TEHKUMMAH—The Thursday, June 15 regular council meeting of the Township of Tehkummah started early, at 5:30 pm, with a significant agenda of around 50 items to be dealt with. The first main item of business, following the opening of the meeting and a prayer by Reeve Eric Russell and the approval of the minutes of the May 2 meeting of council, was a delegation from the township’s newly appointed integrity commissioner, Toronto lawyer George Rust-D’eye regarding a proposed code of conduct for the council.
Councillor Paul Bowerman requested that votes on all motions be recorded.
The delegation and review of the code of conduct lasted until after 8 pm.
Mr. Rust-D’eye began his delegation outlining his considerable experience in municipal law, having been called to the bar 43 years ago and spending the past 40 years of his practice in that field. “Almost entirely on the side of municipalities,” he said. He noted that a soon-to-be passed bill in the legislature would require all municipalities to have a code of conduct. Currently there are 84 municipalities in the province with a code of conduct and nine of those municipalities have Mr. Rust-D’eye as an integrity commissioner.
Mr. Rust-D’eye invited any member of the council, staff or member of the public to ask questions. “I like answering questions,” he said. “I like assisting people.”
The lawyer went on to explain the general source of authority of municipal councils, which act as a creature of the province and are enacted through provincial legislation and remain under the care and control of provincial legislation.
“A municipality enacts its own bylaws,” he said, which are in themselves a form of legislation, although not with the force of criminal penalty. “In the late 1990s, the province of Ontario adopted a new approach to municipal government.” That new approach stressed accountability and transparency. “Municipalities are elected by the people and govern in the public interest.”
As part of that new approach, legislation should be “clear to the people reading it,” he said. “There was a tradition of bylaws being too complicated.”
But the new legislation went even further, continued Mr. Rust-D’Eye. “Municipalities must not only act in the public interest, but also must appear to act in the public interest.”
Mr. Rust-D’eye said that one of his principle roles as integrity commissioner is to receive complaints from the public. “I do not act for the municipality,” he cautioned. “As an integrity commissioner I deal with councillors, not council as a whole.”
One change in the way the role is now interpreted, he said, was that in the past all complaints had to be written out. That is not necessarily the case now. In fact, Mr. Rust D’eye can even act without any complaint at all being officially registered, guided by what he sees as a potential issue facing councillors. But not all complaints have to be major official investigations or inquiries.
“Very often I can deal with complaints by talking to the parties,” he said. “But if someone wants to file a complaint, it must be in writing.”
Once a complaint is filed, Mr. Rust-D’eye must then assess that complaint to determine if it is serious enough to warrant intervention. “Can it be solved quickly? Most of the time it can.”
Mr. Rust-D’eye dealt with an aside at this point in his presentation. “I want to confirm right now that the Township of Tehkummah has an excellent clerk-treasurer,” he said, referring to Karen Gerrard. “You are very fortunate.” As the main record keeper of the municipality the clerk treasurer has a number of statutory obligations, he went on to note. “Ms. Gerrard has been of tremendous assistance.”
As to the code of conduct presented at the meeting, Mr. Rust-D’Eye said that the document “must be something that the councillors can live with.”
He went on to say that a lot of councils spend a lot of time “fiddling with details they don’t need to.” Mr. Rust-D’eye then indicated that he was going to go through the code of conduct in detail.
A question from the floor asked if the code of conduct “was going to control the councillors” and make them work in the public interest “instead of following their own agenda.”
“It is desirable to work together,” said Mr. Rust-D’eye, but he added the caveat “you can’t force people to get along.” He admitted that in the case of councillors acting poorly, “there is not a lot I can do.” He noted that in some instances he had even witnessed council meetings degenerating into fistfights and violence. “People were looking to me saying ‘can’t you stop this?’” Mr. Rust-D’eye is a very senior lawyer, with a less than intimidating appearance or demeanor.
“If you don’t work together, then the township won’t exist,” he said. “Any member of the public is free to make an address to council. Send a document in writing. I strongly urge, if you have a complaint, make it in writing.”
Mr. Rust-D’eye went on to explain that “if the code of conduct is passed by council, it becomes law. It doesn’t get dealt with in provincial court, it is dealt with on council.”
In the case of a violation of the code, the integrity commissioner produces a report in the form of a public document. “That, to me, is the key,” he said. “I am an independent officer, not beholdened to any. I have in the past insulted councillors, that’s tough.”
Most of his work is done by telephone or email, he said. “I have seen a lot of bad press, it doesn’t matter. How can I solve the problem in the most reasonable and appropriate manner? I am good at it. I am here to serve, just as council is here to serve.”
The conversation moved on to the composition and procedures of the town’s recent hiring committee. In response to an assertion by Councillor Laurie Leeson that the hiring committee had not been formed by the council, Mr. Rust-D’eye noted that the town already had a bylaw that governed the composition of the hiring committee, which clearly indicates that the clerk treasurer and town foreman sit on the committee. A fact he described as “wholly appropriate.”
