January 6th, 2012
Back in early December, I read through the entire City of Mississauga Code of Conduct and offered warnings to citizens about this document’s inherent traps. My December 7, 2011 blog, “BEWARE of TRAPS in Mississauga Code of Conduct if filing complaint with integrity commissioner” introduced the most obvious problems.
I’ve had a month to ponder and it’s now time to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word. To begin, I will cut-and-paste the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct directly into this blog entry and offer comment/criticism [bold italics square brackets] when the need arises.
Those interested in accessing the full version of City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011 please click here.
Last, I endure this certain-to-be-useless exercise with the full knowledge that:
- The City of Mississauga and Mayor Hazel McCallion lied about having a public complaints system when it didn’t [December 2006 and subsequent emails. Video evidence.]
- The public complaints system drafted and approved by Council in March 2009 is fraudulent. [Freedom of Information]
- The City itself is corrupt [Freedom of Information, audiotape, video evidence —including interviews with senior Staff]
- “The System is corrupt, there is no way to fix it” [the “Friends of Hazel”]
Here we go.
Council Code of Conduct April, 2011
Whereas the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes municipalities to establish a Code of Conduct for
Members of Council or local boards of the municipality;
And whereas the establishment of a Code of Conduct for Members of Council is consistent
with the principles of transparent and accountable government;
[While it is true that “…the establishment of a Code of Conduct for Members of Council is consistent with the principles of transparent and accountable government…”, the City of Mississauga fails to mention that the only thing “transparent” about The City is the degree to which it avoids accountability. Evidence: City’s response to Bill 130, Staff emails, Freedom of Information. Back to Page 1 of the Code.]
And whereas the establishment of a Code of Conduct for Members of Council is also reflective
of the City’s core values of Trust, Quality and Excellence in public service;
[Warning to citizens: Asserting “the City’s core values of Trust, Quality and Excellence in public service” is fraudulent. The purpose of this claim is to deceive residents into believing that the City can be entrusted to conduct its business for the Common Good. Evidence: Video of Audit Committee meetings. Freedom of Information. Staff emails. Back to Page 1 of the Code.]
And whereas the elected officials of the City of Mississauga have and continue to recognize
their obligation to serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner recognizing
that as leaders of the community, they are held to a higher standard of behaviour and conduct;
[While it is true “that as leaders of the community, they are held to a higher standard of behaviour and conduct”, their claim of “recognizing that as leaders of the community, they are held to a higher standard of behaviour and conduct” is not. Evidence: Video of Audit Committee meetings. Freedom of Information. Staff emails. Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Tom Urbaniak Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga. Back to Page 1 of the Code.]
And whereas a Code of Conduct ensures that Members of Council share a common basis and
understanding for acceptable conduct extending beyond the legislative provisions governing
the conduct of Members of Council as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001; Municipal Conflict
of Interest Act; Municipal Elections Act, 1996; and the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
Now therefore the Council of the City of Mississauga adopts certain rules in the form of a
Council Code of Conduct that further underscore the requirement that elected officials be
independent, impartial, and duly responsible in serving their constituents.
[While it is true that independence and impartiality are basic requirements for elected officials, City of Mississauga “McCallion-backed” elected officials are neither independent or impartial. As has been irrefutably demonstrated at the October 28, 2009 Council meeting, mega-developer Harold Shipp and his fellow “Friends of Hazel” threatened councillors to submit to their will or face defeat at the next election.
The entire Mississauga Code of Conduct/integrity commissioner “Governance Committee” is absurd —simply delivering more-of-the-same Illusion and Pretend.
The Mississauga News reports that “Ward 1 Councillor Jim Tovey was named committee chair, with Ward 9’s Pat Saito elected vice-chair. Other members are Chris Fonseca (Ward 3), Bonnie Crombie (Ward 5), George Carlson (Ward 11) and McCallion (ex-officio member).” All elected officials except George Carlson opposed the Judicial Inquiry.
Indeed a point can be made that this absurd Code of Conduct/integrity commissioner/Governance Committee charade is now an expensive waste of time and resources. With Hazel McCallion (Shipp/Friends of Hazel) in full control of Council, the 2001 Municipal Act, gives McCallion and Her Seven the authority to declare themselves beyond reproach, a shining example of Trust, Quality, Excellence and therefore not needing any Code and related expensive ethical infrastructure. Back to Page 1 of the Code.]
This Code of Conduct applies to the Mayor and all Members of Council (“Members”)
[CITIZEN WARNING! City of Mississauga employees are exempt, meaning nothing has changed since I first stepped into Mississauga City Hall to become a Council Watcher. In a March 26, 2008 Council meeting, McCallion-backed Councillor Pat Mullin stated that an “ombudsman” or integrity commissioner would finally address the ongoing concerns raised by Donald Barber regarding City Staff.
