region of Peel integrity commissioner, principles integrity
Citation: Parrish (Re), 2018 ONMIC 31 Date: July 3, 2018
CODE OF CONDUCT COMPLAINT BY PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARDS AGAINST REGIONAL COUNCILLOR PARRISH RECOMMENDATION REPORT
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.peelregion.ca/council/council_minutes/2010s/2018/rcmin20180712.pdf
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS.. 3
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT. 4
THE COMPLAINT. 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.. 6
PROCESS FOLLOWED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION.. 6
THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE COMPLAINT: 7
DEPUTY CHIEF PROMOTION PROCESS.. 7
WESTWOOD COMMUNITY MEETING.. 8
THE TEXT MESSAGES.. 9
PEEL CODE OF CONDUCT AND POLICY FRAMEWORK.. 12
FINDINGS.. 14
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. 15
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: 17
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
[1.] Principles Integrity was appointed the Integrity Commissioner for the Region of Peel in January 2018. We are also privileged to serve as Integrity Commissioner for a number of Ontario municipalities. The operating philosophy which guides us in our work with all of our client municipalities is this:
The perception that a community’s elected representatives are operating with integrity is the glue which sustains local democracy. We live in a time when citizens are skeptical of their elected representatives at all levels. The overarching objective in appointing an integrity commissioner is to ensure the existence of robust and effective policies, procedures, and mechanisms that enhance the citizen’s perception that their Council (and local boards) meet established ethical standards and where they do not, there exists a review mechanism that serves the public interest.
[2.] The Region of Peel has as part of its ethical framework a Code of Conduct which is the policy touchstone underlying the assessments conducted in this report. It represents the standard of conduct against which all members of Council are to be measured when there is an allegation of breach of the ethical responsibilities established under the Code of Conduct.
[3.] Integrity commissioners carry out a range of functions for municipalities (and their local boards). They assist in the development of the ethical framework, for example by suggesting content or commentary for codes of conduct. They conduct education and training for members of council and outreach for members of the community. One of the most important functions is the provision of advice and guidance to members to help sort out ethical grey areas or to confirm activities that support compliance. And finally, they investigate complaints that a Member has fallen short of compliance with the municipality’s ethical framework and where appropriate they submit public reports on their findings, and make recommendations, including recommending sanctions, that council for the municipality may consider imposing in giving consideration to that report.
[4.] It is important that this broad range of functions be mentioned at the outset of this investigation report. Our goal, as stated in our operating philosophy, is to help members of the Peel community, indeed the broader municipal sector, to appreciate that elected and appointed representatives generally carry out their functions with integrity. In cases where they do not, there is a proper process in place to make fair assessments. In every case, including this one, the highest objective is to make recommendations that serve the public interest, if there are recommendations to be made.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
[5.] The Peel Regional Police have struggled over the past few years to overcome a public perception of lack of diversity of the force, racism, and systemic discrimination in its promotion practices. As the third largest police force in Canada, the Peel Regional Police has wrestled with public criticism that it fails to adequately reflect the diversity of its communities among its senior officers.
[6.] In April 2017, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dealt with a complaint about whether race was an issue in the failure to recommend a Staff Sergeant for promotion to Inspector in 2013, finding that race was a factor. The case before the Human Rights Commission did not make findings of systemic discrimination within the Police Service. Nevertheless, even before the decision was issued, the Police Service implemented changes to their promotional process, reflecting a commitment to equitable hiring and promotion practices.
[7.] These are criticisms that the Police Services Board has taken seriously.
[8.] In June 2016, the Police Services Board (“the Board”) called for an independent audit of the force’s diversity and equity practices. It had been reported in the media, that in 2010, fewer than 13% of the force’s uniform officers were visible minorities, while only 5% of senior officers were visible minorities. This against a backdrop where 60% of the population of the cities served were visible minorities.
[9.] The Board retained the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (CCDI) to conduct an equity, diversity and inclusion audit of the Peel Regional Police. The report, the Current State Inclusivity Assessment or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Audit, is anticipated to provide an overview of what learnings and observations can be gained from the review of documentation and widespread consultations undertaken by the CCDI. The CCDI Report is due to be presented to the Board this summer.
