MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch Dear Madam Mayor:
The McCallion Letters

City of Mississauga’s new Integrity Commissioner, Robert J. Swayze did not perform due diligence –neither did Governance Committee

September 17th, 2012  

Back in June the City of Mississauga announced that it had hired Robert J. Swayze as its new Integrity Commissioner.

I’m reminded of what Mayor Hazel McCallion said at the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee meeting.

“I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.”

On September 17, 2012 the Mississauga Governance Committee provided Robert J. Swayze with his first opportunity to demonstrate that McCallion had hired an Integrity Commissioner who is sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and will give them every understanding possible.

The June 20, 2012 press release City of Mississauga Appoints Integrity Commissioner at the City’s website announcing states:

“Mr. Swayze possesses significant experience in the practice of municipal law, both in private practice and as previous City Solicitor in two municipalities,” said City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench. “He currently serves as Integrity Commissioner to a number of municipalities including Oakville, Guelph, Brantford, Port Hope and Carleton Place. He is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in municipal law. Staff will work with Mr. Swayze over the summer and report back to Council in the fall concerning recommendations to amend the Code of Conduct for Mayor and Members of Council.”

Nothing there about Robert J. Swayze being appointed an Integrity Commissioner because in addition to his expertise in municipal law, he is also sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and will give them every understanding possible.

But most certainly Mr. Swayze’s September 7, 2012  “First Report of the Integrity Commissioner” will provide the necessary evidence that Mayor Hazel McCallion ensured that Mississauga residents will be served by an integrity commissioner who is sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and will, over his five year term, give us every understanding possible. Right?

The reality is that the very moment that the reader gets past these headers of Swayze’s report:

DATE: September 7,2012
TO:  Chair and members of the Governance Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2012
FROM: Robert J. Swayze Integrity Commissioner
SUBJECT: First Report of the Integrity Commissioner

to RECOMMENDATIONS, it is Robert J. Swayze sensitive-FAIL/understanding-FAIL and by extension Hazel McCallion-FAIL.

For part of the reason we just need to go back to the City’s news release and the quote from City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench.

She stated:

“Staff will work with Mr. Swayze over the summer and report back to Council in the fall concerning recommendations to amend the Code of Conduct for Mayor and Members of Council.”

And what is Robert J. Swayze’s first recommendation?

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner not be
expanded to include investigations of members of City staff;

That’s right. City of Mississauga staff worked with the new Integrity Commissioner over the summer concerning recommendations to amend the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct and apparently recommended that Mr. Swayze not investigate them!

How is City of Mississauga senior staff  working with Integrity Commissioner Swayze on whether to expand his mandate to include investigations of City senior staff not conflict of interest?

And a more troubling question: Why didn’t Robert J. Swayze, (who is also the Integrity Commissioner for Oakville, Guelph, Brantford, Port Hope and Carleton Place) recognize that working with City of Mississauga staff on whether he should investigate them as a conflict of interest?

It’s easy to demonstrate that Robert J. Swayze did not perform due diligence prior to writing his September 7, 2012  “First Report of the Integrity Commissioner” to the Governance Committee.

Neither did Councillor Frank Dale, Ward 4, Councillor Katie Mahoney, Ward 8, and Mayor Hazel McCallion, who all participated in the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee meeting where McCallion said:

“I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.”

Last, also for the record —from the Mississauga News June 20, 2012 article, “City appoints integrity commissioner”:

He is being paid a $24,000 annual retainer, which will cover the costs of all inquiries that do not require extensive research (less than one hour), a $1,500 block fee for providing educational sessions of half a day and $280 per hour for services outside the above.

The City has budgeted $100,000 for the role of the integrity commission for each year.

All those bucks and City of Mississauga staff still “investigate” themselves. And to be clear, that’s not allegation but Fact.

 

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga Council Code of Conduct shields Senior City Staff from Integrity Commissioner —MISSISSAUGAWATCH deputation

June 16th, 2012  

For the record, this video was presented as a deputation at the June 11, 2012 Governance Committee meeting.

Complete with transcript.

Mississauga Council Code of Conduct shields Senior City Staff from Integrity Commissioner  (14:03 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, introducing the video deputation June 10, 2012

I just posted these [photographs] to the internet the other day. And I got an immediate response.

Seems these are photographs of Mississauga’s very first girl’s hockey team –circa 1965/66. Erindale. That’s me.

And that’s me right here playing right wing to Mabel Boyd on left.

And reaching further back, that’s me and my grandfather beside the Miles Lane bridge over the Cooksville Creek circa 1953 before Hurricane Hazel came and washed the entire bridge out.

So why do I show this?

Photographs — speak to History.

As for video? That’s how History speaks!

The video clips span from May 2008 when Councillor Mullin first suggested “an ombudsman” to address complaints against City Staff to the April 16, 2012 Governance Committee meeting discussions.

Listen carefully and see if you can recognize the most important comment ever made by a City of Mississauga elected official regarding authentic accountability.

Meaning –if you were to take this video and cut it into a one minute clip, what would be the all-important take home message?

And that’s a challenge for you. See if you can recognize Real?

[VIDEO INSERT Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008 BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

This is the one.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Councillor Mullin? Thank you.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Yes, I read “R-4”. And I guess my question, and this is regarding the whole complaints issue, with regards to Don Barber at the Council meetings.

And there is an addition to this which talks about the possibility of an investigator. And I guess my concern with that would be, well first of all is that the cost of relatively significant.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Use the Ontario Ombudsman.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

And how many times would an investigator have to come forward to take a look at complaints.

But I guess I’m looking for some direction from possibly Staff if there is something that we can put in place which would be, I guess would be a complaint procedure —against Staff. And maybe somebody could respond.

Or if there’s another way in terms of looking at it.

I talked to Mary Ellen Bench about it and I mean I’m wondering if there is something like maybe the ombudsman that could take a look at something like this.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Yeah, yeah.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

And it just seems to me that it would be an ongoing scenario—

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Yuh.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

—and a continuation. And never a satisfaction at the end of the day. That we would be just putting more and more money into this.

[VIDEO INSERT Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008 ENDS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, narrating the video deputation June 10, 2012

And then May 2010. Me. Unprepared, incoherent —and ineffective in front of Mississauga General Committee.

