Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12’s Respectful Workplace Policy.
January 16th, 2012
This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:
Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 1) Line by line, word by word. Pages 1 through 5 of the Code.
Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government” Pages 11 through 13 of the Code.
Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 5) WTF?! “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”?! Pages 14 through 15 of the Code.
Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 7) Improper Use of Influence and Business Relations. Pages 19 through 20 of the Code.
Again, for the record, my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations.
Once again, 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.
Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 23 begins)
Rule No. 11
Respect for the City and its By-laws and Policies:
1. Members shall encourage public respect for the City and its by-laws.
[Odd. Mississauga Council has admitted that the City doesn’t enforce its own Litter By-Law or Sign By-Law. And I’ve documented over five years worth of Mississauga Council looking the other way regarding City Staff’s chronic, callous disregard for Corporate policies, procedures, guidelines and, yes, even by-laws. All that happening while Hazel McCallion testified during the Inquiry hearings that (Staff are) “very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently.” I sure don’t respect that! Back to Page 23 of the Code.]
A Councillor must not encourage disobedience of a City by-law in responding to a member of
the public, as this undermines confidence in the City and in the Rule of Law.
2. Members shall conduct themselves with appropriate decorum at all times.
[So. Does the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct define “decorum” anywhere in its 31 pages?… Nope. So here’s Oxford dictionary’s. Back to Page 23 of the Code.]
As leaders in the community, Members are held to a higher standard of behaviour and conduct,
and accordingly their behaviour should be exemplary.)
[Oh my! Who wrote this? Seriously. Does anyone at the City really believe this?! Back to Page 23 of the Code.]
END OF PAGE 23 OF THE CODE. PAGE 24 BEGINS
[CITIZEN ALERT! Rule No. 12 is a huge trap! BEWARE the City of Mississauga’s Respectful Workplace Policy. You are advised to avoid filing a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner under Rule No. 12 and the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy! Use Rule No. 11 Item 2, “Members shall conduct themselves with appropriate decorum at all times” instead. Otherwise the Integrity Commissioner immediately hands over your complaint to City Staff at Human Resources and that’s one BIG BLACK UNACCOUNTABLE HOLE! Read on. ]
Respectful Workplace Policy:
1. Members are governed by the City’s Respectful Workplace policy. All Members have a
duty to treat members of the public, one another and staff appropriately and without abuse,
bullying or intimidation and to ensure that their work environment is free from
discrimination and harassment.
[Can’t argue with that, right?]
2. Upon receipt of a complaint that relates to the City’s Respectful Workplace policy and
involves a Member, the Integrity Commissioner shall forward the information subject to
the complaint to Human Resources who will refer it for an independent investigation.
[Now here’s the Trap… It’s likely that most citizen complaints filed against Elected Officials would fall under the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy. What Item 2 accomplishes is protecting Mayor/Councillors from an investigation conducted by the Integrity Commissioner.
I’ve been reporting for years that Elected Officials shield City Staff from accountability (they look the other way for them, deny for them, lie for them, stonewall for them). The Code requiring the Integrity Commissioner to take your complaint against a Council member’s “abuse, bullying or intimidation” and forward it to Human Resources to be handled by City Staff, is Staff’s way of protecting the same Elected Officials who protect them from accountability. Mayor/Councillors cover for City Staff in day-to-day operations and City Staff cover for Mayor/Councillors under the Code’s Rule No. 12, Item 2. It’s that simple.
I know the entire 2006-2010 Council is to blame for approving the Code with Rule No. 12 Item 2 in it. But my question is who is responsible for slipping that diversion, “Upon receipt of a complaint that relates to the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy and involves a Member, the Integrity Commissioner shall forward the information subject to the complaint to Human Resources who will refer it for an independent investigation” to avoid an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner in the first place?
And I recall back in March, 2011, the National Post reported that Councillor Sue McFadden filed a complaint against Hazel McCallion with the Integrity Commissioner.
By National Post March 10, 2011
Mississauga Councillor Sue McFadden has called on the city’s integrity commissioner to investigate Mayor Hazel McCallion’s “disdainful, exclusionary, rude and petulant” behaviour toward her at public events.
Her request, which sparked derision from the Mayor’s allies, is the latest sign of the deep divisions plaguing city council.
“The Mayor has been, and continues to be, publicly disrespectful, insulting and abusive toward me… to the point where I’m beginning to feel hampered in my ability to serve the residents of Ward 10,” Ms. McFadden stated in a letter filed Wednesday with integrity commissioner George Rust-D’Eye.
By March 13th, the National Post reported, McFadden withdraws request to probe McCallion’s alleged ‘bullying’. And why did McFadden pull her complaint? The National Post states, “But after consulting with integrity commissioner George Rust-D’Eye, Ms. McFadden determined the costs of such a probe would be excessive.”
How very odd that the $625-an-hour Rust-D’Eye would say “the costs of such a probe would be excessive” given that the Code states that he “shall forward” McFadden’s complaint to Human Resources who will refer it for an “independent investigation” .
Do not believe the statement, “Human Resources…will refer it for an independent investigation.” The City of Mississauga’s concept of “independent investigation” simply means City Staff from a different department will do the investigating. For example, the City will call in Jamie Hillis and his Keystone Craps at City Security to conduct an “independent investigation”. Another example would be Corporate Services “independently investigating” Community Services.
