Sonnenburg (Re), 2012 ONMIC 1

Citation: Sonnenburg (Re), 2012 ONMIC 1
Date: 2012-09-26

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.

BACKGROUND.. 3

COMMENTS.. 4

CONCLUSION.. 5

RECOMMENDATION.. 6

BACKGROUND

I was appointed Integrity Commissioner for the Town of Carleton Place by Resolution of Council passed on May 29, 2012 and I am pleased and honoured to so serve. I also serve as Integrity Commissioner for the Councils of Mississauga, Oakville, Guelph, Brantford and Port Hope. One of my duties is to independently conduct investigations upon receipt of a valid Complaint from members of Council, Town employees or any member of the public, alleging that the Carleton Place Council Code of Conduct (the “Code”) has been contravened by a member of Council. Section 6 of the Code sets out the procedure I am to follow in such investigations.

I received a Complaint dated July 24th, 2012 signed by the Mayor and the CAO that Deputy Mayor Sonnenburg contravened the Code by sending an inappropriate E-mail on July 18, 2012 to the Director of Public Works with a copy to a member of the public. The Complainants invited me to review other E-mails written by the Deputy Mayor criticizing staff and several added E-mails written by others describing behaviour by him alleged also to be contrary to the Code. This material accompanied the Complaint and measured approximately 3 cm. thick. I initially read the Complaint as applying only to the July 18 E-mail but received on September 6, 2012, a further note from the CAO expanding the Complaint to include two subsequent E-mails from the Deputy Mayor dated August 3rd and August 24th respectively. This expanded complaint also requested that the E-mails in the additional material originally submitted be given full consideration as part of the investigation.

As required by Section 6 of the Code, I obtained confirmation that the Deputy Mayor was served with a copy of the Complaint. He is required to respond to it within 10 days, but instead, I proposed that he meet with me and that the time for his response would be extended to 10 days after the meeting. He countered with his need to retain a lawyer and to apply to the Town for funding. He then advised me that he would not retain a lawyer and agreed to meet with me on August 31st, 2012. On that date, I attended at the Town Hall and interviewed the Mayor, the CAO, the Clerk and the Deputy Mayor.

Subsequently I confirmed with the Deputy Mayor that he also received the Expanded Complaint on September 6, 2012. I was then advised that Council refused to provide funding to retain a lawyer on September 11, 2012. I extended the date for responding to the Complaint and the Expanded Complaint several times with the final date being set as 4:30 pm on September 21, 2012.

I am required by the Code to make an initial classification of the Complaint as to whether it is within my jurisdiction or covered under legislation other than Section 223 of the Municipal Act. I have concluded that the behaviour set out in the Complaint is within my jurisdiction to investigate and is covered by the Code. Some of the E-mails in the additional material complain about the conduct of the Deputy Mayor in the interaction between him and the Mayor and other councillors. For me to find this alleged activity to be contrary to the Code, I would need to complete a full inquiry and in the interest of saving cost, I have decided not to do so at this time. Accordingly, I have limited this investigation to E-mails written by the Deputy Mayor over the course of the past two years which, on their face, are contrary to the Code and require no additional investigation.

The Code is binding on all members of Council and provides in part that “Members of Council . . . shall treat every person including other Members of Council, corporate employees, individuals providing services on a contract for service, students or placements, and the public, with dignity, understanding and respect for the right to equality and the right to an environment that is safe and free from harassment and discrimination.” Harassment is defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is know or ought to be known, to be unwelcome.”

COMMENTS

In my opinion, democracy is demonstrated best at the local level. The issues are understandable and close to home. The groups of decision makers are small and relationships are close. Political parties do not complicate the process and informal caucuses create majority decisions. Critical to this intimate dynamic is the relationship between Council and staff. Councillors need to learn that they have no individual executive power over staff except when sitting as a unit, where Council is paramount. In my experience, staff in all municipalities, expend considerable energy ensuring that all of their activity is in accordance with policy or specific direction approved by Council. Working as senior staff in a municipality is not without pressure, particularly when you can be fired by a seven person council with only four votes. Normally in this setting, a strong mutual respect is engendered between Councillors and staff. Both need each other to do their job and get things done.