[10.] The 2017-2019 Police Strategic Plan “A Safer Community Together” sets out this specific objective:
PROVIDE AN INCLUSIVE AND EQUITABLE POLICE SERVICE
We are dedicated to providing an inclusive and equitable police service that our employees and community can be proud of. A consultant will conduct an independent equity audit to review recruiting, hiring and promotional practices and ensure our police service attracts and retains skilled employees who are reflective of our community. To that end, we have met and exceeded standards set by Excellence Canada, and provided bias-free training programs to inform and educate our employees to recognize their own biases.
[11.] It is important to understand our report against the backdrop of the Board working to overcome perceptions of systemic racism on the force and institutionalized discrimination in its promotional practices.
THE COMPLAINT
[12.] On April 6, 2018 we received a complaint filed by the Peel Police Services Board (“the Board”) requesting an investigation into whether alleged conduct by Regional Councillor Parrish contravened the Peel Code of Conduct.
[13.] The complaint from the Police Services Board is as follows:
During the course of its promotion process for Deputy Chief, the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board was made aware of a series of text messages that Councillor Carolyn Parrish sent to Board Chair Sue McFadden regarding then-Superintendent Ingrid Berkeley-Brown. The content of the messages brought into question the character, ability and reputation of Ms. Berkeley-Brown as well as the process by which Peel Regional Police hires and/or promotes officers.
It is the Board’s opinion that these messages were inappropriate and defamatory, accusing the Board of racial bias in its promotion practices and, more importantly, disparaging and discriminating against newly-appointed Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown based on her race and gender.
The Board has considered this matter to be of a serious nature and is obligated to pursue it further. The Board is requesting an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner to determine if the actions of Councillor Parrish are in contravention of the Region of Peel’s Code of Conduct.
[14.] The complaint included five screen shots of the text messages in issue which had been sent from Regional Councilor Parrish to Board Chair McFadden. The five screen shots actually contain three separate text messages, with the two additional screen shots included in order not to cut off parts of the messages. Only one text message discloses the time and date of the message. The three text exchanges in issue are as follows1:
Text A. “Friday, February 16, 9:13 Quite a protest in Malton last night re the closing of the Community police station at Westwood and the re-purposing of it. I had to defend the change because the black female Superintendent is awful! Terrible answers. Weak.”
Text B. [“…with the Chief”] “No. Leave it. Just keep it in the back of your mind. It seems being black and female qualifies people for promotion which is dead wrong. Her last name is hyphenated, something I didn’t catch ending in Brown. Very weak. Will…”
Text C. “… 7:30 tonight. The Deputy Chief appointments blew my mind. Ingrid Berkeley-Brown isn’t the brightest person I’ve ever listened to. Stumbles, bumbles and uses poor grammar at our public meetings. Very poor responding to the public questions…”.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[15.] We find that the statements in the text messages discredit and disparage the character and ability of Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown, suggesting her promotion was based on race and gender rather than her ability, experience and character.
[16.] We find that the statements in the text messages impugn the hiring and promotion practices of the Board.
[17.] We find that the statements made by Regional Councillor Parrish in her text messages to Board Chair McFadden constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
[18.] We find that the statements are in breach of the Peel Code of Conduct.
PROCESS FOLLOWED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION
[19.] In conducting this investigation, Principles Integrity applied the principles of procedural fairness. This fair and balanced process includes the following elements:
Reviewing the Complaint to determine whether it is within scope and jurisdiction and in the public interest to pursue, including giving consideration to whether the Complaint should be restated or narrowed, where this better reflects the public interest
Notifying the Respondent Regional Councillor Parrish of the Complaint and seeking her response
Reviewing the Peel Code of Conduct, Peel Regional Police Policies, including the Peel Regional Police Violence and Harassment in the Workplace Policy
Interviewing witnesses including members of the Peel Police Services Board
Providing the Respondent with an opportunity to review and provide comments regarding the draft findings of the Integrity Commissioner.
[20.] In accordance with the foregoing, on May 29, 2018 we provided Councillor Parrish with our preliminary findings and invited her to provide a response by June 6, 2018.
