augimeri not make that apology, that Council reprimand her formally.
IMPLEMENTATION POINTS
If Council adopts this report including the recommendations as to sanction, Councillor Augimeri should be given until the next meeting of Council to apologize to Dr. Li Preti. Should she not do so, Council should reprimand her at that point.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
These recommendations have no financial implications.
DECISION HISTORY
This report follows an investigation of a complaint made under the Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol on October 5, 2006 by then Councillor Li Preti that Councillor Maria Augimeri had violated Clause XI of the Code of Conduct.
ISSUE BACKGROUND
Councillor Maria Augimeri left a voice mail message on Judy Sgro M.P.’s voice mail messaging system contending that Councillor Peter Li Preti was under active police investigation. The clear purpose of this message was to persuade Judy Sgro not to provide further support for Councillor Li Preti’s candidacy in the forthcoming 2006 Municipal election. Judy Sgro provided Councillor Li Preti with a tape of this message and, after consulting with me, he filed a formal complain that this amounted to a violation of then Clause XI of the Code of Conduct. According to the complaint, it was discreditable conduct for Councillor Augimeri to leave such a message. In terms of the language of the provision, it amounted to one member of Council treating another member of Council unfairly.
Councillor Augimeri did not contest the fact that she had left the message. However, she attempted to justify it as accidental and that she had meant to refer to an investigation that ostensibly took place following the 2000 municipal elections. She also argued that what was at stake was a private communication between her and Judy Sgro and that this did not come within the Code of Conduct in general and Clause XI in particular. As well, she asserted that, by going public with the matter after his electoral defeat, Dr. Li Preti had disentitled himself from invoking the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction.
COMMENTS
The Integrity Commissioner does not have general jurisdiction over the conduct of incumbent members of Council during an election campaign. However, where that conduct comes within the scope of one of the provisions of the Code of Conduct, the Integrity Commissioner may act. In this instance, albeit that the communication with Judy Sgro was for campaign purposes, it, nonetheless, could give rise to a finding that one incumbent member of Council had treated another incumbent member of Council unfairly in terms of Clause XI. It also did not matter for jurisdictional purposes that Councillor Augimeri intended the message primarily for Judy Sgro and expected that Judy Sgro would not inform Councillor Li Preti.
It was irresponsible and reckless for Councillor Augimeri to leave a message on Judy Sgro’s general office voice mail addressed to one of her assistants in which she made a claim that she was not able to sustain to the effect that then Councillor Li Preti was under active police investigation. This information was potentially very damaging of Councillor Li Preti’s re-election prospects and it was conveyed for the very purpose of persuading a person of some influence to, at the very least, do nothing further to support Councillor Li Preti. Fortunately, there was no evidence or even suggestion that the contents of the communication actually went any further or otherwise played any role in the outcome of the election.
The fact that, in the wake of his electoral defeat, Dr. Li Preti revealed the details of this matter including the fact that I was investigating his complaint was not a reason for me to discontinue that investigation. He was under no confidentiality constraint as to either the allegations or the progress of my investigation. Indeed, he had shown restraint in not making this an issue during the election campaign and in not pressing me to conclude my investigation and report publicly before election day.
In all of the circumstances, for reasons developed more fully in my report on the complaint to the parties, I have concluded that this was a serious violation of the Code of Conduct. In those circumstances, I am recommending that Councillor Augimeri apologize unconditionally in writing to Dr. Li Preti and, if she fails to do that, that Council reprimand her formally.
CONTACT
David Mullan, Integrity Commissioner,
15th Floor, West,
City Hall,
100 Queen Street West,
Toronto, M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-397-7770
Fax: 416-392-3840
SIGNATURE
David Mullan, Integrity Commissioner
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix: Report on Complaint to Parties