The Code’s statement, “This Code of Conduct applies to the Mayor and all Members of Council (“Members”)” is in fact limiting. City employees still enjoy no accountability, subject exclusively to being investigated by other City Staff—Staff all too eager to cover up for them. (Evidence: video and Freedom of Information)
That nothing has changed since Councillor Mullin’s March 26, 2008 comments that citizens’ concerns regarding the lies and abuses of City employees would finally be addressed through an “ombudsman/commissioner” is itself a lie.
The deception and outright lies that I have already revealed (and we’re not even at the bottom of Page 1 in this Code) should assist the reader is seeing this Code for what it is: Orwellian MYTHissauga doublespeak, to create the illusion of a “transparent and accountable government” . Back to Page 1 of the Code.]
Framework and Interpretation
1. The Code of Conduct is to be given broad, liberal interpretation in accordance with
applicable legislation and the definitions set out herein. As a living document the Code of
Conduct will be brought forward for review at the end of each term of Council, when
relevant legislation is amended, and at other times when appropriate to ensure that it
remains current and continues to be a useful guide to Members of Council.
END OF PAGE 1 OF THE CODE.
2. Commentary and examples used in this Code of Conduct are illustrative and not
exhaustive. From time to time additional commentary and examples may be added to this
document and supplementary materials may also be produced by the Integrity
Commissioner as deemed appropriate.
[IMPORTANT! Beware the City of Mississauga’s use of the word “appropriate”. It does not mean what a reasonable person would regard as appropriate. I’ve repeatedly said it’s not what the City of Mississauga says that you need to know, but rather, what they choose to leave out of their communications. That last statement should read, “supplementary materials may also be produced by the Integrity Commissioner as deemed appropriate for the interests of the City. Back to Page 2 of the Code.]
3. Where an elected official discloses all known facts to the Integrity Commissioner and as
long as those facts remain unchanged, the Member may rely on written advice provided by
the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner will be bound by the advice
given, as long as the facts remain unchanged, in the event that he or she is asked to
investigate a complaint.
4. Elected officials seeking clarification who are provided advice in a general way, cannot
rely on advice given by the Integrity Commissioner to the same extent as advice given in
respect of specific facts. Advice that is general in nature is subject to change when applied
to specific facts that may not have been known at the time the general advice was
[NOTE: Regarding “facts”. City of Mississauga Staff are tutored (even instructed) to fabricate, fudge and selectively-report data. To “sanitize”. This propensity for governance-dishonesty—the City’s “Pimpin’ the Positive”—has been documented by Tom Urbaniak. Watch this video as I read about fudging a Budget report, page 143 from his book Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga. Other evidence of fabrication-sanitation of records includes Freedom of Information and video of Audit, Budget and Council meetings as well. Back to Page 2 of the Code.]
5. Elected Officials seeking clarification of any part of this Code should consult with the
6. The Municipal Act, 2001 is the primary piece of legislation governing municipalities
however there are other statutes that govern the conduct of elected municipal officials. It is
intended that the Code of Conduct operate together with and as a supplement to the
• Municipal Act, 2001;
• Municipal Conflict of Interest Act;
• Municipal Elections Act, 1996;
• Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
• Criminal Code of Canada.
[And we’ve learned just how worthless Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is thanks to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. In his October 3, 2011 report, Justice Cunningham started that under the Act, Hazel McCallion:
“—promoted the interests of WCD throughout the events at issue in this Inquiry. Indeed, I have found that the co-owners would not have entered negotiations with WCD absent her intervention. Once the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was signed, the Mayor sought significant commercial concessions. She went to great lengths to keep the deal alive as economic conditions deteriorated. And when the co-owners terminated the deal and litigation ensued, the Mayor again intervened to attempt to have the litigation settled.
I pause here to say that the Mayor held the view that provided she declared a conflict of interest in her legislative capacity and refrained from voting at Council or taking part in discussion, she was on safe ground. Currently-certainly, she was correct in her view that the MCIA did not apply to her actions in advocating privately for her son’s company. This may very well point to an inadequacy in the Act. Nevertheless, I have found that her actions were nevertheless improper-improper under the application of common law principles. These principles should be codified. The Act should be amended to make it clear that mayors and members of Council are subject to the conflict of interest provisions both in the legislative and executive functions of their office.”
Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is a worthless, deceptive piece of paper that this province has inflicted on our fellow Ontarians! See related article, Time to reform local governance in Nova Scotia January 5, 2012 By Tom Urbaniak. Urbaniak writes, “Nova Scotia’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is also inadequate. It requires elected officials to avoid taking part in council or board meetings for their personal gain, but has gaping loopholes when it comes to conduct outside meetings. Nova Scotia’s conflict-of-interest legislation is modelled on Ontario’s. A recent judicial inquiry there showed the weakness of that statute.” Back to Page 2 of the Code.]
