Women demand to see secret threat assessment on Stouffville mayor
Trio who were part of Justin Altmann’s CSI-style washroom wall display question why report that rated mayor 8 out of 10 is being kept under wraps.

TheStar.com
March 5, 2018
Noor Javed

Three women from Whitchurch-Stouffville who were shocked to learn their photos were part of a bizarre “mind-map” on the mayor’s office washroom wall are questioning why the town is keeping secret a threat risk assessment report in which the mayor scored an 8 out of 10.

They also want to know why the town has done little to inform the public or staff or to enhance safety protocol since the existence of the threat assessment was made public months ago.

“If the town has information that has to do with my safety, I am entitled to that so I can determine what steps to take next,” said Samantha Farrow, one of the three women. “If there is no risk, then we should be told that too.”

Since last fall, Farrow, Darlene Shaw, and Sue Sherban have tried to petition the town through a lawyer, and through Freedom of Information requests, to see a copy of the threat assessment conducted on Altmann last summer, which reported “a significant risk of an escalation in behaviour (8/10).”

But their efforts have been rebuffed by the town.

Stouffville Mayor Justin Altmann says he has also been denied access to the report. And despite his repeated requests for information, he hasn’t been told what the risk assessment means.

“I shouldn’t have to fight so hard to find out why I am such a bad person,” he told the Star in an interview.

“I have never seen the threat assessment. I have never participated in it,” said Altmann. “I believe that it is pertinent to have that information ... because without the facts, nobody knows, so everybody speculates.”

On Tuesday night, Stouffville councillors will have to decide if they will endorse safety protocols for the mayor put forward by the integrity commissioner after two separate investigations were concluded last week. Suzanne Craig, who found Altmann contravened the code of conduct when he didn’t apologize for the wall display, and revealed in-camera information in a media interview, has suggested a six-month monetary penalty, restricting Altmann’s presence at town offices and limiting his communication with staff to email.

The women, who live or work in the town, say they have felt targeted since they discovered their pictures were included with staff, former politicians, and members of the public on the CSI-style wall of photos linked together with black lines and graphics, in Altmann’s office washroom last year.

They were disturbed to learn they were part of the display. But last September, their concerns grew when they learned a threat risk assessment had been conducted on the mayor after a brief mention was included in the integrity commissioner’s report on the “vexacious and disturbing” photo wall.

“It’s not so much about the mayor, it’s about the town withholding the information about potential risks,” said Sherban, a former mayor of Stouffville. “The staff is still on alert, and nobody has given them resolution out of the harassment report.

“But as the town, you have a responsibility to the people on the wall, and to the staff,” she said.

“None of us asked to be on the wall. None of us. He hand-picked us. It’s so creepy,” said Shaw, who along with Farrow, works for United Soils Ltd., a company that has had a troubled relationship with the mayor due to ongoing legal battles.

While town officials have kept the threat assessment secret, town council has the authority to order the release of the information, or direct staff to take action based on the report. To date, that hasn’t happened.

In her September report that found Altmann’s photo display constituted “workplace harassment,” the integrity commissioner relied on the findings of an independent investigator retained by the town’s external legal counsel, Hicks Morley.

According to Craig’s report, shortly after the probe began, a threat assessment was ordered by the independent investigator.

“After interviewing the complainant, the investigator was concerned about the ‘very high levels of fear and anxiety about personal safety’ exhibited by town staff and accordingly recommended that the town commission an assessment of a potential threat to personal safety,” Craig wrote.

Craig’s report says the assessment was completed in June and reported “a significant risk of an escalation in behaviour (8/10), with a high degree of confidence in the results.”

“The investigator accepted the assessor’s recommendation to put a safety plan in place before continuing the investigation,” and not to advise Altmann of the allegations until the investigator interviewed him, according to the integrity commissioner’s report.

In an interview, Craig confirmed she was only given a summary and conclusions of the threat assessment. She did not see the report in its entirety. She also had a number of followup questions about the assessment that she says were not answered.

