TOWNSHIP OF SCUGOG integrity commissioner, HAROLD G. ELSTON
REPORT OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER
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.
INTRODUCTION
On October 3, 2016, the Complainant, the former Executive Director of the Downtown Port Perry BIA (the “BIA”), made a complaint under the Township of Scugog’s Code of Conduct for Members of Council (the “Code”) against Councillor Don Kett and Councillor Jennifer Back.
The complaint is that Councillors Kett and Back have repeatedly, without justification, questioned the integrity of the financial management and governance practices of the BIA and, in the process, have damaged the reputation of the Complainant. The Complainant suggests that the criticism has taken on a tone and intensity well beyond what could be considered reasonable.
As a result, the Complainant has resigned as Executive Director of the BIA, as have five members of its Board of Management.
In particular, the Complainant says that both Councillors have violated the Code, first, referencing two of the Code’s purposes:
a) to ensure that the conduct of Members of Council is of the highest standard; and
b) to ensure that there is a fairness and respect for the differences and a duty to work together for goodwill and common good.
- She also alleges that both Councillor Kett and Councillor Back are in direct violation of Section 4 of the Code, Relations with Staff:
Members of Council shall not:
a) Maliciously or falsely injure the professional or ethical reputation of staff;
b) Use their authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing any staff member with the intent of interfering with staff duties.
On the other hand, Councillors Kett and Back maintain that they are simply doing their job, as custodians of the public purse. They have become suspicious about financial improprieties at the BIA, and what they see as regular failures to adhere to proper processes in terms of meeting protocols, membership consultation, and financial accountability.
In the course of my investigation, I spoke with Councillors Kett and Back by telephone, reviewed their written responses to the Complaint, and then interviewed them (separately) on December 13, 2016. I have spoken with the Complainant on several occasions, reviewed all the written submissions she has sent me, and met with her on January 23, 2017.
I have also conducted telephone or personal interviews with another 12 people with knowledge of the workings of the BIA and the issues at hand, including members of Council, members of the BIA Board of Management, BIA members (downtown tenants and owners), former Township staff, and the Township’s auditor.
To assist in my understanding of the alleged improprieties and the actions of the two Councillors, I have reviewed hundreds of pages of emails, invoices, newspaper articles, financial statements, independent audit reports, and other documents. I have watched hours of YouTube videos of meetings of Council, and spent time on the main street of Port Perry, meeting many of its retailers.
After all of this, I have concluded that, while there are likely some BIA governance matters which should be improved, and although there is clearly a need for better procurement policies and practices, these failings do not justify the level of public ridicule and rebuke that has been directed at the BIA, its Board, or Executive Director.
Councillors Back and Kett have assiduously sought to uncover proof of the BIA’s failings, targeted its Board and management, imposed on Township staff and, in the process, done great harm to the reputation of the BIA and its Executive Director.
In particular, the allegations of missing budgets and secret meetings are, for the most part, false. Budgets have, in fact, been prepared and approved, and there is no proof that meetings were improperly called, or constituted. The Township auditor has confirmed to me that she has detected no fraud or collusion.
In any event, it is not the BIA that is the subject of this investigation. If there are, or have been, problems with the BIA, the take-no-prisoners approach by Councillors Back and Kett cannot be condoned.
The Code is a public declaration of the principles of good conduct and ethics that the members of Council have decided its stakeholders could reasonably expect from them in the performance of their duties as elected representatives. Attaining an elected position within the community is a privilege which carries significant responsibilities and obligations.
The purpose of the Code is to reassure the community that their elected representatives will be held to a high standard as they govern, and to remind the members of Council of this obligation. Practically speaking, this means that members of Council must rise above the frustrations they face, the inadequacies they find, and the failings they encounter. They must not lower the quality of the public discourse, but raise it.
This is, no doubt, a tall order. When I hold the actions of Councillors Back and Kett up to the light of the principles of good conduct and ethics espoused in the Code, it is, I regret, an order which I am unable to say that they have met.
Their quest has been disproportionate and damaging, succeeding only in dividing the downtown business community and Council itself. I find that they have too vigorously, and without examining any alternative measures, pursued a very public vendetta against the BIA Board and its staff. The dogged pursuit of the BIA has cost this community dearly, and I am not convinced that, even should they be successful in uncovering improprieties, their means can justify this end.
In the end, I find that both Councillor Back and Councillor Kett have breached the Code. In particular, they have been disrespectful of the BIA Board and its Executive Director, and have sought, in their individual capacity, to interfere with and intimidate them. They have falsely injured the professional and ethical reputation of the Complainant.
I would recommend that Council reprimand Councillor Back and Councillor Kett, reminding them of their duty to work with all members of the community in goodwill and toward the common good, including municipal staff, and suspend the remuneration paid to them for a period of 30 days.
February 27, 2017
H. G. Elston