There was a big legal mess about 20 years ago involving a few municipalities, including the City of Toronto, the City of Windsor, and the County of Essex. It involved a financing company called "MFP" and some contracts signed with municipalities. Windsor and Essex County sued MFP for $300 million. You can click here and read the Globe and Mail article which summarizes the court action taken.
In short, it was alleged that MFP had influenced politicians and administrators into signing lopsided leasing and financing contracts that were advantageous to the company, but not so advantageous to taxpayers. The allegations were never proven in court. The matter was settled out-of-court. But the dust did not settle there.
A raft of new provisions were introduced into the Municipal Act. Every municipality was supposed to have a Code of Conduct. In addition, they could hire an Integrity Commissioner to enforce the Code of Conduct. Amherstburg hired Bruce Elman. He only steps in as needed. These new Municipal Act provisions were supposed to prevent another MFP-type fiasco from happening again.
But, as many people predicted, politicians and administrators have not stopped making bad decisions with taxpayers' money.
And, as many people predicted, the new Code of Conduct provisions in the Municipal Act are being used in some places to settle political scores, silence dissent, and attack political opponents. The Municipal Act has become a weapon for political guerilla warfare.
Here is how it works:
If you think a municipal councillor has violated the Code of Conduct, you fill in a form outlining your complaint. The Integrity Commissioner reviews it. Maybe the Integrity Commissioner does some preliminary investigation to see if there is any merit to the complaint. If the Integrity Commissioner decides there is no merit to the complaint, the Integrity Commissioner can just close the file.
However, if there appears to be some merit to the complaint, then the Integrity Commissioner will go further. Maybe more investigation will be done. Maybe the Integrity Commissioner will interview witnesses and collect witness statements.
If there has been a violation of the Code of Conduct, the Integrity Commissioner does a report to the Municipal Council, and recommends a penalty. That penalty can range from a verbal reprimand to a 90-day suspension of pay. But it's just a recommendation. Council votes on what penalty should apply, if any.
And that's important. Council does not do an investigation, or interview witnesses, or recommend a penalty. Council votes on the penalty. That's all. Council does not do anything else.
Which is why the Amherstburg Council agenda for June 23, 2019 was interesting. There was a recommendation on the agenda that Council engage the Integrity Commissioner to investigate something. But that is not how the process is supposed to work. Although the Municipal Act allows it, Council should not be passing motions to engage the Integrity Commissioner. And, wisely, Amherstburg Council declined to do so.
The decision to investigate is a decision made by the Integrity Commissioner based on a written complaint. If there has been no written complaint, then that is the end of it. Where there is no written complaint, there is no investigation.
The office of the Integrity Commissioner was not created for Councils to launch complaints and investigations. The Integrity Commissioner is not Council's hound dog. The Integrity Commissioner is not administration's hound dog, either.
The matter should not have been on Council's agenda.
In short, it was alleged that MFP had influenced politicians and administrators into signing lopsided leasing and financing contracts that were advantageous to the company, but not so advantageous to taxpayers. The allegations were never proven in court. The matter was settled out-of-court. But the dust did not settle there.
A raft of new provisions were introduced into the Municipal Act. Every municipality was supposed to have a Code of Conduct. In addition, they could hire an Integrity Commissioner to enforce the Code of Conduct. Amherstburg hired Bruce Elman. He only steps in as needed. These new Municipal Act provisions were supposed to prevent another MFP-type fiasco from happening again.
But, as many people predicted, politicians and administrators have not stopped making bad decisions with taxpayers' money.
And, as many people predicted, the new Code of Conduct provisions in the Municipal Act are being used in some places to settle political scores, silence dissent, and attack political opponents. The Municipal Act has become a weapon for political guerilla warfare.
Here is how it works:
If you think a municipal councillor has violated the Code of Conduct, you fill in a form outlining your complaint. The Integrity Commissioner reviews it. Maybe the Integrity Commissioner does some preliminary investigation to see if there is any merit to the complaint. If the Integrity Commissioner decides there is no merit to the complaint, the Integrity Commissioner can just close the file.
However, if there appears to be some merit to the complaint, then the Integrity Commissioner will go further. Maybe more investigation will be done. Maybe the Integrity Commissioner will interview witnesses and collect witness statements.
If there has been a violation of the Code of Conduct, the Integrity Commissioner does a report to the Municipal Council, and recommends a penalty. That penalty can range from a verbal reprimand to a 90-day suspension of pay. But it's just a recommendation. Council votes on what penalty should apply, if any.
And that's important. Council does not do an investigation, or interview witnesses, or recommend a penalty. Council votes on the penalty. That's all. Council does not do anything else.
Which is why the Amherstburg Council agenda for June 23, 2019 was interesting. There was a recommendation on the agenda that Council engage the Integrity Commissioner to investigate something. But that is not how the process is supposed to work. Although the Municipal Act allows it, Council should not be passing motions to engage the Integrity Commissioner. And, wisely, Amherstburg Council declined to do so.
The decision to investigate is a decision made by the Integrity Commissioner based on a written complaint. If there has been no written complaint, then that is the end of it. Where there is no written complaint, there is no investigation.
The office of the Integrity Commissioner was not created for Councils to launch complaints and investigations. The Integrity Commissioner is not Council's hound dog. The Integrity Commissioner is not administration's hound dog, either.
The matter should not have been on Council's agenda.