[VIDEO INSERT Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19 2010 BEGINS]

Councillor Eve Adams, Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19, 2010

Good morning and welcome.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19, 2010

Good morning Councillor Adams and Council.

I came here to discuss the minutes of meetings and then walked in a saw the —this one here, if I could have this [over head projector] on the [Council] Code of Conduct for integrity commissioner.

And I consider that way more important than anything I have to say about minutes.

So I kind of regret that I didn’t know about this.

You can’t just switch, can you?

Councillor Eve Adams, Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19, 2010

It actually is on the agenda so you can speak to it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19, 2010

Yeah, but I’m not good on my feet. I need to prepare ahead of time. I’m not swift.

But I was hoping that —this is really important.

If people remember, it was Councillor Mullin who had said that there were issues that are chronically coming up regarding —and she was mentioning Donald Barber as an example.

And she had recommended that, you know, once and for all, to deal with it. And this is how, I think, the idea of the integrity commissioner came up.

And I also recall I had urged Councillor —I think Councillor Saito was going to lead the charge on this.

And I asked her to invite the Ontario Ombudsman in to address Council to give them some idea as to how to set up an integrity commissioner.

This is —you know, I’ve been observing Mississauga Council since June 14, 2006. And I’m talking about audiotape, videotape and stuff like that.

This has got to be the most important Corporate Report and direction. Certainly from the view of treatment of citizens and Ethical Infrastructure. And this thing did not go through Audit Committee, for example.

It just kind of showed up here and Staff is recommending that you accept it.

There’s not any possibility for public input. I don’t even know if it’s been run through [the] public.

And you know I would think that first you’d check to see the validity of the public complaints system that you already have in place. The one for Corporate Security and the generic ones. And whether those are being handled properly.

Because if they’re not —and I’m saying they’re not, and I’ve got Freedom of Information saying it, so, you know, the fact that, the fact that —well, okay, it’s not a fact because it’s based on evidence but it’s sort of ultimately my conclusions. And somebody else could look at the evidence and see it differently.

But for me, I’d question any integrity commissioner —or a process here, because I just don’t see the Ethical Infrastructure in place to support something like that—

—Mayor McCallion was giving an address at UTM last week and I was there. And she was talking about public input and the importance of it.

And this [Corporate Report] just came up and could be rubber-stamped today and that’s it.

So I would hope that Council might look at this and say, “You know this is really important. Let’s put some —let the public look at this and talk about it.”

Anyway, I’m hoping that —I’ll be preparing for this at Council. Because I’m better —I’m very scattered [inaudible] I’m sorry.

[VIDEO INSERT Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19 2010 ENDS]

[VIDEO INSERT  MISSISSAUGAWATCH Governance Committee April 16 2010 video deputation BEGINS]

 MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting April 14, 2012

And that was May 21, 2008 and that issue still hasn’t been addressed. It hasn’t.

And while there’s now an integrity commissioner in place to file complaints against elected officials, there still is no consistent person —ombudsman or integrity commissioner, or otherwise, to deal with complaints against City Staff.

And that includes everything right up to the Commissioners and the City Manager.

So it’s interesting to look at the May 21, 2008 video and see that [shakes head and gestures, “WTF”]. And that’s the other thing I would request is for the Governance Committee to perhaps consider expanding the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner to also include complaints against City Staff.

Thanks.

[VIDEO INSERT MISSISSAUGAWATCH Governance Committee April 16 2010 video deputation ENDS]

[VIDEO INSERT Mississauga Governance Committee discussion April 16 2010 BEGINS]

Councillor Pat Saito, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

—with the hiring of the Integrity Commissioner —and the anticipation is that this person would be, hopefully, here by the end of June. And then in the Fall, this committee would sit down with the Integrity Commissioner and work on the amendments to the [Council] Code of Conduct with that person being here to work on it with us.

So there is an opportunity for some of the concerns that you have raised to be reviewed during that process.

They may not all be addressed because —I don’t agree the Integrity Commissioner that we are looking at to deal with the Code of Conduct and the application of the Code of Conduct. That is for Members of Council.

I don’t agree that that person should be handling about all City Staff. That is a Staff responsibility —it’s a senior Staff, Commissioner, Director level responsibility, or City Manager level of responsibility. [* Note. MISSISSAUGAWATCH never suggested that the Integrity Commissioner address complaints regarding “all City Staff”. But rather Senior Management —City Manager, Commissioners, Directors.]

Now having said, Councillor Carlson and I were just talking about it there and there may be some validity in taking a look at the Integrity Commissioner dealing with complaints of the Senior Staff —the Commissioner, City Manager level.

But at this point, I don’t think either of us are, you know, that’s just something that was thrown out in discussion. Whether that would happen, whether we would think it’s a good idea after we’ve, you know, we’ve sat down and talked about it or not, I don’t know.

But as far as Staff below that level, that is dealt with by Senior Staff. That is their responsibility.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

Actually that, yeah. I, I —that’s good. I like that.

Councillor Pat Saito, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

But anyway, we’re —thank you. Gee we agree on something—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

I’ve got a question to what you said, Councillor Saito.

At the beginning you said you weren’t sure about that Number 2 thing, “Upon receipt”—

Councillor Pat Saito, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

I just wasn’t sure where it was from. If you could—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

It’s under Rule 12.

Councillor Pat Saito, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

That was under Rule 12.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

Rule 12 deals with the Respectful Workplace Policy. And that is Provision 2 under Rule 12.

So anything that the Integrity Commissioner receives a complaint and he feels that it deals with the Respectful Workplace Policy, then he can’t investigate. He must hand it to Human Resources.

Councillor Pat Saito, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

Then it’s referred. Okay. Thank you. I just lost the context on it so I appreciate that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

And that’s what I’d like you to fix, please. Thank you.

Councillor Jim Tovey (Chair), Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

Okay, hang on a second, Ursula.

Councillor Chris Fonseca, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

I think Councillor Saito’s point, I think for all of us, when we’re looking at this over-review of governance —her point about you get out of it what you put into it, is really important in terms of understanding the process of when a complaint is made.   Whether it be internally amongst councillors— Whether it be from a member of the public towards one of the council-members or from a member of the public towards Staff.

But I’m —Councillor Saito and Councillor Carlson —you just, Councillor Saito, you just spoke for Councillor Carlson, I guess, in saying that you’d be willing to look at —if there’s a way that we can look at including, perhaps, I don’t know, we would have to have more discussion around the Leadership Team.

But I think for all of us, including the Leadership Team and Council, we’re committed to this Governance Committee, specifically because we want to make sure that we move forward for the City of Mississauga —that we have a transparent and clear path when it comes to a complaint process, a Code of Conduct, and also in terms of an independent person who is working to analyze and review that whole process.

So thank you for coming.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

Thank you.

[VIDEO INSERT Mississauga Governance Committee discussion April 16 2010 ENDS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, narrating the video deputation June 11, 2012

So what’s that all-important take home message?

[VIDEO FLASHBACK Mississauga Governance Committee discussion April 16 2010 BEGINS]

Councillor Chris Fonseca, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

I think Councillor Saito’s point, I think for all of us, when we’re looking at this over-review of governance —her point about you get out of it what you put into it, is really important in terms of understanding the process of when a complaint is made.   Whether it be internally amongst councillors— Whether it be from a member of the public towards one of the council-members or from a member of the public towards Staff.

[VIDEO FLASHBACK Mississauga Governance Committee discussion April 16, 2012 ENDS]

[VIDEO FLASHBACK Mississauga General Committee discussion May 19, 2010 BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19, 2010

—you know I would think that first you’d check to see the validity of the public complaints system that you already have in place.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, narrating the video deputation June 11, 2012

And, because you can’t say this often enough!

[BLACK SCREEN TEXT SUMMARIES ALL-IMPORTANT TAKE HOME MESSAGE]

Councillor Chris Fonseca, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

I think Councillor Saito’s point, I think for all of us, when we’re looking at this over-review of governance —her point about you get out of it what you put into it, is really important in terms of understanding the process of when a complaint is made.   Whether it be internally amongst councillors— Whether it be from a member of the public towards one of the council-members or from a member of the public towards Staff.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 19, 2010

—you know I would think that first you’d check to see the validity of the public complaints system that you already have in place.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

Mississauga Council Code of Conduct takes investigations away from Integrity Commissioner (Governance Committee deputation)

April 20th, 2012  

Today’s blog, our previous entry, Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, “CITY STAFF LIE.” and the related Additional Resources will be sent to the City of Mississauga as Correspondence for inclusion in both the Governance Committee minutes as well as a future Council meeting agenda.

As is our custom, our video, complete with transcript.

For the record, this video was presented as a deputation at the April 16, 2012 Governance Committee meeting.

Mississauga Council Code of Conduct takes investigations away from Integrity Commissioner  (16:39 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

R-5, I think it is.

R-4. Motion to receive them? Second?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

This is the one.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Councillor Mullin? Thank you.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Yes, I read “R-4”. And I guess my question, and this is regarding the whole complaints issue, with regards to Don Barber at the Council meetings.

And there is an addition to this which talks about the possibility of an investigator. And I guess my concern with that would be, well first of all is that the cost of relatively significant.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Use the Ontario Ombudsman.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

And how many times would an investigator have to come forward to take a look at complaints.

But I guess I’m looking for some direction from possibly Staff if there is something that we can put in place which would be, I guess would be a complaint procedure —against Staff. And maybe somebody could respond.

Or if there’s another way in terms of looking at it.

I talked to Mary Ellen Bench about it and I mean I’m wondering if there is something like maybe the ombudsman that could take a look at something like this.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Yeah, yeah.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

And it just seems to me that it would be an ongoing scenario—

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Yuh.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

—and a continuation. And never a satisfaction at the end of the day. That we would be just putting more and more money into this.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting April 14, 2012

Now regarding “never a satisfaction at the end of the day” and “putting more and more money into this”, I want to talk a little bit about the Integrity Commissioner and public complaints against elected officials.

And to do that, I need to refer to the February 17, 2012 Corporate Report and its first recommendation with respect to the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner.

That report states, quote:

 That the Governance Committee reaffirm that the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner shall be to act as an advisor to Members of Council on matters relating to ethics and the Council Code of Conduct,

That’s one. And

to act as an educational resource to Members of Council in this respect, and to independently receive and investigate complaints regarding a possible breach of the Council Code of Conduct by a Member of Council;

Now the previous clip was video of the May 21, 2008 Council meeting.

And Councillor Mullin, when she was referring to “never a satisfaction at the end of the day” —it had to do with several complaints that Donald Barber had filed against, specifically, City Security.

And it’s now, what? April 14, 2012 and those issues still have not been resolved.

So the “never a satisfaction at the end of the day” continues.

And so for Donald Barber, for me, for all citizens, the quote, “to independently receive and investigate complaints ” is the Integrity Commissioner’s most crucial role. I really believe that.

Receive the complaint. And investigate the complaint.

Now the Integrity Commissioner’s mandate to investigate complaints is clearly a major theme throughout several corporate reports —either relating to the Integrity Commissioner of the Council Code of Conduct.

“Investigate complaints” is echoed in the February 17, 2012 report in the “Integrity Commissioner – Request for Proposals” too.

submitted to Council at its meeting of March 26, 2008

[scanning Corporate Report]

We go on. And there’s plenty of information here.

There’s some of the —extensive list of complaints that he’s got.

And what’s interesting is, there’s Step 1, “The City should engage an independent and impartial person or entity
to carry out the investigation and prepare a report.”

“Screening and Acknowledgement of Complaint”.

Essentially what they’re doing here, is a lot of this, you can recognize in the Code of Conduct regarding investigations and so on.

But what’s really astonishing is down here, this comment. “Financial Impact”.

Fees would be based on the amount of time spent to conduct such an investigation and an initial estimate is that this could easily exceed $50,000.00.

Just on Mr. Barber’s complaint alone.

And it says the financial impact:

Cannot be determined with certainty and will depend on the scope of the investigation, the number of witnesses to be interviewed and the volume of the material to be reviewed. Anticipated to exceed $50,000.00.

So with that you’re almost looking here at an integrity commissioner. For one person.

So with that context, we’ll now here what Councillor Mullin has to say.

