Petrwoski (Re), 2013 ONMIC 8

Citation: Petrwoski (Re), 2013 ONMIC 8
Date: 2013-11-21

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.niagararegion.ca/council/Council%20Documents/CL%2016-2013%20November%2021,%202013.htm (see item 492)

RECOMMENDATION.. 3

PURPOSE.. 3

BACKGROUND.. 3

REPORT. 3

CONCLUSION.. 6

APPENDICES.. 7

RECOMMENDATION

That the Report of the Interim Integrity Commissioner dated November 21, 2013 on his findings from conducting an investigation of two complaints alleging violations of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Andrew Petrwoski, be received.

PURPOSE

The purpose is to report to Council on my findings from two investigations I carried out as Integrity Commissioner, arising out of a complaint received from four staff members of Niagara Regional Housing (“NRH”) and another from a director level employee of Regional Public Health, (the “Director”) both against Councillor Andrew Petrowski.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of August 1, 2013 directed me to review the Code of Conduct for Members of Council (the “Code”). I reported to its meeting of September 19, 2013 and recommended certain changes to the Code which were adopted. One of those changes removed the applicability of the Respectful Workplace Conduct Policy and added specific sections to the Code relating to the behaviour of members of Council. Bill 91 of the Region authorizes me to carry out investigations of complaints alleging that the Code was contravened and I received a summary of two such complaints. The summary referred to source documents and the Regional Solicitor assisted by identifying and forwarding the source documents to me. I served Councillor Petrowski with the summary and later the source documents, giving him 10 days to respond each time. I received a written response from him which I served on the Complainants. For the purpose of this report I individually interviewed eight persons, six personally and two by telephone.

REPORT

The first complaint was from three members of NRH front line staff responsible for administering assisted senior housing units. It was filed on their behalf by their manager. The complaint alleged that Councillor Petrowski berated and embarrassed the staff at a case conference meeting held on July 23, 2013. The purpose of the meeting was to bring together all of the supporting agencies and discuss solutions for a hard-to-serve tenant who was severely handicapped. Attending the meeting were representatives of Community Care Access Centre, Senior Services, an Adult Protection Worker from Family and Children Services Niagara, the March of Dimes, a Niagara Health Systems Dialysis Nurse and the three Complainants. Also in attendance were the tenant, the tenant advocate and Councillor Petrowski, who was invited to the meeting by the tenant advocate with no notice to regional staff. The Programs Coordinator, one of the Complainants, who normally chairs meetings of this kind was surprised by the Councillor’s aggressive behaviour and let him take over the meeting. She had never before faced a member of Regional Council in her job and was unsure of his authority. The Councillor was confused about the purpose of the meeting and thought that it was to evict the tenant. The discussion of solutions for the tenant by the agencies was repeatedly diverted by the Councillor arguing against eviction which was not on the agenda. He also received telephone calls during the meeting causing further disruptions. Discussions took place on possible renovations to the unit occupied by the tenant or moving him elsewhere and Councillor Petrowski advised the meeting that cost should be ignored because the Region had “pots of money”. Each of the three Complainants told me individually in our interview that they felt personally criticized and bullied by the Councillor in the questions he asked and his antagonistic behaviour.

The response from Councillor Petrowski to the above allegations in our interview was to deny that he displayed any aggression or disruptive influence at the meeting and that it is his responsibility to advocate on behalf of all of his constituents. He believed that the handicapped tenant was not being properly served by NRH and his only desire was to help him. He did not feel that he had any conflict as a member of Regional Council attending an operational meeting with front line staff.

The second complaint related to an incident following adjournment of a meeting of the Budget Committee on June 24, 2013 and it alleged that Councillor Petrowski accosted the Director outside Committee Room 4 in an agitated state and spoke to her in a loud and severe tone. There were several Councillors and staff in the immediate area during this confrontation including Mr. Ken Brothers, interim CAO at the time. Mr. Brothers intervened and ask the Director to leave the area saying he would handle the situation. As she left the area, Councillor Petrowski continued to yell at her in the hallway saying that he would be discussing her work on his radio show. I interviewed Mr. Brothers by telephone and he confirmed the Director’s testimony in total and added that the Councillor “completely lost it”.

Again, the response in the interview from Councillor Petrowski to the above allegations was to deny that he was agitated or spoke in a loud voice at any time during the discussion in the hall.

I interviewed the Complainants from NRH on October 24, 2013. I questioned the four NRH staff firstly as a panel and then each of them individually. On the same day, I interviewed the Director on the second complaint and Mr. Brothers in a later telephone conversation.

In an E-mail to me on November 5, 2013, Councillor Petrowski requested permission to bring legal counsel to our interview to which I consented. He turned up with the blogger, Mr. Preston Haskell, who is not a lawyer but the Councillor said he was needed as his adviser. I again consented. The NRH staff interviewed by me had told me how upsetting one of Mr. Haskell’s blogs was when he disclosed their complaint, confidential at the time of the blog and referred to it as “false harassment charges”.

