Council meeting may prove costly for Susan Fennell
Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell will find out Wednesday much money has to be paid back to taxpayers.
thestar.com
Sept. 10, 2014
By San Grewal
Wednesday could prove very costly for Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell. She will find out how much money has to be paid back to taxpayers and if her lavish spending will cost her three months pay as punishment.
A report that follows a forensic audit of Fennell’s office spending will be handed out before Wednesday’s council meeting highlighting how much Fennell has to pay back out of the $328,600 in questionable spending found by the probe. (The audit, conducted by Deloitte Canada, also found smaller discrepancies in councillors’ spending. About $45,000 was reimbursed prior to the audit, including $24,000 by Fennell's private gala.)
The payback amount, however, may only represent a portion of the money Fennell will have to give up.
Last week Fennell was found by the city’s integrity commissioner to have “knowingly” broken policy on spending for travel. Because she violated the city’s code of conduct Fennell could lose up to 90 days’ pay - the maximum fine for such a violation under the Municipal Act - as a result.
Councillors have told the Star that a motion will be brought forward at Wednesday’s council meeting, the last one of this four-year term of office, to impose the maximum penalty.
“Taxpayers want the maximum punishment handed to this mayor,” said Chris Bejnar, a spokesperson for the city hall watchdog group Citizens For a Better Brampton.
“The payback that’s to be ordered has nothing to do with the punishment she deserves. Not only did she break the rules 266 times she cost the entire city four lost years...If she isn’t told to payback close to all of what she spent it will be a slap to the beleaguered taxpayers of Brampton.”
The forensic audit by Deloitte found Fennell and her staff broke spending rules 266 times over seven years for transactions totalling $172,608. Another 79 transactions for $156,000 may have broken rules but Fennell did not provide the auditors with enough documentation to make a determination.
