On September 20, 2018, I filed a formal complaint with the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Owen Sound. My complaint involved the ethics and perception of a conflict of interest involving a City staff member’s family and an elected councilor investing in a business that leases City property.

On Monday, April 15, 2019, the Integrity Commissioner’s final report on this matter came to council. Residents may have read the front-page Sun Times article, “O’Leary cleared in conflict probe.”

I was not aware that the issue was on the council docket, as my involvement in the investigation took place in the fall. I made myself available for both the preliminary and formal investigations. I was interviewed by the Integrity Commissioner in December and see in my inbox now that I received an email with the final report on April 8. I feel the need to clarify this as council members suggested that my failure to attend their receipt of the report is some indication that my complaint was not serious in nature.

The Integrity Commissioner, in the report, explains its scope: part of their duty is to determine whether a Councilor violated their Code of Conduct or the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Other parts of their job are to assist in the development of ethical frameworks and codes of conduct, to train and educate staff, and to “help sort out grey areas.” They are responsible for investigating allegations that a council member may have fallen short of compliance, and for making recommendations to improve a municipality’s ethics framework.

It was in that spirit that I filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner. Yet in receiving the report, with cameras rolling, council members made statements characterizing my complaint as malicious, vexatious, and frivolous. The Integrity Commissioner stated that the investigation proceeded to a formal one because they found that the complaint was based in fact, and not vexatious in nature. This was not idle gossip, as suggested by one councilor on Monday night.

A sitting councilor and a senior City staff member’s family did invest in a business that leases City property and has an ongoing co-promotion agreement with the City. Those are facts. Our Integrity Commissioner determined that this was true and therefore the situation warranted an investigation.

I will note that a substantial portion of my complaint was not a part of the investigation, as our Integrity Commissioner’s mandate does not include complaints about City staff or senior management. Therefore, the investigation focused on one person: Brian O’Leary. That was not my choice, but their mandate.

The Integrity Commissioner determined that no laws had been broken, which is great news. She also came up with recommendations the City would do well to heed. That is her job. Council’s response to this was disheartening, to say the least. Unfortunately, all but one councilor who

spoke to the report focused exclusively on attacking the complainant. They demanded an apology for Mr. O’Leary. They shouted that he was exonerated! Cleared on all counts!

This was not a trial. The Integrity Commissioner is not a judge. Attempting to reduce the complaint to a personal issue and the Commissioner’s 12-page report to a one-line soundbite does the entire process a disservice. It shows a lack of respect for the public and the democratic process.

It should have been a valuable learning experience and an opportunity to improve relations between City Council and the public they are elected to serve. Unfortunately, the Integrity Commissioner’s findings have been dismissed out of hand. It was incredibly disappointing to see two councilors read from statements they had made before the Commissioner even gave her presentation, that did not focus on the substance of the report but on discrediting the complainant.

What a waste of her time, and theirs.

Council has chosen to direct the conversation not to how they can improve, but how they can make sure they get compensated if they are investigated by the Integrity Commissioner—even where the complaint was deemed valid and worthy of investigation. It should go without saying that elected representatives whose actions warrant an ethics investigation should not receive compensation for it, but it appears it needs to be said.

I hesitated to even write this letter, as several councilors berated the media and social media in their discussion Monday night. However, I choose to use these avenues of communication because I have not found the City receptive to suggestions or input in any other way. I had hoped that hearing these recommendations from the Integrity Commissioner—an expert in her field—would see them taken seriously.

I did not expect that she would be ridiculed and berated for even investigating.

I did not expect that there would be publicized demands from the council table that “the complainant” apologize to Mr. O’Leary.

I will not apologize for following the democratic process that ensures that our elected representatives are accountable. I went to the City Manager with my concerns and was rebuffed. This was the other option the City gives us for exploring these “grey areas” and asking for changes to policy that could improve transparency and ethics at City Hall.

The Integrity Commissioner has recommended that the City update its complaint procedure. I can tell you this is a valuable recommendation. I would have preferred that this matter hadn’t dragged on for over six months. It would have been helpful if all parties had been forthcoming with information and disclosures, and receptive to public concerns, from the outset. That was not my experience, and I hope this changes. She also concluded that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act covers broad policy, but that typically municipalities have more robust rules of their own to recognize and prevent perceived or apparent conflicts of interest. Owen Sound does not have this, but should.

I happen to care deeply about this City as a resident who grew up here and raised my own family here. I’m certainly not sorry for using the City’s prescribed process to try to see that improvements are made.

Carol Merton was the only councilor who spoke up and encouraged the others to make sure these recommendations are considered when the Council Code of Conduct is updated. I thank her for being professional and staying on topic. I hope the rest of council can focus their attention there to prevent future perceived conflicts, rather than trying to make sure they are paid for them.

Members of the public should not be discouraged from participating in the political process or asking questions of their representatives by threat of there being a price tag for taxpayers attached.

Miranda Miller
Owen Sound