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

You’re looking at $50,000. Plus. And I’m not sure how much money has been put into looking at some of these complaints so far.

But I see it as possibly an ongoing scenario that might never really come to a satisfactory conclusion. So, I guess I’m looking for some direction.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Councillor Mullin, I met with the City Manager this morning. I have not see the report.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH commenting on the Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008 on April 14, 2012

Now the Mayor mentions an ombudsman twice. Listen.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

And I was going to ask, I was a little slow in asking, that this report be referred back to look at a process.

I think we should look at —we talked about an ombudsman like the City of Toronto has appointed.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH commenting on the Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008 on April 14, 2012

Like Toronto has an ombudsman.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

Because we’ve already had one which cost us close to $50,000 and there’s another one that might be— And I, when you read the report it also says that not all the information has been provided to be investigated. In addition to that, so I would ask Council to refer it back to Staff

Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

I’ll be happy to—

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

And the City Manager to further the investigation on it. And to come up with a policy and a process.

Whether we look at an ombudsman—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH commenting on the Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008 on April 14, 2012

Again, “ombudsman”. A specific person to deal with public complaints against Staff.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, May 21 2008

—is something we should look at. Or what other opportunities —or what other options there are for us to consider before we proceed with this one.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting April 14, 2012

And that was May 21, 2008 and that issue still hasn’t been addressed. It hasn’t.

And while there’s now an integrity commissioner in place to file complaints against elected officials, there still is no consistent person —ombudsman or integrity commissioner, or otherwise, to deal with complaints against City Staff.

And that includes everything right up to the Commissioners and the City Manager.

So it’s interesting to look at the May 21, 2008 video and see that [shakes head and gestures, “WTF”]. And that’s the other thing I would request is for the Governance Committee to perhaps consider expanding the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner to also include complaints against City Staff.

Thanks.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

May 15, 2008 Corporate Report, SUBJECT: Complaints filed against City staff by Donald Barber at the Council Meeting of March 26, 2008

Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, “CITY STAFF LIE.” (6:38 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Blog, Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, “CITY STAFF LIE.”

ANDRE MARIN, ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN QUOTES from "Sharpen Your Teeth III" course
“You can always find an expert ready to be bought off” —Ontario Ombudsman’s Sharpen Your Teeth III course 2009.

Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, “CITY STAFF LIE.”

April 14th, 2012  

What follows is a video —not because it will change how the City of Mississauga does business, it’s just for the record.

The video includes an audio excerpt from a March 26, 2012 interview with Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management (aka Director City of Mississauga Corporate Security) wherein I proclaim, “City Staff lie.”

My one regret about this interview is that I couldn’t muster the courage to also tell Ken Owen that his Security Staff are abusive hacks that

1. fabricate evidence

and:

2. conduct biased, fraudulent investigations.

I’ll leave those two for another time….

Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, “CITY STAFF LIE.” (6:38 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
Music: Baloney Again by Mark Knopfler

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

So, what can I do for you today?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay, just some things.

As you know I’m researching Security and stuff like that, okay, through Freedom of Information. And I just want to talk about some of the incident reports and also the public complaints system.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

Okay.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 201

I have a video camera here. Would you be comfortable if I videotaped myself doi— okay. Would I, could I at least use this video sur- video camera as a second—

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

No. Is that a tape recorder going there?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Yeah.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

That’s fine.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Yeah, but I mean I can use this as a tape recorder by not having the lens on. Just as a back-up.

[permission denied]

No? Okay. That’s fine.

[fast forward]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Remember, I’m asking you for an interview. And I’d actually wanted to discuss the Council Code of Conduct and Staff investigating people.

I completely was blown away by realizing that there’s [sic] informal investigations that can go on. If—

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

I don’t know why keep saying that. Like it’s some nefarious thing.

If somebody brings to my—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay—

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

—attention, an allegation of misconduct on the part of my Staff, whether it’s a formal complaint or not, then I’m going to make inquiries about what went on. I want to know the details.

I want to know the other side of the story.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

And I don’t blame you.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

If you call that an investigation then, I, you know, it’s an investigation. I call—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Actually you called it an investigation.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

I call it informal inquiries into the details of a matter.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay, but what happens though is that the public is not privy to what the people say. I —right?

Like you actually do informal queries to the people who are being complained about. And don’t contact, or the public may not know at all that this has happened. And—

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

I’m not sure why that matters, but, okay.

[long pause as I summon the courage to tell it like it is.]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

City Staff are professional, honest and hard-working and your allegations of lying are completely without foundation.

So stop saying that they lie. They do not lie.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Hi there.

Could I speak to you for a second?

Cathie Evans, Security Area Manager, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

[inaudible affirmation]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Oh. I thought I heard you say to me that . Could you confirm that?

Cathie Evans, Security Area Manager, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

I don’t think so.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Don’t think so? Okay. Thank you.

Cathie Evans, Security Area Manager, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

No, I don’t think so. You must have been hearing something.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Yeah, well, thank you. Just wanted to be sure.

[And then speaking into camera] Okay, she said that that was not the case, but we’ll see whether the camera picks that up or not.

Ohhhh, the camera picked it up all right…

 

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

City Staff are professional, honest and hard-working and your allegations of lying are completely without foundation.

So stop saying that they lie. They do not lie.

[Dip to White]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

City Staff are professional, honest and hard-working and your allegations of lying are completely without foundation.

So stop saying that they lie. They do not lie.

[Dip to White]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

[Cross-fade]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Hi there.

Could I speak to you for a second?

Cathie Evans, Security Area Manager, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

[inaudible affirmation]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Oh. I thought I heard you say to me that , Could you confirm that?

Cathie Evans, Security Area Manager, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

I don’t think so.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Don’t think so? Okay. Thank you.

Cathie Evans, Security Area Manager, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

No, I don’t think so. You must have been hearing something.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping camera held down, October 25, 2010 Mississauga election night inside Great Hall

Yeah, well, thank you. Just wanted to be sure.

[Push]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

City Staff are professional, honest and hard-working and your allegations of lying are completely without foundation.

So stop saying that they lie. They do not lie.

[Push]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

[Dip to White]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

[Push]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting for the record, April 12 2012

And, not only do City Staff lie, they also fabricate evidence! Thank you Freedom of Information!

