Richmond Hill councillors welcome new integrity commissioner, but note post has limitations

The town pays an annual retainer fee of $12,000 plus $300 an hour for the service

Yorkregion.com
September 27, 2018
Sheila Wang

Like every other municipality in the province, the Town of Richmond Hill is required to employ the services of an integrity commissioner to regulate the behaviour of its council members, but the position holds limited impact, says one Richmond Hill regional councillor.

Richmond Hill appointed ADR Chambers Inc., an alternative dispute-resolution group, as the town’s new integrity commissioner services provider this past June and Deborah Anschell was named integrity commissioner.

With an annual budget of $33,000, the integrity commissioner is responsible for providing “impartial, third party and professional advice” to council and responding to any complaints related to the code of conduct for councillors, as well as education and advice related to council's code of conduct.

The town pays an annual retainer fee of $12,000 plus a $300-an-hour rate for the service, said Stephen Huycke, Richmond Hill’s town clerk.

 “I think it’s a good thing,” Coun. Castro Liu said. “In my eight years in office, I think we’ve used the integrity commissioner quite a few times.”

The town appointed Anschell to replace interim predecessor Nigel Bellchamber, of Amberley Gavel Ltd., in order to comply with the provincial mandate requiring all municipalities have an integrity commissioner.

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 as well as give the public and councillors access to the services of an integrity commissioner by March 1, 2019.

Bill 68 also expands the role of the integrity commissioner, who conducts investigations regarding the code and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as well as provide advice and educational information to the municipality, councillors and local boards.

On Sept. 4, the new integrity commissioner made a presentation at a council meeting to make recommendations on modifying the integrity commissioner procedures as well as updating the existing code of conduct.

Richmond Hill’s code of conduct was created in November 2010 and last updated in November 2012.

Coun. David West was “pleased” to see the commissioner formalize and tighten up the process.

“It’s very very important to have very specific guidelines and procedures and expectations for members of council,” West said.

However, he acknowledged that there is a certain limitation in what an integrity commissioner could do.

“Unfortunately, any code of conduct will only be as good as the person who finds a way to challenge it,” the councillor said, noting that it is necessary to keep the code and procedures as “living documents” as the integrity commissioner suggested.

Coun. Brenda Hogg takes a similar view on the integrity commissioner service based on her personal experience.

“My overview is that if there is something going on with the councillors that requires investigation, the integrity commissioner may be contacted and may or may not pursue the matter,” she said.

Hogg successfully filed a complaint earlier this year that Coun. Tom Muench, in his newsletter, deliberately misled constituents about the actions of four colleagues.

It was one of the six complaints that the previous integrity commissioner received in the first five months of 2018. The commissioner reported on four of them, including Hogg’s complaint.

The integrity commissioner found Muench's action qualified as a conduct-code breach and recommended public a reprimand for the violation, as yorkregion.com previously reported.

The Municipal Act permits councils to impose either a reprimand or a suspension of pay, up to the equivalent of 90 days remuneration, following a finding of a breach of the code of conduct, the integrity commissioner’s report said.

“Disappointed” at the result, Hogg said the sanctions have only limited impact.

“There is a broad range of effect and impact. I believe that the responsibility really falls on the individual councillors to blow the whistle and most of them don’t want to take the time to get involved in some of the problems they see.”

“I think there is some need to realign some of the behaviours,” Hogg said. “I don’t know what else we would do. We can’t just wait for four years for an election and hope that election sorts out the problematic council members.”

Muench apologized but denied any wrongdoing in May after a report by the integrity commissioner found him guilty of several counts of breaching the town's code of conduct. In his apology, Muench said " ... I respect the current process, however flawed it may be ..."

Muench said he was excited about the new integrity commissioner who "has a legal background, has an investigative background."

"It shows how low the bar has gone. They have to regulate behaviours. I'm saddened that we've come that far," he added.

During the bill’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.”

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.

In 2016 and 2017 combined, Richmond Hill’s integrity commissioner received a total of six complaints, costing the town $7,379.59, well below the annual $33,000 budget, said the town clerk.