Councillor reprimanded for her comments, but not docked pay
Chatham Coun. Alysson Storey won’t see her pay docked in regard to comments she made at a public meeting and at a council session last year.
But she did receive two reprimands, and apologized at the Sept. 8 council meeting.
At the meeting, Chatham-Kent council’s integrity commissioner spoke, and council listened.
Kind of.
Suzanne Craig said Storey had violated council’s code of conduct, and recommended council issue two formal reprimands and dock 10 days of Storey’s renumeration. However, in the wake of North Kent Coun. Rhonda Jubenville receiving $20,000 in a judicial decision that threw out the former integrity commissioner’s report against her in another matter, council appeared a bit gun shy of going after 10 days’ pay against Storey.
In the end, council was deadlocked at 7-7 on the vote to dock Storey’s pay, and a tie means the recommendation was defeated. The two reprimands were approved 10-4.
The integrity commissioner received two complaints based on comments Storey made Oct. 20 at a “town hall” meeting in Dresden over the proposed Community Hub project, and a day later at council.
According to the 76-page report, Craig launched an investigation into Storey’s actions, as well as those of Jubenville, who Craig said did not merit reprimanding in any manner.
The Oct. 20 Dresden meeting was not municipally sanctioned and no staff attended.
In the report, Craig stated that Storey’s conduct “undermined staff.”
At issue, said Craig, were comments made by Storey that municipal staff were not providing full financial details about the C-K Hub project and that the development was not fully accessible.
The fact Storey alluded that rural library services might need to be closed to pay for the hub was another problem, Craig said.
The integrity commissioner added the complaints raised concerns of alleged misuse of influence of office, and neither complaint came from municipal staff.
She said staff at times felt targeted, undermined an intimidated.
“She (Storey) gave oxygen to inaccurate comments generally in the community,” Craig said.
Craig stressed she was just doing what she was hired to do.
“There is no win in setting out my findings of contravention. I have no skin in the game,” she told council. “I am an objective ethics officer who operates at arm’s length to your council.
“The goal of these recommended sanctions is to reinforce the standards of decorum, professionalism and public accountability that are foundation pieces to your code.”
Several councillors found it a challenge to go after another’s pay, adding council is in danger of becoming divided.
“I think every time council goes through this process, it is very difficult,” said West Kent Coun. Melissa Harrigan. “We have a lot of respect for each other. When these reports come up, it’s a difficult situation to decide to sanction your peers.”
However, Harrigan added “leaning on the integrity commissioner” gave her comfort. “We are taking the expert advice implementing the recommendation.”
Harrigan was one of the seven who voted in favour of the renumeration penalty.
Chatham Coun. Michael Bondy was not.
“I think it’s a flawed system,” he said. “The process she (Craig) is tasked to follow, is flawed. If we don’t agree with something, now I feel we’re going to be frighted to say so. I find it’s restrictive.”
Storey, who spoke to council before the vote, agreed.
“The intent of this code of conduct approach is going to silence elected officials,” she said, adding she didn’t think there was enough of an attempt made to interview people on both sides of the issue.
Storey did make an apology at the council table.
“I would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended or hurt about the questions I asked over the former Sears building,” she said. “I apologize unreservedly to any staff who may have thought I undermined their credibility.”
Jubenville did not think Storey’s actions warranted even a reprimand.
“I do not like division on council, but I will stand by my opinions,” she said. “Council is elected to ask the tough questions and sometimes even the uncomfortable ones. We must uphold our rights to speak and vote with our conscience and uphold freedom of expression. Applying sanctions would only stifle democracy.”
Storey also said the process was “confusing and vague” for her.
“I was raising concerns and acting in good faith for my constituents,” she said. “As a first-term councillor, this has been a very steep learning curve for me.”
She asked for training on the code of conduct and council voted unanimously that everyone at the table be able to access such training.
While not suggesting Jubenville be sanctioned, Craig said the councillor painted fellow Ward 4 Coun. Jamie McGrail in a negative light at the Dresden meeting.
“She gave the impression that the other Ward 4 councillor was turning a deaf ear to cries of her residents and was not supporting her constituents to protect rural community centres and libraries,” Craig said. “This is not conduct I encourage. The comments left many of the attendees with the impression that the Ward 4 councillor who did not attend did not care about the concerns of her constituents.”
Jubenville said that was not the case.
It’s the second time Jubenville has been part of an integrity commissioner probe. C-K’s former integrity commissioner Mary Ellen Bench found Jubenville’s conduct around social media posts relating to flying Pride flags on municipal property as well as at a school in Blenheim as a violation of the code of conduct.
In 2023, council voted 13 to 3 to dock Jubenville three month’s pay – the harshest penalty available.
Jubenville took the matter to court and in June of this year a three-judge panel ruled that while the councillor had violated council’s code in a discreditable manner, Bench’s decision that Jubenville has made improper use of influence was deemed “unreasonable.”
As a result, Jubenville was awarded $20,000 and Bench’s report was quashed.
