Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell’s legal threat stalls council debate on spending audit

Two items on council members spending will now be deferred.

Thestar.com
Sept. 24, 2014
By San Grewal

Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell’s threat of legal action has stalled council debate on the two items that were supposed to be settled Wednesday: repayment of misspent funds and the penalty for Fennell’s code-of-conduct violations.

The two actions were the only items on the agenda of the special meeting. Both were based on findings of a forensic audit by Deloitte Canada, which Fennell has threatened to sue, alleging the auditors “exceeded” their mandate.

“After hearing a statement in city hall from Mayor Fennell, they (Deloitte) consulted their legal counsel,” Brampton chief administrative officer John Corbett said after Wednesday’s meeting. “Their own decision was made to stop providing advice to the city.”

As a result, council wasn’t able to discuss Deloitte’s report on the amounts Fennell and councillors will have to repay as a result of breaking expense rules. The city will need to hire a new auditor to determine the repayment amounts, based on the previous audit and a dispute resolution process.

Council was also supposed to decide at the meeting what penalty Fennell should face in response to the integrity commissioner’s ruling that she had “knowingly” broken travel expense policies and thus violated council’s code of conduct.

Both actions had to be deferred, and it’s unclear now when council will deal with them.

Fennell said to council after the decision to defer: “That essentially takes both reports off the agenda. ”

People in the public gallery responded with shouts of “Shame!” and “Resign!”

When a member of the public tried to address council about the agenda items during question period, Fennell said, “There are no matters on the agenda.”

She was corrected by staff, who said that even though the items had been deferred, the public could still address them. People then took turns venting their anger at the mayor, one man scolding her: “There’s an audit report that is public. You said you intend to pay.”

Fennell did not take questions from the media.

It’s now unclear when the final repayment amounts will be decided. But angry councillors told the Star it probably won’t happen before the election.

“I’m extremely frustrated,” said Councillor John Sanderson, who had called for the audit. “Taxpayers deserve to have this resolved today.” Sanderson is running for mayor, as is Fennell.

Some councillors had told the Star they would seek to force Fennell to repay $190,000, based on the audit’s findings, and to strip the mayor of 90 days’ pay, the maximum penalty for violating the code.

Councillors said they were told by staff just before the meeting that they could have been in a conflict of interest if they dealt with the audit report because they, too, have to pay amounts back, some $33,769 in total among 10 councillors.

“The mayor’s threat of a lawsuit has basically caused this whole thing to be whitewashed,” said Councillor John Sprovieri, who was seeking the maximum penalty for Fennell on Wednesday.

“I’m so angry. She just wants to delay this until after the election. But taxpayers are even more angry. She’s not going to be around after the election.”

“Certain councillors,” the integrity commissioner and the Star were also named as targets of Fennell’s legal action.
On Sept. 18, Fennell served the Star with a notice of libel over its coverage of the expenses scandal. The paper said it stands by its coverage.