Vaughan deputy mayor may launch court challenge of scathing ethics report
Yorkregion.com
April 22, 2015
By Adam Martin-Robbins
Vaughan Deputy Mayor Michael Di Biase is being docked three months pay for breaching the city’s code of conduct.
On Tuesday afternoon, city council voted 8-0 to impose the maximum penalty allowed under the Municipal Act as Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig recommended in her final report.
That means Di Biase can continue sitting as a councillor, but will lose about $21,000 in pay.
The veteran councillor and former mayor was at the meeting, but declared a conflict of interest in the matter and didn’t vote.
“What we have here before us today, as documented by the commissioner’s report, are serious and inexcusable behaviours by a councillor,” Thornhill Councillor Alan Shefman said before the vote was called. “As a proud member of this council, I am saddened, even angry, that these actions have damaged the reputation of this body and this city.”
The integrity commissioner’s 97-page final report, released Friday, came a week after she made public a scathing preliminary report detailing the initial findings of a four-month investigation, stemming from a code of conduct complaint against Di Biase filed late last year.
Her probe found Di Biase interfered in the city’s procurement process to aid a local construction firm in landing plum municipal contracts and that he created a “culture of fear” among employees who pushed back.
After the meeting, Di Biase told The Citizen he’s “disappointed” his colleagues didn’t “reject” the integrity commissioner’s report and that he’s thinking about launching a court challenge.
“I have already previously stated that I strongly disagree with the allegations and the conclusions in the report and I am extremely disappointed that I was not given an opportunity to respond,” he wrote in an email hours after council’s decision.
“I will speak to my lawyer, Mr. (Morris) Manning, and consider taking the matter to court and ask the court to quash council’s decision and order the Integrity Commissioner to provide the information requested by my lawyer to show that the Integrity Commissioner was wrong,” he continued.
Craig’s final report reaffirms her initial findings and provides further details about the process she followed and what the investigation uncovered.
She found Di Biase used intimidation and abusive language to pressure city staff who opposed his interference in the tendering process to help secure lucrative municipal projects for Maystar General Contractors.
Craig didn’t investigate Maystar and there’s nothing to indicate the company did anything wrong.
Richard Lorello, a city hall watcher and Di Biase’s longtime political rival, filed a complaint back in early December, which sparked the investigation.
In the following months, Craig interviewed 32 people, including senior city staff and members of Vaughan’s library board, of which Di Biase was a member.
Outrage to hopeless resignation
“Individuals that I have interviewed have expressed feelings that span from outrage to hopeless resignation,” Craig wrote. “Some City staff felt intimidated by being told by a veteran member of City Council to provide them with confidential information that was in direct contravention of City procurement rules and City staff’s professional obligations. When City staff were asked to provide the Respondent with information that was to be kept confidential during the procurement Blackout period, the Respondent (Di Biase) became, in their view, aggressive and intimidating.”
The report notes that 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.
Craig goes on to report that some staff who willingly co-operated with her probe felt they subsequently came under scrutiny by Di Biase and feared for their jobs.
As part of her investigation, Craig also reviewed emails between Di Biase, city staff, his fellow councillors and an unidentified “outside person”, whom she found crafted email responses for Di Biase.
“The actions of the Respondent (Di Biase) have left the City open to public criticism and questioning of ethics in procurement, on the one end of the spectrum, and financial liability on the other,” Craig concluded.
Both Di Biase and his lawyer have challenged the integrity commissioner’s findings and the process she followed throughout her investigation.
They argue, among other things, that the integrity commissioner should have provided the names of the 32 people who made allegations against the deputy mayor so he could adequately respond.
Craig has argued that a code of conduct investigation isn’t a court process and that she followed the rules laid out in the Municipal Act and the city’s complaint protocol, which require her to protect the identity of people interviewed as part of the investigation.
For his part, Lorello said he’s “very happy” that council voted to suspend Di Biase’s pay.
“They made the right decision to adopt the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations to sanction Councillor Di Biase,” he wrote in an email to The Citizen. “Not to adopt the recommendations would have sent the wrong message to the taxpayers of this city. In effect, today’s decision sends a strong message that Councillor Di Biase’s actions were completely unacceptable and must be condemned by all.”
Lorello added that he thinks further investigation into the matter is required.
He has suggested there should either be a judicial inquiry or a police probe.
