LAURIE WEIR
Following a closed-door meeting (in-camera) on Aug. 12 regarding a report by the Integrity Commissioner, Rideau Lakes councillors have decided to kick this one under the rug.
Because they voted against bringing it to the Sept. 3 meeting for open discussion, the report won’t see the light of day – at least not at this time.
The motion on the floor was that the municipality receive the Integrity Commissioner’s report regarding a complaint and direct staff to place it on the next council agenda for debate and consideration.
Mayor Arie Hoogenboom said his understanding of the legislation is that it’s a legal requirement to put this report on an open public meeting agenda.
“I would caution council if we agree not to do that then we are contradicting the Municipal Act,” he said.
Coun. Jeff Banks (who was remote) said that he would accept the report but that there be no further action.
Deputy Mayor Maxwell asked if a member of the public could put in a complaint against the township for not following the procedure.
The mayor said he was not familiar with what the process would be if they didn’t follow provincial legislation.
“The provincial government may, if they’re monitoring any of this, (or) maybe the ombudsman would question council if that’s the direction we go,” Hoogenboom said.
Coun. Deborah Anne Hutchings said she didn’t agree “with what has come down the pipe.”
Coun. Paula Banks (also remote) said the whole issue “started with an inappropriate investigation of a councillor. I’m not going to support the findings. It was very flawed, in my opinion. It was inappropriate and I think it was a personal vendetta. I do not believe the findings are true.”
Chief administrative officer Shellee Fournier said the report has to be made public, but how that’s done is up to council. It could go on an agenda, the township’s website, or it could be prepared for members of the public to pick up a copy at the office.
“What does need to be debated is any sort of penalty that may have been recommended by the Integrity Commissioner,” Fournier said. “That needs to be debated in open session.”
When it came time for the vote, Coun. Joan Delaney, and Maxwell both voted yes stating it’s part of the legal process to do so.
“If we don’t, we’re going to be in trouble, I think,” Maxwell said.
Coun. Linda Carr declared a conflict of interest on the motion, so only eight council members voted on the issue.
They, along with the mayor, were the three members of council to vote yes.
The remaining councillors voted no, so the report will not be brought forward for further debate at this time.
In a follow-up email with the CAO, Fournier stated to her knowledge, council could “do nothing,” or a member of council could bring forward a motion to reconsider the matter and the vote is changed. The third option is that “the Ombudsman gets involved and encourages (maybe orders) the township to make the document public.”
Both the Ombudsman’s office and the Integrity Commissioner have been contacted for comment.
It will probably just be something petty brought forward by Grassroots.
Grassroots doesn’t do the actual investigation. If it was something petty the IC would have made that finding. If that was the finding and the complaint was unsubstantiated, I doubt they would go to this extreme to cover that up.
I, for one, would like to know the issue. I have found in the past that this council is a bit headstrong and makes expensive decisions without sufficient investigation.
I know some of the significant facts of the case but will not comment on them other than to say, as did one of the Councillors already in this reporting, that this was a completely unsubtantiated claim and a flawed process was followed. It was noted that the Mayor and two councillors voted to make the Report public based on their understanding of the Provincial ‘rules’, but that this also supports their collective position based purely on politics on many previous Council item votes which were in opposition to other members of Council. This investigation smells and the case circumstances, in my opinion to the extent that I am accurately informed in the matter, did not warrant an investigation be called by Council involving the Integrity Commissioner. This is the height of justice denied when, by process, the accused does not have the opportunity to make their case and know all parties and aspects of the case going forward. It appears to me to be democracy denied by petty politics and a few municipal politicians with an axe to grind.