And, fortunately, I took the precaution of photographing the real evidence and storing it here on my computer.

 

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

[Video clip of March 17, 2008 City of Mississauga Audit Committee meeting]

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Audit Committee, March  17, 2008

I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.

Jamie Hillis, Mississauga Corporate Security Manager, Audit Committee, March  17, 2008

Yes. Absolutely.

[Dip to White]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting for the record, April 12 2012

And. What was the biggest lie ever uttered?

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010

I pride myself on the staff that we have at the City of Mississauga. They’re very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

City Staff are professional, honest and hard-working and your allegations of lying are completely without foundation.

So stop saying that they lie. They do not lie.

[Video Clip insert. May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting]

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, Audit Committee, May 11, 2009

I’m getting a little frustrated as Mayor as we set up policies and then they’re not followed. And that’s what bothers me.

[fast forward]

You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

[logo]

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, "CITY STAFF LIE."

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Carmen Corbasson: Eulogy by Councillor Nando Iannicca. Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit

March 18th, 2012  

 

‘Ike aku, ‘ike mai, kokua aku kokua mai; pela iho la ka nohana ‘ohana.
Translation: Recognize others, be recognized, help others, be helped; such is a family relationship.

 

And for the record, like Councillor Iannicca, Councillor Corbasson is Family to me.

This blog is dedicated to Councillor Carmen Corbasson. Special thanks to Councillor Nando Iannicca.

Note, this transcript contains numerous [inaudible] notations. I did this rather than guess at what Councillor Iannicca may have said.

Carmen Corbasson: Eulogy by Councillor Nando Iannicca. Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit (9:00 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)


[TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH parked opposite Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

It is Friday, March the 16th, 2012 and I’m parked here opposite Trinity Anglican Church in Port Credit.

And the services have been completed for Councillor Carmen Corbasson.

And I won’t give a complete run-down of everything that happened and everything that I witnessed. I think what I’d rather do at this point is just introduce the eulogy given by Councillor Corbasson’s close friend and colleague, Councillor Nando Iannicca.

Councillor Iannicca gave a superb, superb speech —and good-bye. And —beautifully summarized —just to perfection, what Councillor Corbasson represented.

He basically said it was just the best that we as citizens could hope for in someone who represents us.

[DIP TO BLACK[

Councillor Nando Iannicca about Carmen Corbasson, Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

—Judy, thank you.

My thanks also to Lisa, Julie, Sebastion and the family. And I’ve been given a handful of privileges in my life but none greater than the one I have now. [inaudible] all of my Council colleagues to express some thoughts about my friend, Carmen Corbasson.

Was Kind. Compassionate. Caring. Comforting. Consoling. Civil. Sympathetic.

Emphatic.

Loyal. Selfless. Proper. Classy.

Dedicated. Hard-working. Committed. Respectful. Humble. Intelligent. Wise. Forgiving. Grateful.

Vibrant.

Humane. Nurturing. Loving.

And if you’re like me, you’re going over the list that I missed! Because that described Carmen Corbasson. The Carmen that we all knew.

I remember first meeting Carmen in 1988 when I was elected a very, very young member of Council. And amongst the many blessings in my life two of them were my executive assistant Brenda Robertson and Carmen, who worked as executive assistants at the time. Carmen, of course, worked for Harold Kennedy.

And they were both caring, compassionate and they were the older sisters that I’ve never had.

They were a real tempering influence. And you need people like Carmen and her tempering influence when some of the other people around the table are [inaudible]. And she does that. She was our steady hand at Council.

I remember one of the endearing traits was any time you met Carmen her first question was, “How’s your family?” “How’s everybody doing?” And she meant it sincerely.

She took on a great fondness for my wife, Ann-Marie, who also loved her dearly, and would remark that I married very well in life. And I agree.

And it was interesting to me that Carmen had some of the attributes that my wife has as well. She also had some French descent in her. I don’t think you knew that. And she also had some Russian descent in her.

And she reminds me of another character that lived in my ward, the Grand Duchess Olga, who was part of the Russian royal family who lived in Ward 7 on Camilla Road.

And the reason she brings Carmen to mind is that she had that same noble pedigree, but a very humble demeanour.

[video-left: Councillor Corbasson at re-opening of Memorial Park, Port Credit September 16, 2006
video-right: Carmen Corbasson at October 4, 2006 Lakeview Ratepayers Association meeting]

And that was our Carmen.

I remember another day when we were sitting at Council Chamber, and much to a lot of people’s surprise —there in Council, any special announcements and Councillor Kennedy said “Yes, [inaudible] I will not be seeking public office again.”

When it concluded, I marched up the stairs and I went right to Carmen’s office. And I said, “Carmen [inaudible]. What a wonderful opportunity for you.”

She was befuddled! She was shocked!

As opposed to the politics that we’re used to today. “Where is Opportunity? What can I get out of this?”, she was “What can I possibly bring?”, “How can I serve?”, “Am I worthy?”

[video-left: March 28, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson defending the Port Credit Library
video-right: Carmen Corbasson supporting the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, October 28, 2010]

And she carried it for all her years as a public official.

She really was in many ways an anomaly of public life because she is what people would hope politicians aspire to be [inaudible].

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

[whispering into audio recorder] Iannicca nailed that dead-on. He’s absolutely right.

[video-left: May8, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson, Enersource debate
video-right: Carmen Corbasson supporting the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, October 28, 2010]

Councillor Nando Iannicca about Carmen Corbasson, Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

I think George Carlson said it very well when he said, “She was a dove in a sea of hawks.”

[inaudible] tell me if you can picture this. [inaudible] Councillor Carlson, but my view is that, regrettably at times, politics is a combative blood sport. She was our Florence Nightingale.

She was the kindest, most loving nurse you could hope for that said, “There may be a war, but can we have peace as well?” And it’s what she brought to the table more than anything.

In that regard I have another interesting anecdote for you.

It was remarkable to think that I was given the privilege to be a pall bearer. And as I was performing that service, [inaudible] in comes Brad Butt and ex-husband Bill. You know it’s remarkable, they say if you want to test the measure of a woman or a man upon their death, have their foes or their enemies speak to them. To their character.