[21.] On June 6, 2018, Councillor Parrish amongst other things requested an extension for reply to July 29, 2018.
[22.] We responded to Councillor Parrish the same day, noting that the last scheduled Regional Council meeting prior to summer hiatus was July 12, 2018. In accommodating her request for additional time to respond, and also to ensure that any final report that might result could be prepared and submitted to her and to the Regional Clerk by the agenda deadline for the July 12th meeting of Regional Council, we were able to extend the deadline for receiving her response to Tuesday June 26, 2018.
[23.] On June 14, 2018, we received a seven-page letter from Councillor Parrish’s solicitor which voiced preliminary concerns to our findings report and requested additional information be provided prior to the submission of a substantive response.
[24.] Our response to the June 14, 2018 letter was delivered the next day.
[25.] In it, we responded to the preliminary concerns and reiterated our request that any substantive comments or response be received by June 26, 2018. We also explained why additional information would not be provided.
[26.] On June 26, 2018, we received the substantive response from Councillor Parrish’s solicitor, which included a sworn affidavit from the Councillor.
[27.] The process of providing a preliminary findings report, seeking comments, and reflecting upon those comments prior to finalizing a report to Council is a helpful aspect of our process. In this instance it clarified for us that certain findings in our report were being read with an emphasis which was not intended. In addition, some phraseology was being read as inflammatory, which too was not intended. We revisited our report with this in mind.
THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE COMPLAINT:
DEPUTY CHIEF PROMOTION PROCESS
[28.] In the fall of 2017, the Peel Regional Police undertook a process to fill the position left vacant by the retirement of a Deputy Chief. The Board determined that it would conduct an internal search for candidates eligible for promotion.
[29.] The Peel Police Service is a hierarchical organization, headed up by a cadre of Senior Officers, ‘the Command’, which includes the Chief, Deputy Chiefs, Staff Superintendents, Superintendents and Inspectors. The next ranks include Staff Sergeants and Detective Sergeants, Sergeants and Detectives, and Constables.
[30.] Progression through the ranks beyond the rank of Constable is always a competitive process, based on experience, skills and aptitude of the individual. The Service has detailed policies on the criteria for promotion. The process includes selecting candidates who meet the basic eligibility criteria based on experience; an assessment of the individual’s core competencies of leadership, mentoring and interpersonal skills; and an interview.
[31.] On February 9, 2018, the Board conducted interviews of four candidates. All members of the Board, except for one who was unavailable that day, participated in the interviews. Also present were Chief Evans, and the Executive Director of the Board, Robert Serpe.
[32.] At the conclusion of the interviews, the panel agreed that there were two clear front-runners among the candidates. An impromptu discussion ensued among the those present. The Board saw an opportunity to capitalize on the situation by creating an additional Deputy Chief position, re-aligning functions among what would be four, instead of three, Deputy Chiefs.
[33.] On February 9th, immediately following the interviews, the decision was made to promote both Superintendent Marc Andrews and Superintendent Ingrid Berkeley-Brown to Deputy Chief.
[34.] The Board decision was to be kept confidential among the Board members, the Chief and key executive, until publicly announced February 23rd.
WESTWOOD COMMUNITY MEETING
[35.] In the fall of 2017, a decision was made to close the under-utilized Westwood Community police station in Malton. The Westwood Community police station is located within 21 Division. At that time, Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown was the Superintendent for 21 Division.
[36.] The closure decision followed the same process as eight previous similar community police station closures. A community meeting was convened for the evening of February 15, 2018 to respond to community concerns about the closure. Both Superintendent Berkeley-Brown and Councillor Parrish were in attendance to respond to questions from the community.
[37.] At the meeting, an estimated 40 people were in attendance. There were concerns raised about a lack of public consultation/communication with the community in regard to the closure. The under-utilization was explained to residents, as well as the opportunity for redeployment of police resources. Arrangements were made with the Westwood Mall for officers to continue using space for breaks, and in this way the community was assured that the continued presence of officers and cruisers would ensure a visible police presence in the community.
