COUNTY OF RENFREW INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER, GUY GIORNO
Citation: Murphy (No. 1) (Re), 2017 ONMIC 20 Date: October 24, 2017
INTERIM REPORT ON COMPLAINT
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.
(see minutes of October 25, 2017)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE COMPLAINT. 3
SUMMARY OF INTERIM REPORT. 3
BACKGROUND TO COMPLAINT / NATURE OF COMPLAINT. 3
SCOPE OF COMPLAINT. 8
FINDINGS / ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED.. 11
CONCLUSION.. 13
RECOMMENDATION.. 13
APPENDIX.. 14
THE COMPLAINT
1An individual has complained that Warden Jennifer Murphy contravened the County’s Council Code of Conduct.
2The Complaint is based on the following:
Comments attributed to Mayor Murphy in the May 10 issue of the Eganville Leader.
Warden Murphy’s attendance at the May 16 meeting of the Council of the Township of North Algona Wilberforce.
SUMMARY OF INTERIM REPORT
3I wish to report that I have proceeded as far as I believe the Complaint warrants.
4I will not continue or complete the investigation unless County Council directs me to do so.
5I am presenting this Interim Report so that County Council can provide me with direction, if it wishes.
BACKGROUND TO COMPLAINT / NATURE OF COMPLAINT
6The background to this Complaint is the same as the background to the Complaint in Farr v. Murphy, 2017 ONMIC 19. The only difference is that this Complaint was filed by an individual while the other Complaint was filed by Mayor Farr.
7The issue arises from comments made by Mayor Farr at the May 2 meeting of North Algona Wilberforce Township Council. The Eganville Leader1 reported as follows on Mayor Farr’s comments:
In thanking the delegates for updating the council on the budget, Mayor Farr told them it was nice to have information coming to council on what’s going on at the library.
“It’s nice to have input, so … have you had an opportunity about your website, because I know there’s events as the mayor I am to attend and if (the) councillor is not bringing them forward to my attention I get a little embarrassed when I go to county council and I have Mayor Jennifer Murphy shouting at me across (the chamber) and saying, “you’ve got to know what’s going on at the library because you’re supposed to be there,” and I’m going, “excuse me?”
Mayor Farr has complained for several months that library activities are not posted on the library’s website.
Councillor James Brose is the township’s representative on the library board and the mayor has been scrutinizing his role, often nit-picking at him for the past several meetings on a number of issues, especially those related to the library. Although she didn’t point fingers at Coun. Brose for not bringing information about the library back to council, the criticism was clearly aimed at him since he is the representative.
8Warden Murphy decided to attend the next meeting of the NAW Council to seek a retraction. The Leader broke the news of Warden Murphy’s plans in a front-page story beneath the headline, “BV mayor will seek apology from neighbouring mayor at next meeting.”2 The portions of the article dealing with Warden Murphy’s reaction read as follows:
This is definitely one for the history books. A showdown between two neighbouring mayors.
In an unprecedented move, Bonnechere Valley Township Mayor Jennifer Murphy will appear on the agenda at the next meeting of North Algona Wilberforce Township council seeking an apology from Mayor Deborah Farr regarding comments Mayor Farr made at last Tuesday night’s NAW meeting.
She made the comments during a presentation by Bonnechere Union Public Library (BUPL) Librarian Dawn Silver pertaining to the 2017 budget. Mayor Murphy later denied the comments attributed to her were ever said and accused Mayor Farr of lying.
When informed by the Leader of Mayor Farr’s statement, Mayor Murphy was furious.
9Because the Leader quoted Warden Murphy indirectly, it is not certain whether the Warden actually used the word “lie” or “lying.” Warden Murphy concedes that she might have used the word “lie,” because that’s what she felt Mayor Farr had done. I also noted (in Farr v. Murphy, 2017 ONMIC 19) that the Warden’s May 3 email to Mayor Farr warned that her rebuttal to the Leader would be that Mayor Farr had lied.