For the purpose of this inquiry, I have reviewed the record of Council beginning with a meeting of the previous Council held on November 12, 2010 when Council directed that the Deputy Mayor’s “remuneration be suspended for a period of 30 days for sending out derogatory E-mails concerning staff and directing staff in their job”. My review did not extend to account for the circumstances behind this extraordinary action but I speculate that it must have resulted from extreme frustration on the part of a majority of Council during that term. My review of the record did encompass 2011and 2012 which includes reprimands by Council, warnings to the Deputy Mayor, requirements that he apologize, etc.

The E-mail dated July 18, 2012 from the Deputy Mayor complained about initially, was in reference to a request from a member of the public to trim an overgrown tree blocking a sidewalk. It was unprofessional in that it criticized the CAO sarcastically and it was sent to a member of his staff with a copy also to the member of the public making the request. The most egregious E-mail from the Deputy Mayor to the CAO was copied to me (intentionally by him) as well as others on August 3, 2012, three days after my notice to him that I was commencing an investigation. It was in response to an E-mail from the Treasurer giving notice on his last Friday that he will be on holidays for two weeks. Taking exception to the late vacation notice might have been fair comment but he also again made inappropriate and insensitive slurs about the CAO with copies also to the Mayor and the Treasurer. I have read many other E-mails from the Deputy Mayor in the additional material and others sent to me directly by him, some more offensive than others. Since finding out my address in less than two months, I have received 30 E-mails from him. He refers to his habit of copying many members of staff and Council on everything as “my scatter gun approach”. I am advised that his contacting of staff by telephone or in person seems to be acceptable for the most part and my meeting with him gave me the same impression. He needs to be encouraged to use this interface with staff instead of E-mail. The sending of these inappropriate E-mails seems to be compulsive behaviour on his part and must stop.

I am appalled by the time, energy and cost expended by staff and Council over the past two years, on reacting to the inappropriate conduct of one member of Council. It is inexcusable for the Deputy Mayor to continually harass the CAO openly with copies to his staff and it has been hurtful to him and damaging to staff relations. The CAO has advised me of serious complaints from his staff as a result of the E-mails from the Deputy Mayor. The Mayor has recounted dealing with members of staff in tears in her office for the same reason.

CONCLUSION

I have considered all of the possible sanctions against the Deputy Mayor which may have the potential of changing him into a positive and cooperative member of Carleton Place Council in accordance with his obligations under the Code. He has been reprimanded by Council before without effect. His E-mails display a routine of making offensive comments and then apologizing. Another apology will not achieve any solution. He has also formally promised to stop sending offensive E-mails and directing staff which was followed by more of the same. I am left with suspension of remuneration for sending E-mails which I find to be offensive. I am convinced that he must be made aware that each time he presses the “Send” button that it will cost him money.

Accordingly, I am recommending that his remuneration be suspended immediately for one week which is a token amount to penalize him for his sending of offensive E-mails referred to in this report. If during the balance of the term of this Council, I am sent by any member of staff or Council an E-mail written by him which I conclude breaches the Code, I will suspend two weeks of his pay and so on in increasing amounts in my discretion. With each E-mail I receive that I find objectionable, he will be given notice and ten days to respond before I apply the sanction, if any.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council direct the Treasurer to suspend the remuneration of Deputy Mayor Ed Sonnenburg for one week commencing the end of the pay period following this Council meeting;

That during the balance of the term of this Council, any member of Council or staff may send to the Integrity Commissioner copies of E-mails written and published by the Deputy Mayor after the date of this report, concerning Town matters to any member of Council, staff or the public and if the Integrity Commissioner determines that any such E- mail is contrary to the Council Code of Conduct, he may direct the Treasurer to suspend the remuneration to the Deputy Mayor for a period specified by the Integrity Commissioner in his discretion, but not to exceed 90 days for any such E-mail and the Treasurer is hereby authorized to comply with such direction.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Robert J. Swayze

Integrity Commissioner

Town of Carleton Place