We would but we can’t find any.

So it is that former political adversaries and an ex-husband are pall-bearers at your funeral. You don’t see that on Reality Television very much.

In terms of moving forward, the last thought that I’d leave with you —a couple of thoughts.

[video-left: May 8, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson, Enersource debate
video-right: Carmen Corbasson debate regarding Integrity Commissioner, September, 2010]

I remember just before Christmas, Carmen and I were having lunch —amongst others, and she knew that this surgery was coming forward. Had been pending, let’s say, for a while.

And to Julie, to Lisa, to Sebastion —I’ve never told you this but I will share it with you now.

All she could think about was none of the surgery in and of itself as it related to her. It was “I hope it all works out. I hope I come out one hundred percent —for my girls. For Sebastion. For my grandchildren. Nando, that’s what I’m really concerned about.”

[video-left: May 23, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson, Power Plants debate
video-right: Carmen Corbasson debate regarding Integrity Commissioner, September, 2010]

And of course, I answered, you will be fine.

And even in that moment, where most of us would be wondering what the operation looks like, and you have every right to be selfish, she was not. She thought of others.

My final words, I hope are some words of comfort to a dear friend.

You know it’s interesting [inaudible] that I [inaudible] Sebastion and Carmen longer than anybody here in the room. And in fact I’ll take some credit I think for having introduced them. Sebastion is one of my very dear friends along with Carlo who’s here today and [inaudible] who became known as The Three Amigos during her first election campaign.

And Carmen struck up quite a relationship. And Carmen, as you know Sebastion, was your soul-mate, was your partner.

In trying to comfort Sebastion, Ann-Marie and I had him over to the house with some of his friends. And you can appreciate the first thoughts are shock —that we all had.

Then we turned [inaudible] and Sebastion said something very interesting.

He said, “Wouldn’t the world be a better place if everybody had a little bit of Carmen in them?” [inaudible] question.

[inaudible] and say, “Why? Why does God take the Good?” [inaudible]

In looking back at that, the thought that I leave with you, Sebastion is I think —and this isn’t politics and it isn’t the rhetoric of a politician— the thought that I leave you with and all of you with is let’s take that point and say, “What a blessing that we had her.” Many others did not. And will never have a friend like that.

And to you, Sebastion, you are the man you are because of her.

To her daughters, the legacy that she leaves behind —the children.

So let’s rejoice in her life. God wants good people. He just took one. And let’s hope, and trust, that she quite deservedly rests in peace.

[TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

—Councillor Nando Iannicca
March 16, 2012

Councillor Carmen Corbasson, "She was a dove in a sea of hawks"

 

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 15) Compliance with the Code of Conduct

January 30th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 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.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 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.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 22 through 24 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole. Pages 25 through 26 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 11) Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members. Page 27 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 12) Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures. Page 28 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 13) Reprisals and Obstruction. Page 29 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 14) Acting on Advice of Integrity Commissioner. Page 30 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.


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 31 –final page begins)

 Rule No. 18

Compliance with the Code of Conduct:

1. Upon receipt of recommendations from the Integrity Commissioner, Council may, in
circumstances where the Integrity Commissioner has determined there has been a violation
of the Code of Conduct, impose either of two penalties:

i) a reprimand; or
ii) suspension of the remuneration paid to the Member in respect of his/her services as a Member of Council or a local board, as the case may be, for a period of up to 90 days

[Interesting reference to “a local board”. It’s not really defined. However, regarding “board” it looks like the Code’s Rule No. 9 Conduct of Council at Committee Meetings and When Representing the City states:

3. Members shall make every effort to participate diligently in the activities of the committees, agencies, boards, commissions and advisory committees to which they are appointed by the City or by virtue of being an elected official.

The 2001 Municipal Act defines “local board” as:

“local board” means a municipal service board, transportation commission, public library board, board of health, police services board, planning board, or any other board, commission, committee, body or local authority established or exercising any power under any Act with respect to the affairs or purposes of one or more municipalities, excluding a school board and a conservation authority; (“conseil local”)

The 2001 Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to establish their own codes of conduct as seen here:

Code of conduct

223.2(1)  Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to establish codes of conduct for members of the council of the municipality and of local boards of the municipality. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.

So, the City’s Council Code of Conduct’s reference to “local board” and the 2001 Municipal Act’s definition of “local board” would suggest that conduct of elected officials sitting on the Peel Police Services Board would fall within the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner.

Nope, sorry —citizens can’t get there from here. The 2001 Municipal Act ensured that elected officials sitting on police services boards are exempt from investigations by municipal integrity commissioners!

For the record, the 2001 Municipal Act, Part V.1, (ironically named) the “ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY” section, authorizes integrity commissioners to investigate “local boards”, then changes the meaning of “local boards” as defined in Part 1 of the Act!

“local board” means a local board other than,

(a) a society as defined in subsection 3 (1) of the Child and Family Services Act,

(b) a board of health as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act,

(c) a committee of management established under the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007,

(d) a police services board established under the Police Services Act,

(e) a board as defined in section 1 of the Public Libraries Act,

(f) a corporation established in accordance with section 203,

(g) such other local boards as may be prescribed; (“conseil local”)

And any elected officials sitting on any of these “local boards” are exempt! And notice that malevolent “(g) such other local boards as may be prescribed; (“conseil local”)”?  If I’m reading that correctly, elected officials can exempt any other local board they don’t want the integrity commissioner peeping into. Most obvious example would be elected officials sitting on the Enersource Board! Back to Page 31 of the Code.]

2. The Integrity Commissioner may also recommend that Council take the following actions:

i) removal from membership of a committee;
ii) removal as chair of a committee;
iii) repayment or reimbursement of monies received;
iv) return of property or reimbursement of its value;
v) a written and/or verbal request for an apology to Council, the complainant, or both.

[Items i) and ii) should prove interesting… Back to Page 31 of the Code.]

Commentary

Members are accountable to the public through the election process. Between elections they
may become disqualified and lose their seat if convicted of an offence under the Criminal
Code of Canada or for failing to declare a conflict of personal interest under the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act, or for certain violations of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

[This paragraph is a wordy-wordy way of saying, “Members are only accountable on during the few hours every four years when the voting booth is open” … Back to Page 30 of the Code.]

