Larry's Corner

An Integrity Commissioner and Integrity: Both Are Needed

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted February 6, 2008)  

Hamilton City Council is deep into its 2008 Budget debate. Things do not look good. Media reports are suggesting that a tax increase of about 8% may be in the cards. This untenable number is piled on top of increases in Water and Sewer rates, transit fare increases, and will probably come with some additional service charge increases as well. Even though this is early in the second year of a four year term, Council doesn’t want to be passing unreasonable increases onto its stressed out taxpayers. And so the Integrity Commissioner issue seems to have run aground on the budget iceberg. Or has it?

The Mayor seems to be fully in favour of this position because he campaigned on it during the election. He too is chalking up a list of accomplishments during his tenure that he will present to voters. He also knows that pesky reporters are bound to tally up his promises with what he has delivered. This is one promise he’d like to keep.

What surprises me is that the Mayor doesn’t seem to have the support of the Councillors even though they sanctioned the committee to establish the parameters of such a position. Is it because, according to the Mayor, some on Council, such as Terry Whitehead, have been throwing road blocks on the discussions? Or is it that the right kind of homework doesn’t seem to have accompanied the suggestion to approve the money. If you look at Councillor Whitehead’s blog, he insists that he is in favour of the position, but wants clarity about its mandate and its cost to the taxpayers. His position is reasonable enough; I agree with it. Why hasn’t this information been provided?

Councillor Whitehead has also mused about the impartiality of the citizen members of the committee. I have no direct knowledge of how well this group is working. I do know Denise O’Connor and her credentials are impeccable. Denise recently led the fight to save the VON and St. Joseph’s nursing jobs in our community. She is a powerhouse we will hear more from in the coming years. Of course I also ‘know’ Joanna Chapman. Some day I’ll write about that whole sorry episode of election financing and Joanna’s role in it, as well as the supporting cast that engineered the political and legal attack on my integrity. For now, let me just state the obvious conclusion that I have reached. Joanna does not have an impartial bone in her body. She is strongly opinionated and has bragged about it. I think she truly believes she is doing some good and has many encouraging her and her strength. I do not share this opinion. I have seen the ‘selective’ side of her crusades, much to my chagrin.

Is she biased in her role on the committee? It is hard for me to say because I have not attended any meetings. Her selection on the committee, however, can be interpreted as political patronage or payback for having helped candidate Fred achieve political success. I have been told for a fact that another citizen applicant to the committee was interviewed by Fred, who told her that they were going to appoint two women and Joanna was one of them for sure. The other deservedly turned out to be Ms. O’Connor. Perhaps this is why Councillor Whitehead made the comments he did.

All of this, of course, is simply background. The heart of the question concerns the need for this position. I must concur that it is a position that is needed for all political bodies. In fact, I toyed with the idea, early in my term as Mayor, of creating an integrity commissioner. The press even wrote about it and speculated that I might appoint the losing candidate of my mayoral election, David Christopherson. I met with David after the election, but it was obvious that he was interested in a Federal run. He would not have been a good candidate, however. In spite of his skills, I think his partisan political record would have made him a very poor candidate for the position. That’s just my opinion. I did explore with several other people their interest in taking on the job. I didn’t see it as a paid job, but rather as one which would call on an impeccable citizen, perhaps with some political experience in the remote past, or better still, recently retired from the judiciary, ‘volunteer’ his/her time to this task when called upon. Council would, of course, have had to provide secretarial support, technical support and even legal support should it be required in specific circumstances. The people I spoke with reacted with some interest to the concept. I wish I had carried it further, because there were certainly issues that arose when this Commissioner could have ruled on process and content.

I will use my case with the election financing as an example where an unbiased Commissioner could have looked at all the evidence, including and especially the Forensic Auditor’s report to see if there had been purposeful wrongdoing. In the absence of this, a group of citizens, some with community interest at heart, and some with a political agenda to execute had a field day with the issue. I believe the former would have been fairer and certainly less expensive for all concerned. There were other cases: the celebrated ‘traffic ticket’ episode which was blown out of proportion because no one was there to investigate the facts, other than a zealous media. The allegation of conflict of interest levied by one Councillor against another on an issue dealing with a controversial road in Flamborough is another example. The charge was that one Councillor felt her colleague should have refrained from voting because the road project had the potential of influencing the value of his lands. I think this Councillor had a valid point, but the charge went uncontested and was not examined. Nor was there a community zealot interested in taking this issue on, which the law also permits. Privately, staff expressed similar concerns about the Councillor and his lands, and an Integrity Commissioner could have investigated and provided clarity. There were other issues as well during my term, and there are currently issues which have come up this term with the current Council which could be examined by a commissioner. The Press has enunciated a number of them.

So, yes, I believe it would be wise for Council to sanction the position. I would ask them to consider whether the model I describe of a community leader of ‘impeccable’ reputation and fairness might be asked to perform the task gratis. A tall order to fill perhaps, but I’m sure someone could be found. It needn't cost the city much to implement this honorary position. And any staff costs could be allocated to our legal department whose leadership, although weak, could take on this job.

I need to make this point, however. Other jurisdictions at the Federal, Provincial and even some municipal levels already have an Integrity Commissioner. This position helps adjudicate and even investigate issues as they arise. The position on its own does not prevent individuals from behaving in ways that lack integrity. So, what is needed above all is the self-control to do the right thing. All Councillors, MPP’s, MP’s, Trustees and any other elected official should have a built in commissioner called personal integrity.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER