Sparks fly over Vaughan deputy mayor ethics probe

Yorkregion.com
April 16, 2015
By Adam Martin-Robbins

Deputy Mayor Michael Di Biase’s lawyer failed in his bid to halt an ethics probe by Vaughan’s integrity commissioner and have the matter handed over to an “independent person”.

Morris Manning appeared before council Tuesday to argue why council should “reject” a scathing preliminary report by integrity commissioner Suzanne Craig.

Manning argued, among other things, that Di Biase was not given a “fair and reasonable” opportunity to respond to allegations that he used intimidation and abusive language to pressure city staff who opposed his interference in the city’s tendering process to secure municipal projects for a local contracting company.

He said Di Biase should be given the names of 32 people interviewed by the integrity commissioner as well as copies of their statements and documents provided by six of those people.

“For someone to make serious allegations regarding a breach of a code of conduct that someone has to support the allegations. And the person against whom the representations or allegations are made must be given a reasonable and fair opportunity to respond,” he said.

“You cannot respond to allegations unless you know who made them and what the exact details of the allegations are. That’s fundamental to our system, it’s been fundamental for a hundred years, and it was breached by the integrity commissioner in this instance over and over and over again.”

The integrity commissioner responded, in part, that she followed the city’s code of conduct complaint protocol and the process laid out in the Municipal Act.

Under those rules she is required to divulge the name of the complainant and the information the complainant relies on to the respondent, in this case Di Biase, a veteran politician and former mayor.

“It does not say, the name and the name of all witnesses and the dates that the commissioner has interviewed them and why they are coming forward,” said Craig, who was re-appointed Monday until 2018.

“I would submit that the legislators ... before me (who drafted the act) would have thought of that, if they felt that was necessary. ... I’m not going to point out, at this juncture, how, what and when I provided information to the respondent. Suffice it to say that I provided information required by law, required by your protocol to the respondent to provide a response.”

After hearing from Manning, Craig and complainant Richard Lorello, a city hall watcher and Di Biase’s longtime political rival, councillors voted to refer the matter to the next meeting of council, scheduled for April 21.

That’s when Craig is expected to present her final investigation report to council with recommendations for discipline.

The maximum penalty she can recommend is a three-month suspension of pay.

Di Biase was not at the meeting and hasn’t responded to requests for comment.

Craig spent four months investigating a code of conduct complaint into Di Biase’s actions last year.

Her report describes him 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.

“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,” Craig wrote. “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.”

In her report, Craig identifies Maystar General Contractors as company A, which is how it is described thereafter.

She didn’t investigate Maystar and there’s nothing in the report to indicate the company did anything wrong.

Maystar has not responded to requests for comment.

The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by Lorello in early December. He 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 and;
• Allegations of inappropriate pressure exerted on staff by Di Biase in his efforts to secure business for Maystar.

Craig’s report 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 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 Craig: “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 a closed-door meeting dealing with an ongoing procurement matter that had 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.”

Many city staffers took their concerns to the Commissioner of Strategic and Corporate Services and the city solicitor, both of whom abruptly resigned in February following a closed-door 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.

Mayor Maurizio Bevilacqua said during Tuesday’s meeting the findings in the preliminary report “concern him deeply”.

“This is not one of Vaughan’s finest hours, at least not since I’ve been mayor of the city,” he said. “And you can rest assured, upon receipt of the final report, every single member of council will take the report very seriously. Based on the conclusions, actions will be taken to make sure that if, in fact, there are reasons to act, we certainly will.”

Thornhill Councillor Alan Shefman, meanwhile, called the preliminary findings “extraordinary, shocking and disturbing.”

For his part, Lorello said he’d like to see officials call for a judicial inquiry.

“I think there’s more here than just two idle issues. This is a practice that’s been going on for quite some time,” he told media Tuesday afternoon. “Just like other municipalities - Mississauga, Toronto - they’ve had judicial inquiries, so why not here?”

Manning was non-committal when asked if he would take the matter to court.