10Warden Murphy subsequently appeared as a delegation at the May 16 NAW Council meeting. A large number of people were in attendance. Along the road leading to the Township office, somebody had erected signs reading, “No Accountability,” “No Transparency” and “No Truth.”
11I obtained an incomplete audio recording of Warden Murphy’s attendance at the May 16 meeting. The recording includes most of the first portion of the Warden’s prepared remarks, and then a closing exchange with Mayor Farr.
12The following is the portion of Warden Murphy’s opening remarks captured on the recording:
Warden Murphy: [recording starts in mid-sentence] … Members of Council in my official capacity as Mayor of Bonnechere Valley and being the current Warden of Renfrew County.
I take pride in the fact that I conduct myself professionally at all times.
I am here before you today because of comments made by your Mayor at your Council meeting of May 2nd, 2017, that were inaccurate and in my opinion suggest that I am less than professional in carrying out my duties.
I want to go on the record that I did not shout across the County room in chambers at any member including Mayor Farr, and that by making this false statement you maligned my reputation as an elected official and as a person that treats all people with respect in my interactions.
At your May 2nd, 2017, Council meeting you made the following statement, and I quote: “It’s nice to have information coming back to us about what’s going on at the Library. It’s nice to have input so, have you had an opportunity about …”
[first portion of recording ends]
13The second portion of the audio recording picks up as Mayor Farr is speaking. Discernible voices are those of Warden Murphy, Mayor Farr, and Deputy Warden Janice Visneskie-Moore (Mayor of The Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards). Several other voices appear on the recording. I am unable to tell how many different people they represent, so each appears below simply as “Voice.”
Mayor Farr: [recording starts in mid-sentence] … remembered some of the terms that you used when you made a phone call to me on Wednesday.
Warden Murphy: Yes, that I wanted you to formally retract your statement with the Eganville Leader and any other press that was in the gallery.
Voice: Why don’t we take a vote?
Mayor Farr: And I was also looking at being able to talk to you in private and you wanted everything in public.
Warden Murphy: You’ve brought that on yourself by not retracting the statement to the Eganville Leader and the rest of the press. That’s why I’m here today. You chose instead of saying, absolutely, in your email, absolutely, I will retract my statement, and I apologize; I would have left it at that. But this is in fact, I believe, the third time that you’ve maligned me in these chambers, including an issue over the Sno-Drifters waste site which I was able to prove to the entire Council and the CAO at the time that I responded to you, yet you said you’d never got a response from me four times asking, which was also not true.
Mayor Farr: It was a response from the CAO regarding a resolution that Council did, and you did respond through your iPad, yes.
Warden Murphy: Do you deal with this at every meeting?
Voice: Yes.
Voice: Yes.
Voice: Every meeting.
Warden Murphy: I pity all of you.
Voice: Yeah.
Voice: Always.
Warden Murphy: You leave me no choice, Madam Mayor.
Voice: [inaudible]
Warden Murphy: I will be seeking [inaudible] Integrity Commissioner.
[Applause]
Mayor Farr: If you wait, Jennifer. Jennifer, if you can wait a moment. Will you wait a moment and come back?
Warden Murphy: How about “thank you”? Do you ever say “please”? Do you ever say “thank you”?
Voice: No.
Warden Murphy: Do you ever acknowledge the things that other people do?
Voice: No.
Voice: No.
Warden Murphy: This is very, very distressing.
Voice: Yes.
Warden Murphy: You just asked me to come back.
Mayor Farr: Yes.
Warden Murphy: I’m not a child. I’m not a dog. When you ask somebody to return, you say “please.”
Mayor Farr: And if you will wait a moment. I apologize if you were offended for the references that I made at the last meeting which was -- I have to put my glasses on if you wish me to read it.
Warden Murphy: I don’t wish you to –
Mayor Farr: Well, I can’t remember the exact words if I don’t read it and you asked me retract the statement that I made.
Warden Murphy: I’m asking you to retract the statement that you made. Did I or did I not shout at you during a County Council meeting?
Mayor Farr: You just asked me to retract the statement and I just said I retract the statement.
Warden Murphy: I even feel the energy from your gallery. I am not even shouting at you here and I am absolutely furious that you have hurt my reputation in this County, as the County Warden. So I don’t understand why you can’t just take responsibility when the event happens. And that’s why I had to come tonight and make it public. So as long as you are willing to apologize, and you have said and everyone heard, that I never shouted at you, that that was not true, then I am fine. Thank you.
Mayor Farr: Thank you very much for coming, Jennifer.
[Applause]
Mayor Farr: Warden Murphy, I apologize. Did you hear my apology? I apologized. I just called you “Jennifer.” Warden Murphy.
Warden Murphy: Thank you.
Mayor Farr: Thank you very much for coming. And Deputy Warden Janice Visneskie-Moore, thank you for coming.
Deputy Warden: Thank you. I came to support the Warden. Thank you very much.
Unidentified: Bye, all.
Mayor Farr: Have a nice evening
SCOPE OF COMPLAINT
14The individual’s Complaint was based on the following allegations of fact.3 I stress that these are merely allegations. They have not been proven, and some are not accepted by Warden Murphy.
The Complainant arrived at the Township office at about 6:35 p.m., May 16. A local resident (that is, not the Warden) was unloading signs from his truck and erecting them along the side of the road to the Township hall. He was picking them up at about 9:05 p.m. when the Complainant left the hall.
When Warden Murphy arrived she greeted her supporters with hugs for many. She “worked the room” for a few minutes.
Warden Murphy was invited to sit beside the Deputy Warden.
At delegation time Mayor Farr welcomed Warden Murphy to the meeting.
Warden Murphy introduced herself as Mayor and as Warden. Her remarks and argument were well-thought out and presented. Her voice was very audible to everyone. The loudness was as if to a large hall gathering.
Warden Murphy said she conducts herself professionally at all times and said Mayor Farr’s statement of her having “shouted” across the room was inaccurate and less than professional. Mayor Farr’s statement had maligned her reputation. She should refrain from making such statements. Warden Murphy wanted an apology and a retraction of the statement.
Mayor Farr attempted to explain that she could have used a word other than “shout.” Mayor Farr was interrupted and talked over by Warden Murphy.
Warden Murphy asked, “Are you denying you said this?” Mayor Farr said, “No.”
Mayor Farr appropriately apologized if she had offended her in any way. She tried to explain that the other part of the comment was the point of her words –that a Council Member who sat on the library board had not reported to her a function that she was to attend and that Warden Murphy had been telling her of this function from across the room. Warden Murphy did not want to listen to that.
Warden Murphy, not once, but three and four times, the Complainant believes, turned to the gallery and the press (five members of the news media attended, according to the Complainant) with an astonished, mouth-questioning, unbelieving expression on her face.
Warden Murphy asked the public gallery or news media if they had to listen to this at every meeting. Some answered, “yes.” The Complainant is not sure whether it was the press.
As Warden Murphy returned to her seat her supporters clapped. Mayor Farr asked her if she would return to the floor to allow her to explain. Warden Murphy’s remark was, “Do you NEVER say please and thank you?” There were “no”s from the audience.
During Warden Murphy’s presentation, Mayor Janice Visneskie Moore (also Deputy Warden of Renfrew County) was swaying in her seat, and visibly encouraging Warden Murphy to “get her.”
15The Complainant argues that what happened was all very childish, and seemed to be deliberately orchestrated to embarrass Mayor Farr once again. The Complainant feels that the situation could very easily have been, and should have been, talked through and settled professionally and quietly, without embarrassing Mayor Farr, Warden Murphy, or Deputy Warden Visneskie-Moore.
16The Complainant also relied on a May 10 newspaper editorial criticizing the NAW Council for being dysfunctional.
17The Complainant cites the following sections of the Code:
Paragraph 3.3(b): Members shall refrain from making judgmental or critical comments about other Members, staff, or Council’s processes and decisions.
Paragraph 3.3(c): Members shall refrain from speculating or reflecting upon the motives of other Members or staff, when communicating with the media.
18According to the Complainant: To call a fellow Mayor a liar is being critical in the extreme. For a warden of a county to call a mayor a liar in a local newspaper when it could have been solved in an adult manner, is certainly not fitting, seemly, nor a responsible action, for one in the office of Warden. “Liar” is a very strong word to have used.
Paragraph 5.1(a): Treat Every Person with Dignity, Understanding and Respect.
19According to the Complainant: Warden Murphy did not treat Mayor Farr with dignity, understanding and respect. This is evident in the newspaper article and it was made evident at the May 16 meeting. When a public official calls someone a liar on the front page of a local newspaper, it is disrespectful towards that individual, but also to the office of Warden. No proof has been given by anyone of any statement being a lie.
Paragraph 5.1(c): Do not Engage in Violence or Harassment of Any Kind
20According to the Complainant: Harassment, lack of understanding and lack of respect occur when one torments, distresses, persecutes, worries, bothers, or troubles by constant attacks, another. This occurred at the May 16 meeting. Warden Murphy appeared to be aware that many of the people present were in support and aware of her presentation. She made sure her words were clear enough for all to hear. She certainly showed by her actions and body language that she had no respect for the Mayor whom she was addressing. She turned in disbelief and for approval from the gallery, when Mayor Farr was attempting to reply to her statements in asking for an apology. She showed disdain at the replies to her questions. She laughed at replies, and looked for approval from the gallery for her laughter. It is the Complainant’s opinion that Mayor Murphy knew full well that she would be adding to the disagreements and strife occurring at the Council of North Algona Wilberforce Township. In the Complainant’s opinion Warden Murphy joined with the “gang” mentality that is occurring here. To an observer, Warden Murphy’s conduct was very unprofessional, childish, and showed lack of judgement in this incident of “liar” and “apology.”
21In processing a Complaint under the Code, one of my first obligations is to “determine if the matter is, on its face, a complaint with respect to non-compliance with this Code of Conduct and/or not covered by other legislation or policy.”4 The Complainant has clearly articulated alleged contraventions of paragraphs 3.3(b), 3.3(c), 5.1(a) and 5.1(c) of the Code. In my opinion, two items that the Complainant mentioned fell outside the Complaint:
22I declined to consider the conduct of Deputy Warden Visneskie-Moore because there is no formal complaint against her. It would be unfair to consider any allegations against the Deputy Warden because she has not been part of this proceeding.
23I declined to consider the newspaper editorial because it did not pertain to the allegations of a Code breach.
FINDINGS / ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED
24I paused the investigation of this Complaint while waiting to see whether the complaint in Farr v. Murphy, 2017 ONMIC 19, would settle. As a practical matter, if Mayor Farr and Warden Murphy were able to settle the complaint to which they both were parties then it would make no sense to proceed with a parallel complaint arising from the very same facts.
25As settlement of Farr v. Murphy was not possible, I resumed consideration of this Complaint.
26I have heard from Mayor Farr and Warden Murphy several times and I understand their positions. I have also reviewed the record of what occurred May 16 and have spoken to some witnesses.
27At the same time, I have attempted to handle this case with an economy of time that seems appropriate for a matter of this nature. I have not spoken to every possible witness, and do not intend to do so unless County Council instructs me.
28While an individual resident brought this Complaint, the underlying facts flow from what one politician said about another on May 2. This Complaint originates with one comment at one meeting. Indeed, it flows from a single word, “shouting.”
29Significantly, the Complaint is not brought by the Council Member who was the subject of the other Council Member’s comment. The latter has already apologized to the former and the former has accepted. As far as the former (Warden Murphy) is concerned, the matter was resolved on May 16.