“I did forward questions to the town’s external contact to obtain clarification on the 8/10 security risk rating,” said Craig. “I do not know what scale or assessment tool was used.”

She also said her “first concern” was to find out if and how the town was addressing security concerns put foward by the staff member who sounded the alarm.

The town did not respond to the Star’s questions around any safety measures that may have been put in place or have been implemented since the assessment was conducted.

“The Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville takes allegations of workplace harassment very seriously,” town spokesman Glenn Jackson, wrote in an email. “The town continues to meet its obligations in creating a safe work environment for all our staff and volunteers.”

The town refused to answer any specific questions on the assessment, including who it was conducted by and what scale was used.

“The town will have no comment on anything related to its internal harassment investigation, anything confidential related to it or matters discussed by council in closed session,” Jackson said.

Councillor Rick Upton acknowledged he and other councillors have not seen the threat assessment.

“No, I have not read it nor requested to. If a member of council reads the report then all of council would read it. I feel that would be a betrayal of confidentiality to the staff mentioned in the report,” he said, adding it “is everyone’s responsibility to ensure a safe workplace for all staff.”

Atlmann said the first time he saw the assessment score was when he read Craig’s report last fall. He says he was “surprised and quite taken aback.”

“It was alarming to see this result. I had no idea,” he said. “I think the hardest part is somebody saying you are something, but you have no idea, who, what, where or why.”

Altmann says he believes all the reports should be made public.

“I want the threat assessment, and the third-party investigation to be public. I want people to see it. I want people to read and know of it. If it says I’m an 8 out 10, I would like to know what it means,” he said. “By having them released to the public and staff, I think it will put everybody at ease.”

According to staff members who spoke on condition of anonymity, there have been no memos, training or changes to the safety policy and procedures since the integrity commissioner’s report became public last September. “It’s like they are trying to brush it under the carpet,” one staffer said.

The town’s “harassment and discrimination-free” policy provided to the Star was last updated in 2010.

It is clear from staff newsletters in November and January that the mayor’s wall was still on people’s minds. Stouffville’s chief administrative officer was asked a number of questions about the mayor’s actions and workplace safety.

“Council reaffirmed the need for our harassment policy and asked the CAO to take steps to ensure these types of events are not repeated,” said CAO Roman Martiuk, without providing any details.

Meanwhile, the women asking for the documents to be released say they don’t understand why the town is going to such lengths to keep them under wraps.

Shaw says her lawyer William Chalmers was offered the chance by the town’s outside lawyer Mark Mason, with the firm Hicks Morley, to see a redacted version of the report in private, and then inform his client if there was any threat to her.

In an email obtained by the Star, Chalmers told Mason “your offer was completely unacceptable and unreasonable,” adding “no competent lawyer would or should ever put himself in the intractable position of having to decide whether his clients should take steps to protect their safety based on his review of the document alone.”

The lack of transparency comes as a shock to other workplace investigators who have dealt with similar incidents in municipalities across the province.

Lauren Bernardi, an investigator with Bernardi Human Resource Law, conducted a probe into the mayor of Sarnia in 2016, that found he “harassed and bullied” four staffers.

Sarnia council responded to the situation immediately by making the report public “to help others learn from it.” They also limited the mayor’s access to city hall to working hours, relocated the mayor’s office and approved sensitivity and governance training for the mayor.

Bernardi says the lack of action, oversight, and followup in Stouffville shows the limitations that exist within municipal contexts to address issues of workplace harassment and bullying.

“There really is no enforcement mechanism,” said Bernardi. “The group with the most power in this situation is council. But if they don’t do anything, there are limits to what can be done.”

Altmann says despite what the assessment says, he believes the town is a safe place to work — and he’s not a threat.

“I have been in contact with thousands of people since December, and there hasn’t been one complaint. I have access to my staff. They have access to me.

“So this fear, or this opinion of someone saying that it’s not a safe, I just haven’t seen that.”