Vaughan councillor abusive to staff, broke tendering rules to help local contractor: integrity commissioner

Report says ex-mayor Michael Di Biase defied code of conduct, told resistant staffer ‘don’t be a trouble maker.’

Thestar.com
April 11, 2015
By Noor Javed

Veteran Vaughan Councillor Michael Di Biase used 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, a scathing report by the city’s integrity commissioner has found.

“I find that the respondent applied inappropriate pressure to staff with a view to exercising influence or assisting Company A with the business of the municipality,” writes Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig in the interim report released late Friday night.

“I find that when city staff responded to the respondent’s requests for information ... by advising him that there is a process that must be followed, they were met with defiance, abusive language and intimidating actions,” Craig wrote in the report, expected to be presented to council on April 14.

Craig spent four months investigating a code of conduct complaint into the actions last year of Di Biase, who was mayor of Vaughan from 2002-2006 and has been a politician in Vaughan for three decades. Her report describes Di Biase as a seasoned politician who openly defied the city’s code of conduct, repeatedly tried to obtain confidential tendering information in direct contravention of city procurement rules, and used his authority to intimidate staff who pushed back.

Di Biase did not respond to a request for comment about Craig’s findings.

In her report, Craig identifies Maystar General Contractors as company A, which is how it is described thereafter. Craig did not investigate Maystar and there is nothing in the report to indicate the company did anything wrong.

Maystar did not respond to a request for comment.

Craig’s interim report does not offer any recommendations in terms of discipline for the deputy mayor. Those will be detailed in a final draft once Craig receives comments from Di Biase’s lawyer, Morris Manning. He has had a copy of the report since the end of March.

But it’s unclear if Craig will get that chance. According to a council agenda posted early Saturday morning, an extension of Craig’s contract with the city will be up for discussion in a closed meeting Monday afternoon. Her contract officially ended on April 5.

Di Biase said in an email Saturday that his lawyer would provide a response to the report on Monday to council and the news media. Craig’s investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by Vaughan resident and city hall watcher Richard Lorello

Lorello asked the integrity commissioner to investigate four items. Craig said one of the complaints fell outside her jurisdiction and the other involved an issue that happened too long ago. She investigated the following:

• An allegation that Di Biase interfered in various tendering processes in contravention of Vaughan’s procurement rules.
• Allegations of inappropriate pressure exerted on staff by Di Biase in his efforts to secure business for the Maystar General Contractors.

In her report, Craig focuses on contracts for the Father Ermanno Bulfon Community Centre in Woodbridge, and the Civic Centre Resource Library (CCRL) where Maystar did not pre-qualify for construction contracts. According to her findings, Maystar complained to the city that it should be pre-qualified because “it has always prequalified . . . and they make donations to Vaughan charities.”

Craig interviewed 32 city staff or board members for her report. Comments from 14 of the interviews are contained in the report. Other information from interviews was not made public to protect people’s identities, the report said.

According to the report, one city staff member told her: “I was approached by regional councillor Di Biase at (a meeting) and he asked me about the CCRL. When I told (Di Biase) there was a procurement process that had to be followed, he told me to stop wasting time and don’t be a trouble maker and cause problems.”

Another staff relayed his experience to Craig: “Tell your boss, when I call, respond to your --- ing phone.”

A member of library board, of which Di Biase was a member, said: “With reference to an in-camera meeting dealing with an ongoing procurement matter that had still yet to go to council for decision, Di Biase when told by city staff that (company A) was disqualified from the procurement process, said “Just give the job to company A.”

Another board member said she was surprised (Di Biase) would say “just give the job to company A” in front of the citizen board members.

Many of the city staff took their concerns to the Commissioner of Strategic and Corporate Services and the city solicitor, both of whom suddenly resigned in February following an in-camera council meeting - while Craig’s investigation was ongoing.

According to Craig’s report, Di Biase was told numerous times by the city solicitor and senior staff about the “risk to the city” when a councillor gets involved in the procurement process, especially during the blackout phase - a time when the call for bids, RFP, tenders or quote is issued. Di Biase asked staff to provide him with hard copies of pre-qualification results during the blackout period, the report says.

Moreover, Di Biase sent emails containing confidential information regarding city business to a private citizen, and used the information he received from the outside party almost verbatim to criticize two competitors bidding on the project and the procurement process in emails to his colleagues and city staff. He also then put forth a motion essentially written by the outside party regarding a review of the pre-qualification process in council in June 2014, the report says.

“Council as a whole must be able to access information, on a need to know basis, in order to fulfill its decision-making duties and oversight responsibilities,” writes Craig. “However, this does not mean broad stroke access by an individual Member of Council to any information they feel is necessary for them to make decisions, especially not in the area of procurement where there are rules around the Blackout Period, rules that the former City Solicitor went to great lengths to explain to the Respondent in painstaking detail.”

In email exchanges attached to her report, other councillors also warn Di Biase he is breaking rules by asking questions during the procurement period.

This is not the first time Di Biase has faced a complaint from Lorello, who ran unsuccessfully against the councillor in the past two municipal elections. In 2013, Lorello filed a complaint against Di Biase for publicly releasing information about a confidential personnel matter.

Craig upheld the complaint, and issued a reprimand to the councillor, which included an apology and a briefing on the code of conduct by the city solicitor - which he attended.