[38.] As is noted below, Councillor Parrish assessed then-Superintendent Berkeley-Brown’s performance at the February 15, 2018 meeting to be severely lacking. In her view, which was supported by Councillor Carlson who was also in attendance, the Superintendent was unprepared to answer questions from the community, and gave answers which in her view aggravated those in attendance.
THE TEXT MESSAGES
[39.] Regional Councillor Sue McFadden is a member, and the Chair, of the Police Services Board.
[40.] On February 16, 2018, the morning following the Westwood Community meeting, Councillor Parrish sent text messages to Councillor McFadden. The text message exchange reads as follows:
Text A. “Friday, February 16, 9:13 Quite a protest in Malton last night re the closing of the Community police station at Westwood and the re-purposing of it. I had to defend the change because the black female Superintendent is awful! Terrible answers. Weak.”
Text B: “[…with the Chief”] “No. Leave it. Just keep it in the back of your mind. It seems being black and female qualifies people for promotion which is dead wrong. Her last name is hyphenated, something I didn’t catch ending in Brown. Very weak. Will…”
[41.] In the course of our investigation, it was suggested that Text B was not part of the same conversation as Text A, but rather was part of a different conversation.
[42.] We conclude on the balance of probabilities that they were part of the same conversation. Although there may be components to that conversation of which we are unaware (for example we have not been able to review the beginning of the message ending with the words ‘with the Chief’ which appears at the beginning of Text B) in our view Text B only makes sense in the context of referencing the Westwood Community meeting at which, from Councillor Parrish’s perspective, Superintendent Berkeley-Brown performed inadequately.
[43.] Upon reading these texts, Chair McFadden made the assumption that Councillor Parrish must have found out about the decision to promote Berkeley-Brown.
[44.] At the time Chair McFadden received the text messages on February 16, she was aware that the Board had decided to promote Superintendent Berkeley-Brown as one of two new Deputy Chiefs. Although the decision had been made, it was being kept confidential. Only the members of the Board, the Chief, and two other Deputy Chiefs were aware (these two needed to know, due to some organizational changes required to implement an additional Deputy Chief position). Even the candidates themselves were unaware until the date of the public announcement.
[45.] With this in mind, Chair McFadden concluded that Councillor Parrish was attempting to influence the selection process. Councillor Parrish unequivocally denies knowing that a promotional process for Deputy Chief was underway at the time.
[46.] Neither Councillor was able to provide us with screen shots of any of the text messages which were sent immediately before or after the text messages we reviewed.23 and the service provider has advised that they do not retain the content of text messages. In any event, we are satisfied that no response or further exchange could mitigate the statements in the texts provided.
[47.] It is Councillor Parrish’s recollection that Chair McFadden did not take issue with Councillor Parrish’s comments in the exchange of texts; did not suggest that Councillor Parrish express her views through other channels; did not reject Councillor Parrish’s views regarding Superintendent Berkeley-Brown’s performance; and did not comment or inquire as to how Councillor Parrish might have learned about a confidential promotion process.
[48.] Without access to all of the texts it is not possible to fully assess Councillor McFadden’s responses. The absence of those texts has placed some limitation on our ability to be certain of the full conversation.
[49.] Councillor Parrish’s explanation for the texts is that she was upset following what she perceived as the mishandling and fumbling by Superintendent Berkeley-Brown of the Westwood Community Meeting, and sent Texts A and B in a moment of anger. We understood her to say that she is outspoken, and quick with her comments but she believes she is entitled to speak her mind bluntly, even if it sometimes upsets or offends. We understood her view that, although the comment could be seen as racist and offensive, she does not perceive herself as racist. We also conclude she had no idea Councillor McFadden was going to share her comments with anybody, much less the entire Police Services Board or Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown.
[50.] The last line of the preceding message (to Text B) from Chair McFadden to Councillor Parrish ends with the words “with the Chief.” This was, as we understand from Chair McFadden, the last line of the responding text from Chair McFadden which offered to have a conversation with the Chief in regard to the comments about the Westwood Community meeting. The opening line of Text B is: “No. Leave it. Just keep it in the back of your mind”.
