KAGAWONG—Billings Township council did everything by the book when it came to the appointment of a new councillor earlier this year. This was the opinion of Expertise For Municipalities (E4M) regarding complaints that had been raised by three township residents to council filling the council vacancy.
“I think generally the concern raised by the local residents is the way council chose to select a new councillor,” said Peggy Young-Lovelace, consultant, governance and community building with E4M Solutions. “They did everything the way they are allowed to; council did nothing in contravention of the Ontario Municipal Act,” she said, noting council had the options of calling for a by-election or appointment of a new councillor.
“Nothing Billings council did contravenes the municipal council code of conduct,” Ms. Young-Lovelace told the Expositor.
As was reported previously, at a Billings election meeting several candidates made presentations to council and members of the public in attendance providing information on their background and why reasons they felt they should be elected. Council then individually voted in favour of the candidate they chose. However, when council voted, there was a tie vote, with candidates John Foster and Ian Anderson receiving the same number of votes. To break the tie, the two candidates’ names were separately put on pieces of paper, with the clerk drawing Mr. Anderson’s name. He was later that evening appointed to council.
On March 28, Ms. Young-Lovelace wrote then Billings Clerk Emily Dance, explaining, “We are writing you regarding two electronic communications received by our office. On February 8 and 9, 2024 we received two emails from members of the public wherein they allege impropriety with the process to fill a vacancy on council. Further, the email received on February 9, 2024, included allegations of corruption.”
“We will not be conducting an inquiry into these matters,” wrote Ms. Young-Lovelace. “Herein are our reasons: 1. The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c.25, (Municipal Act) sets out that a municipal council must fill a vacancy by either appointment or by a by-election. Council has chosen to appoint which is within your authority. There is no contravention of legislation or the Code of Conduct. 2. The Municipal Act does not set out parameters for how a person may be appointed to fill a vacancy. The Municipal Act does provide that the individual being appointed must consent to be appointed and must be eligible to hold the office in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act. Council has the authority to determine how an appointment will be made. Council determined a process and advised the public as to how the appointment would be made. There is no contravention of legislation or the Code of Conduct.”
“The Integrity Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction at law to conduct an inquiry into the behaviour of municipal employees,” wrote the integrity commissioner. “Council may assign additional duties to the Integrity Commissioner which could include the enforcement of an Employee Code of Conduct. However, the Council for the Corporation of the Township of Billings has not assigned such additional duty to the Integrity Commissioner. We therefore have no authority to conduct an inquiry into the matter.”
Ms. Young-Lovelace explained, “It is within the integrity commissioner’s discretion to decline to conduct an inquiry into a matter that they believe to be frivolous and/or vexatious or made in bad faith. It is our opinion that the allegations made in the electronic communications are both frivolous and vexatious. It is our opinion that the allegations have been submitted to our office because the preferred candidate of the complainants did not get appointed. Had their candidate been appointed, it is unlikely the complainant would have found fault in the process.”
This report was made public at a council meeting held May 21.
In a subsequent letter to Ms. Dance and council dated April 16, Ms. Young-Lovelace wrote, “Recently, E4m received two requests for inquiry which we dismissed and provided a report to you previously. You advised that the report will be placed on the next council agenda (May 21, 2024). Under most circumstances we would notify the complainants of our decision and that our report would be going to council and on what date. I am writing to advise you that we will not be notifying the complainants. To that end, we feel it necessary to advise the municipality that one of the complainants was Mr. Bill Concannon, the others Scott and Kate Lebrun. To be clear, it is our practice not to identify individuals making complaints in our report to council. In this circumstance, however, we feel it necessary to advise the municipality of who the complainants are and the rationale as to why we are identifying them. We believe that all parties are acting together and are concerned about the treatment of our investigator by Mr. Concannon.”
“The request for inquiry was assigned to Craig Davidson,” wrote Ms. Young-Lovelace. “When Craig contacted Mr. Concannon and advised him that council was within their right to follow whatever process they wished to fill a vacancy, Mr. Concannon advised Craig that it was his ‘right to walk into the municipal office and tell the mayor to F-off and there was nothing the municipality could do to stop him.’ Additionally, Mr. Concannon was rude and disrespectful to Craig.”
“Typically, we would advise complainants of our decision to dismiss,” noted Ms. Young-Lovelace. “In this situation, however, we will not be advising the parties of our decision at this time. We do not want them, and more specifically Mr. Concannon, to openly attack the decision publicly, manipulate what the decision states or make slanderous remarks about Mr. Davidson before the matter becomes a public record at the next council meeting. It is our opinion that township policy does not require us to provide such notice to complainants and as statutory officers we are protected by the township’s Workplace Violence and Harassment Policy and ought not to be subject to further belligerent and disrespectful behaviour.”
“I felt it important to advise you of this as there is every possibility that Mr. Concannon could complain to the Office of the Ombudsman who may disagree with our decision not to provide notice,” added Ms. Young-Lovelace.
