Formal Name of Municipality
The City of Hamilton
Style of Cause
Selection Committee Confidentiality Breach (Re), 2024 ONMIC 7
Date of Report
March 1, 2024
Name of Integrity Commissioner
David G. Boghosian
Pinpoint link on municipality’s website where report is reference in online Minutes of Council, committee, or board
CITY OF HAMILTON INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER, DAVID G. BOGHOSIAN
REPORT ON COMPLAINT
Introduction
1This report addresses a complaint submitted by City Council to me pursuant to a resolution made at its December 13, 2023 meeting concerning a breach of the City of Hamilton Code of Conduct for Councillors (“COC”) related to the disclosure of confidential information from one or more closed session meetings of the Selection Committee (“the Complaint”).
The Complaint
Background
2On November 9, 2023, the previous Hamilton Integrity Commissioner (“IC”) forwarded to me a complaint filed by Councillor Cassar on September 9, 2023 which it had not been able to investigate and report on prior to the expiration of its term. The Complaint appended a letter from a Hamilton lawyer, Douglas Burns, dated August 30, 2023 and indicated that it contained details of deliberations of the Selection Committee that could only have been learned in closed session Selection Committee Meetings. The letter asked the IC to investigate how the lawyer had acquired this information. The Complaint further suggested that the IC speak to Loren Kolar of the Clerks Department who was the Legislative Coordinator responsible for the Selection Committee for more information.
3I spoke with Councillor Cassar on November 17, 2023. He advised me that he was not submitting the Complaint personally but on behalf of the Selection Committee in his capacity as Chair of that Committee and that the Committee had resolved to have him forward the Complaint to me on its behalf. I advised him that pursuant to s. 13(1) of the COC, I could only investigate a Complaint made by the Council, a Member of Council, an officer or employee of the City, or any member of the public, not one brought by a Committee of Council.
4On December 20, 2023, Ms. Kolar sent me a Complaint submitted by Council pursuant to a resolution made at its December 13, 2023 meeting. The Complaint was as follows:
On September 12, 2023 and September 15, 2023, the Selection Committee received the attached correspondence from A. Douglas Burns, Burns Associates, regarding the deliberations of applications for the Committee of Adjustment. It is believed that there was a disclosure of confidential information from closed session meetings of the Selection Committee, regarding deliberations of applications for the Committee of Adjustment, which formed the basis of the complaint in the letter.
5The Complaint did not specifically reference any section of the COC alleged to be violated; however, it was clear it was alleging a breach of s. 5 of the COC, which generally prohibits the disclosure by one or more councillors of matters that have been discussed at, or learned as a result of deliberations at, an in camera meeting, or are otherwise confidential.
6The Complaint did not identify any particular councillor as the “target” of the investigation; rather, the Complaint asks the IC to investigate to determine who may have disclosed confidential information learned at an in camera meeting, and then investigate that individual. While somewhat novel, I have determined that I have jurisdiction to investigate the Complaint on the basis of first determining whether a COC breach has occurred and then to determine whether any councillor was responsible for the breach.
7Section 13(1) of the COC provides as follows:
…“Complaint” includes a request made by the Council, a Member of Council, an officer or employee of the City, or any member of the public, as to whether or not a Member has contravened one or more of the provisions of this Code of Conduct, or requesting that the Integrity Commissioner conduct an inquiry into conduct alleged to have contravened the Code. [emphasis added]
8I interpret the second clause of this section to authorize me to investigate potential conduct contravening the COC regardless whether a particular councillor is implicated. I say this because if that were not the case, the second clause would be redundant, as the first clause specifically addresses the situation of a complaint against a particular councillor. I therefore find that I have jurisdiction to investigate the Complaint notwithstanding that no particular councillor was initially identified as having breached the Code.
Letters from Douglas Burns
9Two letters were received from Mr. Burns, one dated August 30, 2023 and the other dated September 11, 2023.
10The August 30th letter does not identify who Mr. Burns was representing. It complained about the process for selecting members of the Hamilton Committee of Adjustments (“COA”) by the Selection Committee. It made a number of assertions, including the following:
The number of applicants who applied for appointment to the COA by the original deadline for applications;
The number of additional applicants who applied for appointment to the COA after the original deadline was extended;
The fact that no existing COA members were “considered” or “chosen” for another term;
The particular voting pattern amongst Committee members for COA candidates;
Only 5 of the 9 current COA members were mentioned by name. These happened to be the 5 who had applied for re-appointment but who had not been granted interviews.
11The September 11th letter, which also does not identify who Mr. Burns is representing, made the following assertions of note:
The Committee failed to grant interviews for COA positions to well-qualified applicants;
The Selection Committee was unfair and biased.
Investigation
Interview with Loren Kolar
12I spoke with Ms. Kolar on November 13, 2023. She is the Legislative Coordinator for the Selection Committee. She indicated that information regarding the number of applicants initially and then after the extended deadline, who were granted interviews for COA positions and who were ultimately selected was only shared in confidential emails to Selection Committee members or could only have been learned at closed session meetings of the Committee (all deliberations of the Selection Committee are held in camera so as not to disclose who the candidates were). She advised that she had not disclosed any such information to anyone who was not on the Selection Committee.
13She indicated that some of the information in the Burns letters was inaccurate, including the claim that no existing COA members were considered or chosen for re-appointment and the voting pattern of Committee members that was alleged. Regarding the latter, she indicated that there was no formal voting for candidates by Committee members and all decisions were reached by consensus.
14Finally, she suggested that I speak with Jamila Sheffield of the COA as she believed Jamila had some information that would interest me.
Interview with Jamila Sheffield
15I spoke with Ms. Sheffield on November 13, 2023. She is the Secretary Treasurer of the COA. She advised me that at a meeting of the COA on June 29, 2023, following the conclusion of the hearings for the day, the COA members who were present met and discussed the issue of the respective re-appointments to the COA and made derisive comments about the Selection Committee, and discussed the fact that a majority