[51.] In reading Text B, regardless of Councillor Parrish’s intention, it was not unreasonable for Chair McFadden to conclude that the sender was aware of the possibility, if not the fact, that Superintendent Berkeley-Brown was in line for promotion to Deputy Chief. The comment “Just keep it in the back of your mind” suggests this was the case.
[52.] What follows is the comment that disparages and discredits the Board’s hiring and promotion process: “It seems being black and female qualifies people for promotion which is dead wrong.”
[53.] While all three text messages are disparaging of Superintendent (now Deputy Chief) Berkeley-Brown’s abilities, Text B by being disparaging of the Board’s promotional process, discredits the Board, and suggests that a female candidate of colour who gets promoted at the Peel Regional Police, has only achieved this as a result of racial- and gender-biased promotional practices, and not on merit or ability.
[54.] The sentiment expressed in Text B cannot be excused as simply intemperate language. It reflects an accusation against the Board, and a smear against every female officer of colour that she has not earned her rank.
[55.] It has been suggested that the text messages were confidential, intended only as part of a private conversation. We note that texts sent between Councillors are subject to retention and potentially disclosure under provincial legislation, and would be considered business records of the municipality.
[56.] The texts were not intended by Councillor Parrish to be shown by Chair McFadden to others. However, the text messages, arriving in the midst of a recruit, disturbed Chair McFadden who perceived them as evidence of a leak which established in her mind an obligation to share the communication with her fellow Board members.
[57.] On February 23, before the 10:00 a.m. Board meeting at which the Deputy Chief promotions would be publicly announced, the text messages, Texts A and B, were shared by Chair McFadden with the members of the Board present at the time. The initial concern about a perceived leak was quickly replaced around the table with shock and disgust at the disparaging, racist and discriminatory significance of the comments.
[58.] Chair McFadden advised the Board that she had, that same day, shared the texts with the new Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown. Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown was shocked and appalled at the comments.
[59.] Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown has earned a reputation as a solid leader, through her abilities, experience, and character, in a career that spans 32 years at the Peel Regional Police. She is by all accounts smart, knowledgeable and hard-working, and we have no reason not to conclude she won the promotion on her merit, through a broad-based competition.
[60.] Regardless of her intention, the text messages sent by Councilor Parrish cast aspersions on the basis of the Superintendent’s performance at a single community meeting. The Board’s decision to promote the Superintendent was based on the broad-based assessment of the Chief and the Board.
[61.] In any event, once they knew of the text messages, the Board recognized that the situation required appropriate action, not only on behalf of the Deputy Chief whose reputation was disparaged, but on behalf of the members of the Police Service whose achievements the comments diminished, and also the Board, whose members have been working hard to reverse the public perception of the Peel Regional Police as an employer who turns a blind eye to discrimination.
[62.] This is how a brief text exchange between Council colleagues resulted in an integrity commissioner’s investigation and the making of this public report.
PEEL CODE OF CONDUCT AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
[63.] In determining whether sending the text messages constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct, the following provisions are relevant:
A. Application and Purpose:
ii. The Peel Regional Council Code of Conduct (hereinafter after known as the Code) is Council’s statement governing the conduct of its Chair and Members of Council in the performance of their official functions and reflects Council’s commitment to meet the community’s expectations of transparent, accountable and ethical conduct.
iv. The purpose of the Code is to provide the basis upon which any person, including other Members of Regional Council, may promote high standards of ethical conduct of the Regional Chair and Members of Council through a direct referral, or recourse to public opinion.
C. Guiding Principles
vi. The Regional Chair and Members of Council will be fair and respectful of differences and have a duty to work together for goodwill, the common good and the public interest.
E. Legislative Environment
i. Federal and Provincial Legislative Requirements and Municipal By-laws
Federal and provincial laws and municipal by-laws outline legal authorities, obligations and unlawful activity. The Regional Chair and Members of Council are responsible under this Code to be aware of and to understand the legal obligations affecting them as individual office holders.
The Regional Chair and Members of Council are governed individually or collectively by federal and provincial legislation including:
J. Relations with the Corporation, Council and Staff
iv. The Regional Chair and Members of Council will not defame the reputation of the Region, its Council, its collective administration or its employees on any basis which the member is not willing and prepared to substantiate to the Council sitting in open session.
v. The Regional Chair and Members of Council will conduct themselves with decorum demonstrating respect towards colleagues and staff and avoid behavior that could be interpreted as bullying and/or harassment.