In addition, the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes Council to impose either of the two penalties
on a Member following a report by the Integrity Commissioner that, in his/her opinion, there
has been a violation of the Code of Conduct.

[A “reasonably informed person” would suspect that the Municipal Act, 2001 was written to favour municipalities, not the citizens they serve. A “reasonably informed person” would also suspect that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) lobbied into overdrive massaging the Act to their advantage —meaning, create the illusion of accountability for the naive reader.  “Naive” is not meant to be derogatory —few people could be as naive as I once was.

Here’s something else. The 2001 Municipal Act grants integrity commissioners the power to transfer their powers and duties to “any person”. From the Act:

(3)  The [Integrity] Commissioner may delegate in writing to any person, other than a member of council, any of the Commissioner’s powers and duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.

Imagine how that section can be misused!

And the Municipal Act’s truly contemptuous of the public with this statement:

(5)  The [Integrity] Commissioner is not required to be a municipal employee. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.

Fact is, once hired by Mayor and Councillors, the Integrity Commissioner becomes a municipal employee!

The public are such SUCKERS!

31

END OF PAGE 31, THE LAST PAGE OF THE CODE.

I’ve finished going line by line through all 31 pages of the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct.

Now comes the hard part…

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Hazel McCallion: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Report "Updating Ethical Infrastructure"

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 13) Reprisals and Obstruction.

January 28th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 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.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 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.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 22 through 24 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole. Pages 25 through 26 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 11) Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members. Page 27 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 12) Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures.  Page 28 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.


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 29 begins)

Rule No. 16

Reprisals and Obstruction:

1. It is a violation of the Code of Conduct to obstruct the Integrity Commissioner in the
carrying out of his/her responsibilities.

2. No Member shall threaten or undertake any active reprisal against a person initiating an
inquiry or complaint under the Code of Conduct, or against a person who provides
information to the Integrity Commissioner in any investigation.

3. It is also a violation of the Code of Conduct to destroy documents or erase electronic
communications or refuse to respond to the Integrity Commissioner where a formal
complaint has been lodged under the Code of Conduct.

[For the record: As far as I know, I’ve read all City of Mississauga corporate policies relating to elected officials/employee conduct and don’t ever recall seeing the statement, “It is also a violation of the Code of Conduct to destroy documents or erase electronic communications” in any of them. Not even in both the City’s two public complaints policies. And that serious omission needs to be addressed. Back to Page 29 of the Code.]

Commentary

Members of Council should respect the integrity of the Code of Conduct and investigations
conducted under it.)

 [As we’ve noted, combing through these 29 pages, Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct protects Mayor/Councillors from an investigation conducted by the Integrity Commissioner .

In Rule 12 Item 2 of the Code, we saw how Mayor/Councillors are protected from an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner:

“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.”

The Respectful Workplace policy is the City’s most fundamental policy in that it addresses all behavioural expectations (elected officials, employees, volunteers, public) while on City property.

It is under the City’s Respectful Workplace policy that a member of the public would most likely launch a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner. And it’s under this policy that the public can’t get an investigation conducted by the Integrity Commissioner!

The Code then goes on to state:

“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.”

A “reasonably informed person” will discover that in Mississauga municipal governance, there’s always a huge loophole in a policy that shields Elected Officials and/or Staff from authentic accountability.

“Members of Council should respect the integrity of the Code of Conduct“? How, I ask you?

The Code states:

“As leaders in the community, Members are held to a higher standard of all behaviour and conduct and accordingly their behaviour should be exemplary.”

In fact the Code contains three (3) references to a “higher standard of behaviour and conduct”. As such citizens can be forgiven if they inferred that “Members are held to a higher standard of all behaviour and conduct” is the ethical foundation of the Code. Nope.

Example. Regarding “higher standard of behaviour and conduct” and “diligently”, the Code states:

“Members shall make every effort to participate diligently in the activities of the committees, agencies, boards, commissions and advisory committees to which they are appointed by the City or by virtue of being an elected official.”

And then defines “diligently” as regular attendance:

“to participate diligently means that a Member shall not be absent from Council or committee meetings…for more than three consecutive scheduled meetings or on a regular basis.”

Keep holding “diligently” to that “higher standard of behaviour and conduct”, MYTHissauga!

The Code states that the Mayor and Councillors:

“shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that are applicable to them”.

And then serves up:

“in exceptional circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy”.

Add another dozen other loopholes and this Code sure hasn’t got my respect! It’s good for Mayor and Councillors though… Nothin’ in there that will hold them to a higher standard of conduct or behaviour!]


29

END OF PAGE 29 OF THE CODE.

 

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 12) Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures

January 27th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 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.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 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.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 22 through 24 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole. Pages 25 through 26 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 11) Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members.  Page 27 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.

Given the City’s chronic lack of compliance to Corporate policies, procedures, by-laws and guidelines, Rule No. 15’s Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures isn’t just the Cornerstone of this Council Code of Conduct but forms the bedrock-foundation for all City of Mississauga Corporate policies, procedures, by-laws and guidelines and even provincial legislation.

The Code’s Rule No. 15 is THE BIG ONE, folks! The One Rule that Binds All other City Rules.

And, as it turns out, the Code‘s Rule No. 15 is also the Code’s Biggest Joke!

We begin.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 28 begins)

Rule No. 15

Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures:

1. Members shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that
are applicable to them.

Commentary

Members of Council are required to observe the policies and procedures established by City
Council at all times, and are directed to pay special attention to, and comply strictly with, the
Council Procedure By-law and the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy. In exceptional
circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy.)

[Regular readers will recall how often I’ve warned citizens that every City of Mississauga Corporate policy, by-law or guideline has at least one exemption clause. And the Code’s Rule No. 15 blows the biggest accountability loophole that certainly I’ve ever witnessed.

So. The Mayor and Councillors “shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that are applicable to them”. To render the entire Code essentially worthless, the City’s Staff/Good Governance Committee then slipped in the protective clause, “in exceptional circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy”.

And what might qualify as an “exceptional” circumstance? When Mayor and Councillors don’t want to comply.

And what does “any policy” mean?