30The Complaint here is brought against the Council Member who was the subject of the May 2 comment. The Complaint is about how that Council Member reacted and responded to the May 2 comment. That is the entire basis for the Complaint.
31While the Complaint was filed by an individual resident, I am mindful that it arises from a dispute between two politicians and in, particular, focuses on how one politician (Warden Murphy) chose to communicate and express herself. I use the word “politician” with deliberate reason. The positions that politicians espouse, their disagreements with other politicians, their comportment in public life, the ways they defend their reputations, and how they communicate with the public, including how they communicate with the public through the news media, are all matters of individual political judgment. As long as the conduct is lawful and inside the ethical boundaries of the Code of Conduct, individual political judgments are beyond the purview of an Integrity Commissioner. Subject to the law and rules of ethics, accountability for the exercise of political judgment resides in the political process, not in an Integrity Commissioner investigation.
32The Complainant feels that Warden Murphy should have addressed the issue privately. Warden Murphy could have done so, but she chose otherwise. Her decision to go public was an exercise of political judgment that is not for an Integrity Commissioner to second guess.
33The Complainant feels that there were better (and, in the Complainant’s words, more “adult” ways) for Warden Murphy to raise her concern. This is a political opinion, which the Complainant is free to hold. Other individuals may disagree or agree with that opinion or they may take no position. It is not an ethical issue under the Code. Warden Murphy made one choice and the Complainant is of the opinion that she should have made a different choice. The forum to address opinions about the choices made by politicians is the political process.
34The Complainant cites several examples of how Warden Murphy played to the public gallery and the news media. Whether or not this was the case, oratorical style is a matter of political judgment that an Integrity Commissioner cannot supervise. The fact that Warden Murphy addressed some of her comments to the public, and not to or through the Chair, was at most a point of order (procedural point) to be dealt with at the time, not a Code of Conduct issue.
35There is no evidence that Warden Murphy encouraged people to attend the May 16 meeting to cheer her on. (Even if she had done so, I make no finding that this would have contravened the Code.) The Complainant’s own evidence is that Warden Murphy was not involved in the posting of signs near the Township office.
36The above findings are as far as I am prepared to go to address this Complaint. There are additional issues that I do not intend to address because I do not feel they justify the further expenditure of County resources. I will not address these further questions unless County Council instructs me to do so.
37Specifically:
38I do not intend to determine whether Warden Murphy actually told the Leader that Mayor Farr lied. For one thing, it might be impractical, if not impossible, to ascertain what a source told a news reporter. Moreover, I do not feel it is useful or relevant to determine what specific words she employed. I will not consider this issue further unless County Council instructs me.
39I do not intend to determine whether it is contrary to paragraph 3.3(b), paragraph 3.3(c), paragraph 5.1(a) or paragraph 5.1(c) of the Code for one Council Member to accuse another Council Member of lying. I feel that I cannot decide this issue in the abstract. A decision on whether the accusation of lying contravenes the Code can only be made in the context of particular facts. This would involve going back to 2015 or 2016 to determine what happened inside the County Council chamber. I do not feel it is useful to decide this issue unless County Council instructs me.
40I do not intend to determine whether “shouting” ever occurred. I am aware of the parties’ very different recollections. Mayor Farr says she was not making a criticism, but simply reflecting the volume required to be heard across a large Council chamber. Warden Murphy says the two were adjacent to each other and no extra volume was used. As noted above, I see no useful purpose in investigating further what did or did not happen in 2015 or 2016. Unless County Council instructs me to probe deeper, I will not pursue this question.
41I do not intend to investigate Warden Murphy’s gestures, body language or movements around the room on May 16. I spoke to some witnesses, but not about that. I will not so do unless Council instructs me.
CONCLUSION
42I decline to make a determination under paragraph 9.4(i) or paragraph 9.4(h) of the Code.
43Unless County Council instructs me otherwise, I intend to take no more steps in this investigation.
44I remain subject to the further direction of County Council.