[64.] Included by reference in the Code of Conduct, the Ontario Human Rights Code is also applicable.
[65.] Under the Human Rights Code, every person has the right to be free from racial discrimination and harassment in their place of employment. Racial harassment and discrimination can arise from a behaviour or comment which has a negative effect on an individual or group because of personal characteristics, in particular those grounds protected under the Human Rights Code (race, creed, colour, sex…) unrelated to the person’s abilities.
[66.] As noted, the overarching objective in appointing an integrity commissioner is to ensure the existence of robust and effective policies, procedures, and mechanisms that enhance the citizen’s perception that their Council (and local boards) meet established ethical standards and where they do not, there exists a review mechanism that serves the public interest. Our primary focus is therefore always the public interest. Where the Peel Regional Police have been making significant efforts to improve their reputation, and the Police Services Board is trying so hard to turn around the public perception of systemic racism and institutionalized discrimination, Members of Council ought to recognize that words matter.
[67.] If this were simply a minor indiscretion, an intemperate comment, it might be resolved with an apology and a commitment to govern oneself more carefully. But the sentiments expressed in Text A and Text B are not easily amenable to such a resolution. The categorical discounting of the Board’s promotional process, the implication that women of colour who are promoted have not earned it, are far more than merely indiscreet or intemperate language. The comments cut to the core of the very changes the Board is seeking to implement. If an apology were contemplated, to whom would the apology be offered? To the Board? to the Police force? To Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown? Or to the people of the community, who look to their elected representatives not only for leadership and wisdom, but for integrity, respect and compassion.
[68.] The Board has felt, and we agree, that the matter is serious enough to warrant action.
FINDINGS
[69.] We find that the statements made by Regional Councillor Parrish in her text messages to Board Chair McFadden constitute discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and in breach of the Peel Code of Conduct.
[70.] In particular, the comment “It seems being black and female qualifies people for promotion which is dead wrong” is disparaging of the subject, Superintendent Berkeley-Brown. The statement suggests that she was promoted because of racially and gender-biased promotional policies, and not for her abilities. We find that the statement has a negative effect on an individual and on a group because of personal characteristics unrelated to the person’s abilities. We find this constitutes discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
[71.] We find that the statement targets not only Superintendent (now Deputy Chief) Berkeley-Brown, but also other women of colour within the Police Service, and the Board’s promotional practices. We find that this contravenes the Code of Conduct, in particular Part I, paragraphs i, Ontario Human Rights Code We find that the statements in the text messages impugn the hiring and promotion practices of the Board, and are in breach of the Peel Code of Conduct.
[72.] Members of the Police Service are also employees of the Regional Municipality of Peel, and as such, Members of Regional Council have an obligation under the Code of Conduct to cultivate a respectful workplace. This includes not disparaging members of the workforce through callous, disrespectful and inappropriate comments.
[73.] We find that the statements in the text messages discredit and disparage the character and ability of Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown, suggesting her promotion to Superintendent (and subsequently to Deputy Chief) was based on race and sex rather than her ability, experience and character, and are in breach of the Peel Code of Conduct.
[74.] We find that the statements, taken together, contravene the Code of Conduct, in particular, Part J, paragraphs iv and v as cited above.
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
[75.] An Integrity Commissioner’s investigation report is not simply the conclusion of a technical exercise to determine whether there has been a breach of codified standards of behaviour. This report is not simply the sum total of analysis of fact and policy. We are not simply assigned the duty of bringing adjudication to grievances between individuals.
[76.] The proper function of an integrity commissioner’s report is to illustrate, if there have been transgressions, where the behaviour of elected officials has fallen below the accepted standard. The integrity commissioner is required to administer a fair process to draw findings from relevant evidence, to articulate clearly how the findings and evidence relate to the public interest, and to act as a proxy for the ‘Reasonable Person’ to conclude whether the community’s standards have been breached and if so, to recommend what should be done about it. The integrity commissioner is not simply in place to find fault (or to find that there has been no fault). The role is as much about education as it is about adjudication, so that municipal government can function better, and that members of the public are able to gain confidence that their municipal council is operating with integrity.
