Accountability has a price for Vaughan council members and taxpayers

The cost to get rid of Vaughan politician Michael Di Biase: $300K

Yorkregion.com
September 26, 2018
Tim Kelly

In fulfilling a mandate to hold municipal councillors accountable for their conduct, the work of Vaughan's integrity commissioner has to date cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and triggered an end to the career of longtime politician Michael Di Biase.

For some local political observers and players it may raise the question of whether the city's integrity commissioner and lobby registrar, roles currently held by now well-known ethics czar Suzanne Craig, are worth the cost to taxpayers.

Craig, the only integrity commissioner Vaughan has ever had and who has held the role since it was created back in 2009, fills both roles for which she was paid an annual salary of $103,234.55 in 2017, according to salary disclosure figures annually revealed by the province of Ontario for public-sector workers receiving six-figure paycheques. Since taking that post she has served as integrity commissioner at more than a dozen other municipalities.

The City of Vaughan revealed that total office expenditures here for the integrity commissioner and the lobbyist registry, which currently has 76 official lobbyists listed with the city, was $299,589 in 2017.

Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, also known as Bill 68, was passed by the previous Liberal government in 2017, and requires all municipalities establish codes of conduct for municipal council members and certain local boards by March 1, 2019 as well as give the public and councillors access to the services of an integrity commissioner.

It is left up to municipalities to decide whether or not to appoint their own full-time integrity commissioner, share the service with other municipalities, or retain one on a fee-for-use basis.

Vaughan approved the integrity commissioner post back in 2007 and took more than a year to hire Craig after former Mayor Linda Jackson promised during her 2006 successful mayoralty campaign to hire an integrity commissioner if she was elected.

The belief among some politicians and citizens was that Vaughan had ethics problems and needed an integrity commissioner to deal with complaints.

Craig has also worked as integrity commissioner for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville before resigning last year, and also currently serves as commissioner for the Toronto District School Board.

Are the roles, considered part-time, worth it for Vaughan taxpayers?

Vaughan Ward 1 Councillor Marilyn Iafrate, who is running for re-election this October, certainly believes so.

“It’s the best investment we have made in our city,” Iafrate said of the integrity commissioner’s appointment a decade ago.

“When you think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that flows through this city and the work that she has done and the money she has given back, there is nothing else we can do that can give us that same return,” Iafrate added.

Unlike Markham, for instance, which has ADR Chambers on retainer for $20,000 per year as its integrity commissioner and has dealt with just three complaints in the last three years, Vaughan has felt the need to have its own personal integrity commissioner on salary.

While Craig had a number of formal and informal complaints that she dealt with over the past few years -- she handled nine formal and 26 informal complaints according to a report filed by her office -- she is widely remembered for delivery of very public in-council reports that ultimately resulted in Di Biase’s political downfall.

Di Biase, who had a long and controversial near 30-year municipal career at the centre of Vaughan political life, resigned in disgrace in May 2017 after an explosive report from Craig revealed findings of an investigation into allegations that he had sexually harassed a City of Vaughan employee.

“I find that the actions of the respondent (Di Biase) constitute sexual harassment and a breach of Rule 14 of the Code (of Ethical Conduct), which prohibits such harassment,” Craig wrote in a 28-page report in May 2017.

“The respondent’s conduct created and contributed to an intimidating and offensive work environment for the complainant, contrary to his obligations under the Code (of Ethical Conduct) and under the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy. … Such actions seriously undermine the trust placed in elected officials and the principles underlying their Oath of Office.”

Di Biase protested that he was innocent of Craig’s claims, but decided to resign nonetheless.

Even before Di Biase’s ultimate resignation, he was in Craig’s crosshairs with a damning 54-page report in April 2015 accusing Di Biase of breaching Vaughan’s code of conduct by using intimidation and abusive language to pressure city staff, who opposed his interference in the city’s tendering process and his efforts to secure municipal projects for a local contracting company.

Di Biase and his lawyer Morris Manning vehemently disagreed with Craig’s report and its conclusions but it seemed to mark the beginning of the end for one of Vaughan’s longest serving politicians.

Di Biase is not running for office in the upcoming October municipal election. He could not be reached for comment.

So, is Vaughan’s integrity commissioner/lobbyist register worth the money she’s being paid by taxpayers?

Richard Lorello, who is running for regional council in Vaughan this year and who has complained about Di Biase’s behaviour to Craig on several occasions over the years, believes she is.

“The Office of the Integrity Commissioner is the only governance office the City of Vaughan has in place and it has been an invaluable resource to Vaughan residents. It is often the only recourse that residents have to hold councillors accountable for their actions. We have seen many disturbing instances where several members have acted inappropriately and had it not been for the efforts of the Integrity Commissioner would not have seen the light of day,” Lorello said.

Iafrate agrees.

“You can’t put a price to integrity. You can’t put a price to a city’s reputation. These are things that she (Craig) adds. They are worth millions of dollars in value. Even knowing there is someone overseeing what is going on, improves the city’s reputation and even improves the quality of people that apply for positions with the city.

“It improves the quality and competition of companies that want to do work with the city because they feel the city is working in an upfront and honest manner with integrity,” Iafrate said.

During Bill 68's third reading in the legislature, the then Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Bill Mauro said changes to the act would do a number of things to strengthen Ontario communities right across the province.

“They would improve access to justice for both the public and municipal councillors by allowing integrity commissioners to investigate conflict-of-interest issues if a complaint was brought to them,” he said to the Speaker of the House. “They ensure municipalities have a code of conduct for members of municipal councils and certain local boards.”

York University Professor Dennis Pilon doubts forcing all of Ontario’s 444 municipalities to have an integrity commissioner and council code of conduct will have the desired effect policy makers envisioned.

“These kinds of approaches don’t always work,” he said. “Often there is an underlying political problem that is at the root of the (conduct) issue. There has to be a political will for these (systemic) changes to work.”

The most prominent issue is council members have final say on what goes into the code of conduct and any recommendations made by the integrity commissioner, he added.

For example, if there isn’t a consensus on a point some councillors believe should be in the code of conduct, it won’t be included and the code of conduct can be changed upon council’s desire.

“There was an integrity commissioner in British Columbia who was too good at his job and was digging up all kinds of information and the council pulled funding for his office,” Pilon said. “It’s not an ideal model.”