Councillor Bowerman then interjected that he was “fed up” with how the business of the municipality has been historically conducted. He made general allegations of nepotism and actions and decisions being made without the input from all of council.
“Decisions are supposed to be made at the council table, not in a coffee shop or a garage,” he said. “Things have been purchased without motions, resolutions have been changed in order to get government funding.” Councillor Bowerman did not give specific examples or evidence of his assertions. “I am tired of dodging the bullet,” he said, alleging that he has been the target of harassment. “No matter how transparent I try to be, it is not good enough.” Mr. Bowerman said that he hoped that the code of conduct would help deal with those issues.
But in a later exchange in response to a challenge by Councillor Leeson, he asserted “this council doesn’t want a code of conduct, they want one that shuts me up.”
The conversation continued to revolve around the hiring policy and the role of the clerk treasurer in that process.
“Does she get a vote?” asked one member of the public, referencing Ms. Gerrard and her role on the hiring committee.
“Basically the answer is yes,” replied Mr. Rust-D’eye. “Unless council says otherwise, quorum is the majority of the committee.”
Conversation then moved on to the actions taken in the course of the last hiring committee sessions, with Councillor Bowerman repeating his allegations that he had been asked if he had voted twice by the reeve.
“I didn’t do that,” responded Reeve Russell. To which Councillor Bowerman replied “yes you did.”
The lawyer then interjected to point out that any gathering by members of council, whether by phone, sequentially or all at once, “even if a meeting is not called or advertised, is a meeting. If it is a series of phone calls, emails, if it discusses town business, it is a meeting.”
Mr. Rust-D’eye then dropped a bit of a bombshell. “That is an illegal meeting.”
But unless the matter were to end up in court, there is also little recourse to dealing with the issue.
The question then becomes a matter of public exposure of the practices. “When the public gets wind of it, especially if it is just before an election…”
Enforcement otherwise is very problematic. “You can’t listen to every phone call,” he said. Following further discussion, Mr. Rust-D’eye reiterated that “primarily it is the press” and the exposure they provide that calls councils to account.
There are some sanctions available to council as a whole to rein in maverick councillors, including docking of pay and removal from committees.
Several audience members interjected to demand that council get on with the business of governing the township and asked if there was a way to force council’s hand on issues. “You can’t force councillors to vote,” said the integrity commissioner.
One audience member noted that a media report on a council meeting “contradicts what they said here. Is this false news or what? All we want is for council to do their job.”
Councillor Bowerman continued to reference decisions that were made without the input of council.
Discussion then turned back to the hiring process.
Councillor Laird Lee noted that the council has had a great deal of policy and procedure issues from multiple years dropped on them all at once. “If there is no clear policy or procedure, everybody goes by the way it has always been done,” he said. He went on to note that in the volatile atmosphere that has developed at the council table “you judge the motion,” looking for the ulterior motive or where it is coming from rather than its intent. He went on to say that he values everyone at the council table.
For his part Councillor Lee relayed an error he had made in attempting to do his job as councillor when he requested private information that he was not entitled to as a councillor. “Hats off to you,” he said, referring to the clerk treasurer. “I got smacked.”
The audience members again challenged the councillors to do their job. One audience member asked why there was a high turnover among employees. “Why have we gone through three road superintendents in eight years? One only lasted three weeks.”
At this point an audience member asked why he was taken off the agenda. “You know why you were taken off,” replied Reeve Russell. “That’s between him and me.”
The complainant, Jim Fawcett, then made a formal written complaint to the integrity commissioner, supplying the press with a copy of the email communication between himself and the reeve.
“Karen regretfully informed me that I will not be on the agenda for the meeting,” reads the first line, followed by the query “can you inform me by correspondence why you don’t feel my concerns are valid to the ratepayers of Tehkummah?”
The reeve’s reply, also by email, read “Why would you think I would consider adding you to the agenda after that letter you wrote to the Expositor? If you were to issue a formal written apology I might consider your request in the future. Until then, just know that I don’t tell lies and I don’t play games.” The reply was signed simply ‘Eric.’
The meeting continued with some further injections, but in the end council voted to pass the code of conduct by a recorded vote of four to one. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Councillor Leeson.
A correspondence item in the package that was not addressed at the meeting was a response from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (MMA) to a petition from the ratepayers indicating that the minister would not order a provincial-municipal audit of the financial affairs of the township, but that the clerk treasurer had been contacted by the office of the MMA Advisor and that the ministry would be sending “at least three people (legal advisor, policy advisor and financial advisor) to spend at least a week at the municipal office. Once the review is completed, the staff will report back to the minister and the report will be available to council and the public.”