RECOMMENDATION
45I make no recommendation. It is in County Council’s discretion whether to provide me with direction in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Guy Giorno
Integrity Commissioner
County of Renfrew
October 24, 2017
APPENDIX
Relevant Provisions of Council Code of Conduct
3.3 - Media Communications
It is understood that the Warden as Head of Council is the primary spokesperson for the Council. Therefore the following shall apply to other Members:
(a) Members will accurately communicate the decisions of Council, even if they disagree with the majority decision of Council, and by doing so affirm the respect for and integrity in the decision-making process of Council. A Member may state that he/she did not support the decision, or voted against the decision.
(b) Members shall refrain from making judgemental or critical comments about other Members, staff, or Council’s processes and decisions.
(c) Members shall refrain from speculating or reflecting upon the motives of other Members or staff, when communicating with the media.
(d) Members shall keep all confidential information confidential, until such a time arises that the matter can properly be made public. A breach of confidentiality by Members diminishes public confidence.
(e) The Media Relations/Grants Coordinator will work/consult with the Council members regarding media releases as necessary.
5.1 Interpersonal Behaviour
(a) Treat Every Person with Dignity, Understanding and Respect:
(b) Do not Discriminate:
(c) Do not Engage in Violence or Harassment of Any Kind:
9.4 - Investigation/ Complaint Procedure
(a) A request for an investigation of a complaint that a Member has contravened this Code of Conduct or policy shall be in writing, and may be filed by any member of the public as well as other Members.
(b) All complaints must be signed by an identifiable individual.
(c) A complaint shall set out reasonable and probable grounds for the allegation that the Member has contravened this Code of Conduct and include a supporting affidavit that sets out the evidence in support of the complaint.
(d) The request shall be filed with the Clerk who shall forward the matter to the Integrity Commissioner for initial classification. The Integrity Commissioner shall determine if the matter is, on its face, a complaint with respect to non-compliance with this Code of Conduct and/or not covered by other legislation or policy.
(e) If the complaint is determined to be unfounded with respect to a breach of this Code of Conduct or other policies, the complainant shall be advised that the matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner to process with any additional reasons and referrals as the Integrity Commissioner considers appropriate.
(f) If the Integrity Commissioner is of the opinion that the referral of a matter to him or her is frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith, or that there are no grounds or insufficient grounds for an investigation, the Integrity Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation, or where that becomes apparent in the course of an investigation, terminate the investigation. If any Member makes more than two such complaints, as determined by the Integrity Commissioner, within a term, such Member shall be found in breach of the Code of Conduct.
(g) The Integrity Commissioner shall not issue a report finding a violation of this Code of Conduct on the part of any Member unless the Member has had reasonable notice of the basis for the proposed finding and any recommended sanction and an opportunity either in person or in writing to comment on the proposed finding and any recommended sanction, provided that comment period after having been notified does not exceed 30 calendar days.
(h) Where the complaint is sustained in whole or in part, the Integrity Commissioner shall also report to Council outlining the findings, or may recommend corrective action in open Council.
(i) Where the complaint is unfounded or dismissed, the Integrity Commissioner shall not report to Council, except as part of an annual or other periodic report.
(j) A complaint will be processed in compliance with the confidentiality requirements of Section 223.5(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended.
9.5 - Integrity Commissioner Reporting to the Municipality
(a) The Integrity Commissioner shall file a copy of the final report on an investigation with the Clerk, who will then provide a copy of the report to the complainant and the Member whose conduct it has addressed, generally within 90 days of the making of the complaint.
(b) The Clerk shall submit the Integrity Commissioner’s report to Council within the next two regular meetings and the Integrity Commissioner shall appear to present his or her report to Council.
(c) If a complaint(s) is filed, the Integrity Commissioner shall report annually to Council on the number of complaints filed by way of a memo to Council, in November of each calendar year.
(d) The Clerk shall ensure confidentiality is maintained during and after the Integrity Commissioner’s investigation.