My interview of Councillor Petrowski on November 15, 2013 lasted for two hours. During that time nothing positive was said by him about any member of staff or Council. He advised me that the sole purpose in Council appointing an Integrity Commissioner was to “get me” (him). He agreed that he is a maverick on Council but “a maverick for the taxpayer”. Without exception, he was critical of how the Region was run and appeared to be happy about the recent loss of senior staff. I asked him what he has accomplished as a member of Council and he cited some examples, all of which were prefaced by the words: “I put an end to”.

At the beginning of the meeting Councillor Petrowski asked me to permit him to make an opening statement which I allowed and it lasted for the first hour. I was only able to ask my first question in the second hour. He dominated the first hour and whenever I tried to interject, he objected in a loud voice to being interrupted. In the second hour he also raised his voice interrupting me on several occasions. In one of his outbursts, I warned him that he was not helping his case, but it seemed that the irony was lost on him. Here he was aggressively dominating a meeting with the Integrity Commissioner who was investigating an allegation of aggressive behaviour by him, while asking me at the same time, to believe that he did not do the same thing in the confrontations the staff complained about.

At the interview, Councillor Petrowski advised me that he wanted me to interview by telephone four of the attendees at the NRH meeting who did not give evidence and he wanted to explore with me apologizing to the Director in the second complaint. I indicated to him that he had his chance to introduce new witnesses and I intended to file my report for the November 21 Council meeting because I was away for the next meeting in December. I also explained to him that he had adequate notice of the case against him with two opportunities to file additional material. However, I encouraged him to apologize and gave him until Monday, November 18 to file the material and later set the deadline for 4:30 pm. At 4:23 pm on Monday I received an E-mail from him giving me the phone numbers for the tenant and two people described as neighbour/helpers. He also gave me the phone number of the representative of Family and Children Services Niagara who attended the meeting and requested I call her. I telephoned all four numbers on Tuesday, November 19 at 9:00 am and was able to leave a detailed voice mail for three of them. The fourth was the tenant whom I called and finally reached him on Wednesday morning. The tenant confirmed that he is very appreciative of the Councillor’s help and told me that “he didn’t speak out of turn in the meeting”. He did not feel that the Councillor disrupted the meeting and was only trying to help him. As of 9:00 am on Wednesday I have not received any response to my three voice mails and have decided to file my report.

Councillor Petrowski’s E-mail also contained a qualified apology to the Complainants as follows:

“I now believe that in the interests of common courtesy and following Region protocol, I should have notified Niagara Region Housing Staff of my intention to attend the subject meeting. Notwithstanding I firmly believe it is my elected duty to be able to represent my constituents, I sincerely apologize to all three regional housing employees for any confusion my appearance at that meeting may have created.

More importantly, I sincerely apologize to {the Director} for engaging her after the Audit Committee meeting which I now believe was an inappropriate time to do so. Notwithstanding I believe it is my elected duty to represent taxpayers and be a responsible steward of their finances, I now believe that my passion to act on their behalf came across in an austere and abrasive manner and I personally wish to apologize sincerely to {the Director} for that.”

I find this apology helpful to me, particularly the one to the Director, in that, for the first time he acknowledges that his behaviour is austere and abrasive. This gives me hope that after being exposed to two formal complaints, he will curb his aggressive behaviour in the future.

CONCLUSION

I believe the testimony of the six staff members I interviewed and I do not believe the testimony of Councillor Petrowski in his interview. I find that the Councillor did not have a conflict as a Regional Councillor attending the meeting with NRH staff and other agencies but his conduct at the meeting was unprofessional. I believe that it amounted to bullying and intimidation and would be clearly contrary to the current Code. It was also contrary to the spirit of the Code in effect at the time of the incidents complained about. I also find that his confrontation of the Public Health Director was abusive and insulting and also contrary to the Code which requires that members of Council treat all persons, “appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation and to ensure that the municipal workplace is free from . . . harassment”. It is my decision that Councillor Petrowski has contravened the Code as alleged in both complaints.

I have decided not to recommend any sanction against Councillor Petrowski at this time. However, I believe him to be incorrigible in his aggressive behaviour as a member of Council. He needs a stern warning to rein him in and make it clear that he has no executive authority over staff as a single member of Council. If I receive a valid complaint or complaints after the date of this report, from any member of staff about his conduct as a Councillor, which I deem to be contrary to the Code, I will recommend suspension of his salary for a period, determined by me, based on the severity of the offence, for up to 90 days for each such contravention. I may also recommend that all Regional Staff below the level of manager be instructed to refer all direct inquiries from the Councillor to their manager or above.

Submitted by:

Robert Swayze

Interim Integrity Commissioner

APPENDICES

None