7. In carrying out his or her responsibilities regarding the Code of Conduct, the Integrity
Commissioner is not limited to looking at the pecuniary interest of the Member, and for
clarity the Integrity Commissioner is specifically authorized to investigate issues of
conflict in a broad and comprehensive manner.
[CITIZEN HEADS UP—CRUCIAL STATEMENTS! “[T]he Integrity Commissioner is not limited to looking at the pecuniary interest of the Member” but also “specifically authorized to investigate issues of conflict in a broad and comprehensive manner.” MISSISSAUGAWATCH will be testing Item 7’s “not limited to looking at the pecuniary interest of the Member” in the upcoming months. I’m not hopeful… Back to Page 2 of the Code.]
a. In the Code of Conduct the terms “child”, “parent” and “spouse” have the same meanings
as in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act:
“child” means a child born within or outside marriage and includes an adopted child and a
person whom a parent has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her
END OF PAGE 2 OF THE CODE.
“parent” means a parent who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a
member of his or her family whether or not that person is the natural parent of the child;
“spouse” means a person to whom the person is married or with whom the person is living
in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage;
b. “Family Member” means a spouse, common-law partner, or any other person with whom
the person is living as a spouse outside of marriage;
• child, includes step-child and grand-child;
c. “Member” means a member of the Mississauga City Council, including the Mayor.
d. “staff” includes the City Manager and Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioners,
Directors, Managers, Supervisors and all non-union and union staff whether full-time, parttime,
contract, seasonal or volunteers.
[NOTE: Important! The Code includes volunteers. The City of Mississauga is extremely careful to select volunteers who share the City’s goals and “vision”. Meaning three words. Friends. Of. Hazel. Video evidence confirms that a surprising number of the City’s volunteers can warble and defend the MYTHissauga Party Line better than City of Mississauga elected officials and even the Commissioners! Two easy examples, Brian “Brave Bold Future” Crombie, Jim “I love you, Hazel” Murray. Back to Page 3 of the Code.]
e. “Nomination Day” means the last day for filing or withdrawing a nomination as provided
for by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
END OF PAGE 3 OF THE CODE.
Rule No. 1
Key Principles that Underlie the Code of Conduct:
a. Members of Council shall serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a
conscientious and diligent manner.
[“serve… in a conscientious and diligent manner“. Worthless, meaningless motherhood statement. Whoever wrote this doesn’t believe “serve… in a conscientious and diligent” manner for a second. Keep reading. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
Members of Council recognize the public’s right to reasonable access to information in
relation to how decisions are made. The public’s right to access however must be balanced
against the requirement to protect the legitimate interests of the City and the respect for
approved policies of the City.
[The City’s caveat, “The public’s right to access however must be balanced” renders the Key Principle, “Members of Council shall serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner” illusion —a sucker’s statement. As I keep saying, it’s not the information that they City of Mississauga shares, it’s what they choose to hide —to withhold/protect, that you really need to know. And it’s that vital information —the material that they wouldn’t want reaching the media— that the City denies access to.
Why? Three reasons. One, the “legitimate interests of the City” comes down to it not being in the interests of the City for the public to know the malfeasance that’s really going on. And second, the City of Mississauga chooses to uphold the public trust by thwarting access to the very information that would confirm the degree to which the City can’t be trusted! Third and best reason of all, denying access is the most efficient, cost-effective way to run a city like a business. Lies don’t cost a single penny. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
b. Members of Council should be committed to performing their functions with
integrity and to avoiding the improper use of the influence of their office, and
conflicts of interest, both apparent and real. Members of Council shall not extend
in the discharge of their official duties, preferential treatment to Family Members,
organizations or groups in which they or their Family Members have a direct or
indirect pecuniary interest.
[IMPORTANT! “Members of Council should be committed to performing their functions with integrity“. This Code of Conduct has been in effect since December 2010. Seriously! Don’t you think if the City’s Integrity Commissioner was even remotely effective, we’d have seen Members of Council “performing their functions with integrity” by now? Details regarding the ‘improper use of the influence of their office” at a later date. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
Members of Council have a common understanding that in carrying out their duties as a
Member of Council, they will not participate in activities that grant, or appear to grant, any
special consideration, treatment or advantage to a Family Member or an individual which is
not available to every other individual.
