A unanimous vote of city council members on Tuesday night will make it more difficult for people to file complaints against them with the city’s integrity commissioner.
As soon as an associated bylaw is amended to reflect the changes city council approved, those who complain against city council members will need to submit an affidavit outlining evidence an elected official has breached the city’s Code of Conduct, as well as provide proof of identification.
Unlike a previously tabled version of the motion which would have disallowed anonymity, the amended motion filed for Tuesday night’s city council meeting allows the integrity commissioner to grant complainants anonymity “only in extenuating circumstances.”
It’s ultimately a moot point, as city integrity commissioner David Boghosian interprets the provincial Municipal Act as allowing him the ability to grant anonymity at his discretion, and he already considers this allowance an exception to the norm. Provincial legislation trumps anything city council decides.
Allowing anonymity was a sticking point for at least two members of city council, with Ward 9 Coun. Deb McIntosh noting that “whistleblowers” should be protected.
“Someone should be able to confidentially make a complaint and not be concerned about the repercussions,” she said.
“We make mistakes, and if we have made a mistake someone should be able to confidentially make a complaint and not be concerned about the repercussions of us, who have more power, to go back at them,” she added.
Although the city’s Code of Conduct prohibits city council members from retaliating against complainants, she said, “If you’re someone who breaks the Code of Conduct, what’s to stop you from breaking it the second time?”
Ward 6 Coun. René Lapierre shared a similar sentiment, noting that police, bylaw and human resources teams all allow anonymous complaints “because of past incidents that have occurred which were not favourable for the complainant.”
“I’m not comfortable sharing people's identity out in public when they put in a complaint,” he said.
Tuesday’s motion also calls for members of city council to receive a full version of whatever complaints are lodged against them, and for the city clerk to review the city’s Code of Conduct to suggest revisions in a report to city council by May 2025.
Currently, the integrity commissioner is able to summarize the complaints against city council members in their correspondence with the affected member rather than send them the full complaint. Despite Tuesday’s motion of city council, Boghosian told Sudbury.com last week that he might still redact identifying material from future correspondence in cases where he grants anonymity.
Tuesday’s motion was tabled by Ward 5 Coun. Mike Parent, Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin, Ward 7 Coun. Natalie Labbée and Ward 1 Coun Mark Signoretti, and sparked a lengthy discussion.
Parent led the charge, and told Sudbury.com after the meeting that the motion stemmed from an anonymous complaint made against him which wasn’t made public because it was dropped.
“It was an unpleasant time and it weighs heavily on you,” he said.
“It can create psychological harms,” he added. “Just because you’re a councillor doesn’t mean you’re immune to things that can affect you psychologically.”
Parent said that having the full version of the complaint sent to him rather than Boghosian's summary would have helped him better draft a defence.
Although he couldn’t quantify what difference knowing the name of his complainant would have made to his defence, he said he would have liked to have known.
“I like what Mississauga is doing,” he said, citing something Fortin brought up during Tuesday’s meeting, that the City of Mississauga requires the accusers’ names be shared to the city council member they complain about.
“Maybe the name is provided only to the member being accused of who the complainant is and not the public so you know who your accuser is.”
Part of the rationale for having complainants prove their identity to the city’s integrity commissioner is that the city gets more frivolous and vexatious complaints than other municipalities Boghosian serves as integrity commissioner, Parent said, adding that these complaints cost the city money.
During the meeting, city solicitor and clerk Eric Labelle clarified that the City of Greater Sudbury routinely comes under-budget for integrity commissioner services. Their annual budget is $90,000, and they typically come in between $60,000 to $80,000. At the half-way point of 2024, their invoice hit $37,000.
For her part, Labbée dismissed integrity commissioner investigations of alleged Code of Conduct infractions on the part of city council members as “a distraction” and that they affect city council members’ “reputation unnecessarily in the media for no reason.”
The only public complaint against Labbée the integrity commissioner made public was validated by Boghosian, who described her alleged Code of Conduct violations as “egregious.”
Boghosian argued that she should be penalized for “repeated breaches of confidentiality and misleading statements in the name of defending herself.” City council voted to limit the penalty to a reprimand rather than the 20-day suspension of pay Boghosian recommended.
Tuesday’s unanimous vote was without Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc, who was not present.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.