municipality of Kincardine integrity commissioner, robert j. swayze
INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER REPORT NO.1
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.
http://www.kincardine.net/public_docs/events/03%2001%2017%20minutes%20reg1.pdf (see page 3)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT. 3
ATTACHMENTS.. 3
BACKGROUND.. 3
EXISTING POLICY. 4
ANALYSIS.. 5
Incident No. 1: 5
Incident No. 2 and 3: 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.. 5
SUBJECT
Applications for Investigation of Councillor Gordon Campbell for breaching the Council Code of Conduct.
ATTACHMENTS
None
BACKGROUND
I was appointed Integrity Commissioner for the Municipality of Kincardine on October 5, 2016 and thereafter received Applications for Investigation (the “Complaints”) filed by two members of municipal staff alleging that Councillor Gordon Campbell (the “Respondent”) contravened the Council Code of Conduct. (the “Code”)
For the purpose of this report, I reviewed all relevant documents and on November 1, 2016, personally interviewed both complainants and another witness. On the same day I also personally interviewed the Respondent. The Code requires me to complete an investigation in 90 days but I accepted the request by the Respondent to have a second personal interview on December 8, 2016, which caused the delay. The Code also requires me to notify the Respondent of the contents of my report, 10 days before it is considered by Council and that notice was sent on February 17, 2017. The Respondent made additional submissions to me through the Clerk and I have decided that no changes to my report are appropriate.
The Complaints were filed by Murray Clarke, Chief Administrative Officer and Shamus Anderson, Water and Wastewater Supervisor of the Municipality. In my interview of Mr. Clarke, he referred to a 10 year history of Councillor Campbell abusing staff, leading to an intervention by a Human Resource Consultant and a report from the consultant in early 2016 which resulted in an apology by the Councillor and “an undertaking to curb his abusive and harassing behaviour.” I have reviewed a copy of that report.
The complaints described the following incidents:
- On September 15, 2016 statements were made by the Respondent at a McDonalds Restaurant and overheard by the witness interviewed by me. Councillor Campbell was critical of the CAO and Shamus Anderson for their treatment of one of his constituents which caused the resident to commence a lawsuit against the Municipality. Mr. Clarke alleged that these statements were a continuation of the abuse of staff and that his support of the legal action against the Municipality constituted a conflict of interest.
The legal action was brought against the Municipality by a citizen concerning actions or lack of action by municipal staff in accordance with a policy approved by Council requiring the replacement of old water meters, applicable to all property owners in the Municipality. The policy requires the land owner to locate the meter at his or her cost. The citizen was charged extra for continuing with an old hidden water meter in accordance with the policy and staff refused to attend at the property to locate it. Councillor Campbell accused staff of improper procedure in a letter which identified himself as a Councillor and it was given to the plaintiff for filing with the Court. I have concluded that all action by staff in this matter was in accordance with municipal policy. The claim was ultimately dismissed by the Court.
On October 16, 2016 at a meeting to discuss an invoice attended by a contractor and Mr. Anderson, the Respondent told Mr. Anderson that he failed to do his job and shouldn’t be in his current position. The contractor had employed a method known as “hydro excavating” to locate a plastic pipe installed years ago without trace wire. This is the generally accepted practice in the trade, but the Respondent disagreed with the cost of such a procedure. He expressed his opinion that finding a line between a well and a building only required a backhoe because it was likely installed in a straight line.
On December 15, 2016 in a meeting with the CAO, Mr. Anderson and another member of staff, the Respondent asked for some customer information which Mr. Anderson said he didn’t have. He then starting shouting at the CAO and Mr. Anderson saying “what good are you if you can’t provide account information.”
EXISTING POLICY
The Code provides as follows:
1.5 No Member shall use the influence of office for any purpose other than the exercise of his or her official duties.
1.8 Members of Council shall identify and refrain from engaging in conduct which might involve a conflict of interest or a potential misuse of position and authority.
15.1 Members shall encourage public respect for the Municipality and its by-law and policies. Members must not encourage disobedience of a Municipal by-law in responding to a member of the public, as this undermines confidence in the Municipality and in the Rule of Law.
14.1 Members shall be respectful of the fact that staff work for the Municipality as a body corporate and are charged with making recommendations that reflect their professional expertise and corporate perspective, without undue influence from any individual Member or group of Members of Council.
14.6 No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or ethical reputation or the prospects or practice of staff.
14.7 Members of Council shall show respect for the professional capacities of staff.
ANALYSIS
Incident No. 1:
Assisting constituents is the role of all members of Council. However, when staff are asked to go against a by-law to assist a citizen, they are entitled to refuse. The Respondent refuses to understand that the policy relating to replacement of water meters applied to thousands of properties and if the Municipality committed to attend at every site to locate old meters, the cost would be prohibitive.
To compound the wrongdoing by the Councillor, when he knew that a legal action was contemplated against the Municipality, it was his obligation as a member of Council with a conflict, to immediately withdraw his support of the plaintiff. Instead he provided a letter criticizing staff knowing that it would be filed in Court against the interests of the Municipality.
Incident No. 2 and 3:
No staff member is obligated to tolerate abuse from any member of Council as exhibited by the Respondent and described in item 2 and 3 above. The Councillor denies saying what Mr. Anderson claimed he said in both meetings, but I believe Mr. Anderson. In both interviews with Mr. Campbell, I asked him what was the reason he was opposed to Mr. Anderson and he came back to the method for finding the water line.
I came to the conclusion, reviewing both complaints, that the Respondent does not appreciate what is involved in a managerial position. Organizing a substantial workload with subordinate staff, human resource considerations, hiring multiple contractors, budget preparation and adherence are responsibilities, the scope of which is completely outside his experience. He expects a manager to be on site watching a contractor find a waterline and dictating work practices.
I asked him what is his objection to Mr. Clarke and he said that he is “too much in control”, regardless of the fact that the entire staff of the Municipality reports to him and control is a virtue.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
I find that the Respondent has contravened Sections 1.5, 1.8 and15.1 of the Code in that he undermined confidence in the municipality by supporting a ratepayer in objecting to a legally imposed by-law of general application and participating in a legal action against the Municipality as a member of Council. I also find that he contravened Section 14.1, 14.6 and 14.7 of the Code in abusing the Complainants in the workplace and falsely impugning their professional reputation.
I regard the actions by the Respondent referred to in this report, as a second offence after the warning in 2016 and his undertaking not to abuse staff. I recommend to Council that thirty days of the compensation paid to him as a member of Council, be suspended commencing from the next pay period. If the Respondent continues his abusive behaviour towards staff and I receive another complaint, I will recommend a larger suspension of his compensation.
Date to be considered by Council: March 1, 2017
Date: February 23, 2017
Integrity Commissioner's Signature: