Stouffville mayor has yet to apologize for CSI-style wall
Deadline is rapidly approaching for Justin Altmann to make a public apology for the controversial mural he put up in his office washroom

YorkRegion.com, TheStar.com and TheSpec.com
Dec. 10, 2017
Noor Javed

Is it too late now to say sorry?

The mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville may soon be singing these lyrics as his deadline to apologize to staff for his controversial CSI-style wall draws near.

Justin Altmann has until Dec. 22 to make a public apology for the unusual photo mural he put up of staff, councillors and citizens in his office washroom earlier this year.

But his apology must be made during a council meeting and Tuesday’s session is the last one scheduled for the year.

Altmann did not respond to numerous questions from the Star about when he will apologize, or why he hasn’t done so thus far. But Glenn Jackson, a spokesperson for the town, confirmed that “the mayor has not apologized in open session of council.”

In September, Stouffville councillors adopted recommendations from the town’s integrity commissioner after a probe she launched in the wake of a staff member’s complaint. The probe concluded the creation of the wall breached the town’s code of conduct and was akin to “workplace harassment.”

Suzanne Craig recommended Altmann be docked a month’s pay, or around $5,076.33 (the equivalent of a month of town pay and a month of car allowance), and be given 90 days to apologize to town staff.

The recommendation in relation to the apology states that council: “request the respondent to issue an apology, in open session of council, for having created the wall in the office of the mayor’s washroom which was then viewed by staff, which was vexatious and disturbing to staff and amounted to a serious incident of workplace harassment.”

Councillors say they have been waiting for an apology since day one.

“The staff is deserving of the apology,” said Ward 3 councillor Hugo Kroon.

“Staff has been, and in my mind, continues to be an unwilling and unnecessary participant in the mayor’s ongoing actions. They have been collateral damage, and did not deserve the treatment for which the mayor has been accused and found guilty of,” he said. “There needs to be recompense for those actions, and the apology is only a start.”

While Altmann did not respond to questions from the Star, on a recent radio interview with 105.9 The Region, he said he would not apologize, but rather, would challenge the ethics probe.

“I will be going to appeal the integrity commissioner’s decision,” he said in the Nov. 15 interview.

“I will be asking for a judicial review, and that will take a process, and that will go and look at how the process and everything was done,” he said. “Members of council want an apology; they want to say ‘he was wrong, he’s done this.’ In all honesty, I am a very reputable person. My integrity is everything.”

Craig says of all the ethics probes she has conducted, this would be the first where an apology has not been made.

“I have investigated dozens of complaints if not more, and made recommendations to council by way of sanctions such as an apology and suspensions,” she said.

“But where I have recommended an apology, the respondent has always apologized,” she said, adding she has never worked in a municipality where the “request for an apology has been blatantly ignored.”

Many councillors agree an apology is the best way to put the bizarre episode to rest.

“You have to take responsibility for your actions,” said Ward 5 councillor Iain Lovatt. “I think it shows courage to own up to how you have made people feel intentionally or unintentionally. And I think it’s the sign of a good leader,” he said.

“I would love to put this incident behind us and try and salvage the last year of our term,” he added. “But I don’t know if that’s going to happen.”

If Altmann doesn’t take any action by the Dec. 22 deadline, his non-action could trigger another code of conduct complaint — leading to further sanctions.

But the first investigation into the wall has already cost taxpayers over $100,000. Craig’s portion was $36,210.45 and an independent investigator cost the town $75,000.

If Altmann decides to pursue a judicial review, that could be another costly venture for the town’s residents.

In 2016, Vaughan’s former deputy mayor, Michael Di Biase, challenged the findings of Craig’s ethics probe that found he had created a “culture of fear” among city staff, and interfered in the city’s procurement process.

After a two-day hearing in divisional court, a panel of judge’s threw out Di Biase’s appeal. But taxpayers were still on the hook for $134,683 for both the city and Craig’s legal fees

Di Biase’s legal fees were not covered by the city.