Can you imagine? Citizens assume their complaint will be handled by the Integrity Commissioner for authentic resolution —instead George Rust-D’Eye hands off to City Staff and Human Resources who will (in the words of the Code) “refer it for an independent investigation.” And “an independent investigation” conducted by a Staff proven through Freedom of Information to have a chronic, callous disregard for policies, procedures, guidelines, by-laws and even provincial legislation —and who’re only too happy to lie about their diligent compliance to same.
In addition, Freedom of Information has confirmed that Human Resources do not follow procedures when handling complaints from the public, believe it or not.
Please. Do not fall for the Code’s Rule No. 12, Respectful Workplace Policy “refer it for an independent investigation” fraud. Back to Page 24 of the Code.]
It is the policy of the City of Mississauga that all persons be treated fairly in the workplace in
an environment free of discrimination or personal and sexual harassment.
The City of Mississauga’ Respectful Workplace policy ensures a safe and respectful workplace
environment and provides for the appropriate management of any occurrences of harassment
and discrimination as those terms are defined in the policy.
[Freedom of Information confirms that “provides for the appropriate management” means appropriate to the City and not what a reasonable person would regard as appropriate. Back to Page 24 of the Code.]
The City of Mississauga’s Respectful Workplace policy applies equally to members of staff
and Members of Council. It will provide guidance to an independent investigator when a
complaint is received involving a Member.
[CITIZEN ALERT! The City of Mississauga’s Respectful Workplace policy defines “independent investigator” as:
“Investigator” means the person(s) responsible for examining the circumstances of a complaint. Departmental and Corporate Human Resources Managers or Consultants are considered “Investigators”.
And “or Consultants” is deliberately-deceptive reinforcing what I’ve been saying for years: It’s not what the City of Mississauga tells you that you need to know —it’s what they don’t. Fact is, “or Consultants” should read, “or Consultants selected by Departmental and Corporate Human Resources Managers”!
Repeat. The Council Code handing off all Respectful Workplace policy complaints to Human Resources was intentional. Deliberately-contrived to shield Elected Officials from an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner —a payback —just as elected officials shield City Staff from accountability.
And yes, I stand by that allegation. And yes. At the City of Mississauga, ass-covering really is that bad (although the City calls “ass-covering“, “risk management”). Back to Page 24 of the Code.]
3. Upon receipt of the findings of the independent investigator, the Integrity Commissioner
shall make a determination on the application of this Code of Conduct and the merits of the
investigation respecting the conduct of the Member subject to the complaint. The findings
of the Integrity Commissioner shall be reported to City Council as per the normal
procedure respecting such matters.
[Notice how Item 3 refers to “independent investigator” and leaves readers inferring that “independent investigator” means what a reasonable person defines as “independent investigator”. Like I said, it’s what the City doesn’t tell you…
So be smart and protect yourself!
You now know that “independent investigator” in this Code means STAFF: “Departmental and Corporate Human Resources Managers or Consultants selected by Departmental and Corporate Human Resources Managers.”
For the record, many of the “Consultants” the City hires are just their own retired Staff now hiring themselves out as “Consultants” (and double-dipping!)
As for the Code’s claim that “Upon receipt of the findings of the independent investigator, the Integrity Commissioner shall make a determination on…the merits of the investigation”, now how do you suppose he’d do that in a municipal mutual-ass-covering-corporate-climate of Lie, Deny, Stonewall? Back to Page 24 of the Code.]
4. The Ontario Human Rights Code applies in addition to the City’s Respectful Workplace
[If you have a human rights complaint file your complaint directly there, with the Province —especially since the McCallion-controlled “Stop the Judicial Inquiry-Friends of Hazel” Councillor-Puppet-Show will be picking/hiring their own “integrity commissioner” to “investigate” them in the upcoming months.
END OF PAGE 24 OF THE CODE.
—Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee
2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law
Canada has inherited two systems of law: civil law from the French and common law from the English. This page will describe and give the history of each system as it relates to Canada
Related essays on this site:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
The Sources of Law in Canada
The Written and Unwritten Constitution
Canada’s Constitutional History
British Common Law
3. Video of MISSISSAUGAWATCH’s first (meandering and unsuccessful) attempt to merge the Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s “Ethical Infrastructure” report.
As I watched it today, I winced at how unfocussed this video is —just all over the map. But it introduces the vital concept of “sanitized” reports. Sanitized reports/documents/communication is the Key to Mississauga’s success. It was the City of Mississauga’s sanitization efforts that prompted me to warn people today with:
Be it a Corporate Policy, Corporate Report, By-Law, Guideline, those drafting it meticulously weigh every single word. No word makes it on to a City document without Staff’s carefullest of scrutiny. Yes, “carefullest”.
The City of Mississauga’s wordsmiths are especially fond of vague words, like “transparent” and “accountable”. Fact is, words can be so vague as to become meaningless, become atrocities —like “transparent” and “accountable”. Like “appropriate”. Like “subject to confidentiality and disclosure rules”. Like “Trust, Quality, Excellence”.
BEWARE of TRAPS in Mississauga Code of Conduct if filing complaint with integrity commissioner (7:34 min)
“To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel
would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.”
—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun