You are here
Inquiry Judge Says That Ethical Obligations Go Beyond Ethics Law Provisions
Monday, July 12th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
There's an interesting issue at the heart of a judicial inquiry into
possible misconduct by the mayor of Mississauga, Ontario. The council
sought the inquiry to “investigate any supposed breach of trust or
other misconduct of a Member of Council, an employee of the
municipality or person having a contract with the municipality” and to
inquire into “any matter connected with the good government of the
municipality or the conduct of any part of its public business." In
short, it is an open-ended inquiry into multiple matters relating to
two
deals in which the mayor was involved.
According to an article in the Toronto Star, the mayor sought to have the judge narrow the inquiry to handling conflicts of interest as described in Ontario's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, that is, only participation at a council meeting, not outside of such meetings. The judge rejected this narrowing with a wonderful speech on local government ethics:
In other words, the classic difference between ethics and law. The official wants only the strict requirements of ethics law to apply, and the council and judge act as if they are only minimum requirements.
It is certainly in the mayor's interest to limit the inquiry to matters before the council, because part of what the mayor is accused of is meeting privately with parties to a deal that involved her son's company and the municipal employees pension plan. Since there is no law that expressly deals with using your position to help your son get a deal through, she feels that these meetings should not be considered as possibly unethical.
The bottom line for me is what an employee of the subsidiary of the municipal pension plan involved in the deal wrote to the head of the pension plan, “I don’t trust the buyer, and there is no doubt they are using [the mayor] in this process, but it is difficult to tell her that, especially with her son involved.”
It should never be difficult for a city employee to tell the mayor something because her son is involved. Her son should not be involved in a deal that is important to the city (this was a big hotel-convention center development), and if he has to be, the mayor should disclose the fact publicly, have nothing to do with the matter publicly or privately, and allow the council to assign someone who is not answerable to her to be the city's representative with respect to the development.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the Toronto Star, the mayor sought to have the judge narrow the inquiry to handling conflicts of interest as described in Ontario's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, that is, only participation at a council meeting, not outside of such meetings. The judge rejected this narrowing with a wonderful speech on local government ethics:
-
Members of city council are entrusted by those who elect them to act in
the public interest. Optics are important. In other words, members of a
municipal council must conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid any
reasonable apprehension that their personal interest could in any way
influence their elected responsibility. Suffice it to say that members
of council (and staff) are not to use their office to promote private
interests, whether their own or those of relatives or friends. They
must be unbiased in the exercise of their duties. That is not only the
common law, but the common-sense standard by which the conduct of
municipal representatives ought to be judged. ... When Mayor McCallion
swore her oath or declaration of office yet again on Dec. 4, 2006, she
agreed inter alia to ‘... truly, faithfully and impartially exercise
this office....' She did not simply say she would abide by the
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
In other words, the classic difference between ethics and law. The official wants only the strict requirements of ethics law to apply, and the council and judge act as if they are only minimum requirements.
It is certainly in the mayor's interest to limit the inquiry to matters before the council, because part of what the mayor is accused of is meeting privately with parties to a deal that involved her son's company and the municipal employees pension plan. Since there is no law that expressly deals with using your position to help your son get a deal through, she feels that these meetings should not be considered as possibly unethical.
The bottom line for me is what an employee of the subsidiary of the municipal pension plan involved in the deal wrote to the head of the pension plan, “I don’t trust the buyer, and there is no doubt they are using [the mayor] in this process, but it is difficult to tell her that, especially with her son involved.”
It should never be difficult for a city employee to tell the mayor something because her son is involved. Her son should not be involved in a deal that is important to the city (this was a big hotel-convention center development), and if he has to be, the mayor should disclose the fact publicly, have nothing to do with the matter publicly or privately, and allow the council to assign someone who is not answerable to her to be the city's representative with respect to the development.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Visitor (not verified) says:
Sat, 2011-05-21 03:05
Permalink
This is for your interest - not likely worthy of publishing - (I make spelling mistakes)
The current conflict in Lumby began when the former Mayor was approached by "some local residents who suggested 'we' look into the prospect of hosting a correctional faciity." that was 2008. The Mayor stepped down to run as MLA in 2009 and his council member ran for Mayor - (elected in August 2009). In July 2009 (during the election campaign) three remaining councilors went incamera and made a resolution to explore the possibility of a prison for Lumby. This was not disclosed in the election platform or to the public.
In May 2010 after months of meetings behind the scenes - they brought the resolution public and proceeded to try to sell it to the community.
The Mayor claimed he was open and transparent but as far as anyone began to find out (because of intimidation) only one person in town stood to sell his propery for the jail at 3 to 4 million.
After protests etc. they held a non binding referendum and the greater area NO vote won by 56% however, the Mayor decided to reject the rural vote and just go by the 56% yes in the Village - After all that, we now find out that this was started by local residents - well did those residents have that prison info when the council made the resolution in-camera? If so they had secret meeting info when the rest of us did not - it stinks - we have spent months educating the public trying to understand the sales job - wondering why we were treated with such disrespect -
they only had to show to the greater public that they went through a process - lied on the radio - in the newspaper etc. there is lots more - some of us are sick from stress - worn out -
Check our my blog and the link to vimeo - watch the pre meeting videos - they are an eyeopener - and the presentation by Paul Fisher - the mayor responded with a letter and he took the resolution date out of the resolution - denied and denied any responsibility to disclose in-camera prison info until the deal was done and out of incamera . The mayor signed the regular July Minutes as Mayor before he was mayor - The Administrator quit and he was the election officer when the mayor was elected. The Mayor calls that transparent (their prison vote meeting is on vimeo too) it goes on and on. Check out www.lailayuile.com on the prison in Lumby.
Thanks for your good post - I'm using the Judges quote you have here - in an application for an investigation. Hope that's ok with you - hope I do it right - don't now where to get the whole decision - might be handy if you have a link - not sure if anything other than what uu have is important - what to say? I'm collecting the info and loking at how it's laid out
Thanks again - I'll keep you posted - best regards. Priscilla.