[77.] The integrity commissioner may recommend that certain sanctions be imposed when a complaint has been sustained. The purpose of a sanction is to reinforce Council’s ethical framework. In other words, the Code of Conduct must have ‘teeth’.
[78.] Not every circumstance of a sustained complaint results in a recommendation of a sanction.
[79.] Regardless of whether Councillor Parrish was aware of it, the text exchange occurred in the midst of a promotional process under which Superintendent Berkeley-Brown was being considered for Deputy Chief. That circumstance influenced Chair McFadden to bring Councillor Parrish’s texts to the attention of the Police Services Board, and influenced the Board to submit a formal complaint to the Integrity Commissioner.
[80.] Having made the findings we did at paragraphs [69] to [74], the question becomes, what is the appropriate remedy in these circumstances?
[81.] Boiled down to its most essential components, regardless of motivation or justification, Councillor Parrish’s choice of words used in reference to the performance and status of Deputy Chief Berkeley-Brown was offensive. This is especially so in the context of the background beginning at paragraph [5] in this report which describes the efforts Peel Regional Police have made to overcome a perception of lack of diversity of the force, racism, and systemic discrimination in promotional practices
[82.] What then, is the appropriate remedy?
[83.] As we noted at the outset (paragraph [4] of this report) “In every case… the highest objective is to make recommendations that serve the public interest, if there are recommendations to be made.”
[84.] There is little to guide integrity commissioners in the formulation of recommended sanctions. Though the Municipal Act contemplates a reprimand or the suspension of pay for up to 90 days, those options on their own seem inadequate to remedy the matter at hand.
[85.] A monetary penalty, although not remedial, can have a salutary effect and serve as a deterrent. In this regard, we would admonish the Councillor to be more mindful of blunt, and intemperate comments.
[86.] We are of the view that the offensive text messages were so unacceptable that regardless of the motive or intention, a penalty is warranted to clearly send the message that such behaviours fall below the standard expected of the community’s elected representatives.
[87.] Recognizing the principles of progressive discipline which are applied when employees are sanctioned for violating policies in the course of their employment, we feel it appropriate that a nominal penalty be imposed for this violation.
[88.] In this case we recommend a 5-day suspension of pay.
[89.] More importantly, we believe that this investigation highlights the need for a greater understanding on the part of Councillor Parrish, and perhaps other Regional councillors, that if ever it was in some circles tolerable, it is no longer acceptable to even casually undermine the accomplishments of persons on the basis of their colour, sex, or any other prohibited grounds.
[90.] Much as the coffee chain Starbucks has done in response to a single incident, and as a preventative measure, we therefore also recommend that Peel Regional Council engage a qualified person to provide sensitivity training which includes exploration of sex- and race- based biases.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
[91.] It is recommended:
That the remuneration paid to Carolyn Parrish as a Member of Peel Regional Council be suspended for a period of five (5) days; and
That Peel Regional Council engage a qualified person to provide sensitivity training to Councillor Parrish, and at their option other members of Peel Regional Council, which training at minimum includes the subjects of sex- and race- based biases.
[92.] We wish to conclude by publicly thanking everyone who was asked to participate in our investigation. We express genuine appreciation for the sharing of time, knowledge and opinions by everyone concerned. Our task would have been much more difficult had there been a reluctance to contribute.
[93.] We will be pleased to be in attendance when this report is considered to answer any questions Council may have relating to its contents.
Issue Date: Tuesday July 3, 2018
Footnotes
- Neither Chair McFadden or the Respondent retained the original text messages, aside from these screen shots, on their respective devices nor were the conversations preserved in hard copy.
- The deleted portions of the text exchanges are not retrievable directly by the Region or the City of Mississauga because they were never in their custody on the information technology systems maintained by them. Only the service provider has the capability of retrieving the messages, and it has advised that they do not remain on its systems.
- In our view the texts, in that they dealt with Regional business, should have been retained by both Councillor Parrish and Chair McFadden, and only discarded in accordance with the Region of Peel Records Retention By-law.