[“[T]hey will not participate in activities that grant, or appear to grant, any special consideration”. What fraud! All anyone need do is refer to Sunday’s Mayor’s New Year’s Levee and watch which councillors McCallion/Staff selected to bask in the Media that day. Mississauga City Hall is in Councillor Frank Dale’s ward —the Mayor had no choice but to include him. But Ward 2’s councillors Ron Starr and Bonnie Crombie and Ward 1’s Jim Tovey welcoming in the New Year inside the Great Hall? I interpret that as the Mayor already anointing Crombie as her successor with Starr as Crombie’s make-it-happen guy. As in this MISSISSAUGALife photo. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
[As for Councillor Jim Tovey? Considering the “Friends of Hazel” barely squeaked him into that Ward 1 chair, they know that he needs all the photo-ops he can get before 2014. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
Members of Council are governed by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the provisions
of that statute take precedence over any authority given to the Integrity Commissioner to
receive or investigate complaints regarding alleged contraventions under the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act.
[That’s right. The Code states, “Members of Council are governed by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the provisions of that statute take precedence over any authority given to the Integrity Commissioner” even though we know this Act allows any elected official to lobby/promote deals bestowing tens of millions of dollars for relatives provided they declare a pecuniary interest at Council meetings. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
c. Members of Council are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange
their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear
close public scrutiny.
[Reminder how the City of Mississauga does its all to avoid any scrutiny, let alone “close”. And when the City’s nudge-nudge-wink-winks are threatened to be exposed, the “Friends of Hazel” spring into action to protect their interests and their Secret Society. Back to Page 4 of the Code.]
Members of Council may seek conflict of interest advice, including a written opinion, from the
Integrity Commissioner however, where members choose to seek external legal advice on
conflict of interest issues, these fees will not be reimbursed by the City of Mississauga and
cannot be charged to any office account.
END OF PAGE 4 OF THE CODE.
d. Members of Council shall avoid any interest in any contract made by him/her in
an official capacity and shall not contract with the City or any agency thereof for
the sale and purchase of supplies, material or equipment or for the rental thereof.
e. Members of Council, while holding public office, shall not engage in the
management of a business carried on by a corporation and shall not profit
directly or indirectly from a business carried on by a corporation that does or has
contracted with the City of Mississauga.
f. Despite subsection e., a Member of Council may hold office or directorship in an
agency, board, commission or corporation where the Member has been appointed
by City Council or by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Peel or by the
Federal or Provincial government.
g. Despite subsection e., a Member of Council may hold office or directorship in a
charitable, service or other not-for-profit corporation subject to the Member
disclosing all material facts to the Integrity Commissioner and obtaining a written
opinion from the Integrity Commissioner approving the activity, as carried out in
the specified manner, which concludes that the Member does not have a conflict
between his/her private interest and public duty. In circumstances where the
Integrity Commissioner has given the Member a qualified opinion, the Member of
Council may remedy the situation in the manner specified by the Integrity
Examples of exceptions include hospital boards, charitable boards, police services boards,
community foundations, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, service clubs such as the Rotary Club, Lions Club and other not-for-profit
organizations. Members should exercise caution if accepting such positions if the
organization could be seeking a benefit or preferential treatment from the City at any time.
h. Members of Council shall perform official duties and arrange their private affairs
in a manner that promotes public confidence and respect and will bear close
Members of Council shall not participate in activities that grant, or appear to grant, any special
consideration, treatment or advantage to an individual which is not available to every other
individual member of the public. For example, Members shall remain at arm’s length when
City staff or Council is asked to consider a matter involving a Family Member or a prominent
supporter of the Member of Council.
[“Members shall remain at arm’s length when City staff or Council is asked to consider a matter involving…a prominent supporter of the Member of Council.” Can you spot the totally useless, unenforceable unit of measure? This is the end of Page 5 of the Code.]
END OF PAGE 5 OF THE CODE.
NOTE: This blog entry was originally written live and carried the title, “Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word. Blogging LIVE! (Part 1)”
Blogging Live turned out to be a mistake because, after all, should a blog really carry the name” Blogging LIVE!” when you’re completed and you’re now on to Part 2? I also received comments that said Blogging LIVE adding material bit-by-bit was confusing.
I’ve also renamed this blog entry, “Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word. (Part 1)”
Published: January 6, 2012 10:50 AM
Updated: January 6, 2012 11:17 AM
MISSISSAUGAWATCH A.F.K. (Away From Keyboard)
Updated: January 6, 2012 11:52 AM
Updated: January 6, 2012 12:01 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 12:42 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 1:09 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 1:17 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 1:30 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 1:43 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 1:51 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 2:04 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 2:12 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 2:23 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 2:28 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 2:35 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 2:59 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 3:19 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 3:43 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 3:54 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 4:03 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 4:14 PM
Updated: January 6, 2012 7:53 PM
MISSISSAUGAWATCH A.F.K. (Away From Keyboard)
Updated: January 6, 2012 8:17 PM Part 1 completed. Part 2 tomorrow.
FINAL UPDATE: January 7, 2012 9:40 AM. Removed references to blogging live (it confused readers) and renamed this blog entry, “Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word. (Part 1)”. Working on Part 2.