“(A)ny policy”means any policy including the ones that Rule No. 15 directed Mayor/Councillors to “pay special attention to, and comply strictly with”. And also includes this one —The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct!]

 

28

END OF PAGE 28 OF THE CODE.

FREEDOM of INFORMATION MISSISSAUGA (TO DATE MISSISSAUGAWATCH HAS SPENT CLOSE TO $3,000 ON FOI REQUESTS FILED WITH CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AS WELL AS SELECTED ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES)

And related topic… Check out the humorous Mississauga News editorial “We can be the leaders” on last Monday’s Good Governance Committee meeting.

The Mississauga News writes:

Our civic leaders will forever remain divided in their strong opinions on whether the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry and its $7 million price tag were justified.

To this day, the majority of city residents feel Mayor Hazel McCallion had Mississauga’s best interests at heart when she got involved in a deal to bring a luxury hotel to the City Centre. They trust McCallion implicitly and didn’t bat a proverbial eyelash when it became known publicly that her developer son stood to make millions if the deal was ever done.

That same crowd bitterly resents the $7 million cost of the Judicial Inquiry that examined conflict-of-interest allegations against the mayor.

Crying and complaining won’t do a bit of good, though, because the money has already been spent.

Collectively, we have to move on and make the most out of the situation by quickly implementing the recommendations handed down by Inquiry Commissioner Douglas Cunningham.

You think the Judicial Inquiry handed us lemons? Let’s make lemonade.

Mississauga now has an opportunity to emerge as a true leader and model for municipalities across North America when it comes to civic ethics and morality and how they are employed to guide governance.

We can hold our collective heads up and tell the world that the $7 million was well spent because we blazed a righteous path for other municipal councils to follow…

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because every municipality in Canada needs a Council Code of Conduct that states, “Members shall make every effort to participate diligently..” and then defines “diligently” as not missing three consecutive meetings aka: regular attendance!”

And every municipality in Canada needs a Council Code of Conduct that Mayor and Councillors “shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that are applicable to them” and then carves the wormhole “in exceptional circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy”.

What a Pompatous of Pretend!

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 11) Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members.

January 26th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 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.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 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.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 22 through 24 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole. Pages 25 through 26 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.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 27 begins)

Rule No. 14

Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members

1. No Member shall attempt to influence the outcome, or to influence any City employee to
hire or promote a Family Member.

[File a complaint under Item 1 and good luck with that! And if you suspect something rotten happening with hiring, you certainly can’t build a case using Freedom of Information. Hiring practices and employee relations are beyond the reach of the province’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

2. No Members shall make any decision or participate in the process to hire, transfer,
promote, demote, discipline or terminate any Family Member.

[Notice how Item 2 left out,”No Members shall make any decision or participate in the process of salary negotiations.”

And same criticism can be leveled in Item 1. If you suspect something rotten happening with hiring, you certainly can’t build a case using Freedom of Information. Employment issues and employee relations are beyond the reach of Freedom of Information. Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

3. No Member shall supervise a Family Member, or be placed in a position of influence over
a Family Member.

4. No Member shall attempt to use a family relationship for his or her personal benefit or
gain.

[Like Items 3 and 4 are enforceable… Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

5. Every Member shall adhere to the City’s Candidate Selection Process policy.

[Before reading this I had no idea the City had a Candidate Selection Process policy. I discover any new Corporate policy like this and I’m reminded of the City’s chronic disregard for compliance and its corporate culture of looking the other way.  Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

Commentary

If a Family Member of a Councillor is an applicant for employment with the City or is a
candidate for promotion or transfer, the Family Member will proceed through the usual
selection process pursuant to the City’s hiring policies, with no special consideration.

[So what do you think your chances are if you’re competing for the same City position as (say) Ron Starr’s daughter or for the same Peel Police job as (say) Hazel McCallion’s son?]

27

END OF PAGE 27 OF THE CODE.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole.

January 19th, 2012  

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 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.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 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.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 23 through 24 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.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011  (Page 25 begins)

Rule No. 13

Conduct Respecting Staff:

1. No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities or be subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities.

[Interesting wording, “No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities” Item 1 seems to suggest that staff are free to engage in partisan political activities provided it’s of their free will and choosing. Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

2. No Member shall use, or attempt to use, their authority for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing any staff member with the intent of interfering in staff’s duties, including the duty to disclose improper activity.

[“duty to disclose improper activity”? Another City expectation that I’ve videotaped staff failing to comply with. Oh well… Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

3. Members shall be respectful of the role of staff to advise based on political neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any individual Member or faction of the Council.

[How do politically partisan staff  (who are confirmed to exist at the City) “advise based on political neutrality”? Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

4. No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or ethical reputation or the prospects or practice of staff, and all Members shall show respect for the professional capacities of the staff of the City.

[Interesting how there’s no provision in the Council Code of Conduct that states, “No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or ethical reputation of members of the public…” Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

Commentary

Under the direction of the City Manager, staff serve the Council as a whole, and the combined interests of all Members as evidenced through the decisions of Council. Only Council as a whole has the authority to approve budget, policy, committee processes and other matters. Accordingly, Members shall direct requests outside of Council-approved budget, process or policy, to the Budget Committee or directly to Council.

In practical terms, there are distinct and specialized roles carried out by Council as a whole and by Councillors when performing their other roles. The key requirements of these roles include dealing with constituents and the general public, participating as standing committee members and as chairs of standing committees, and participating as Council representatives on agencies, boards, commissions and other bodies. Similarly, there are distinct and specialized roles expected of City staff in both the carrying out of their responsibilities and in dealing with the Council. Staff are expected to provide information to Members that they are entitled to. City staff are accountable to the City Manager who is accountable to City Council. Sometimes the line between staff duties and activities that are political in nature is not clear. Members of Council must respect the difference between the two in making requests of staff.

[First, regarding the statement, “Staff are expected to provide information to Members that they are entitled to” —I’m reminded immediately of several Corporate reports that were fudged, with information completely withheld.

As for the statement, “City staff are accountable to the City Manager who is accountable to City Council”, here’s what Mayor Hazel McCallion wrote in a December 20, 2006 email:

“It is true that City staff are not directly accountable to the citizens, since City staff are not elected. However, City Council is accountable to Mississauga residents for the actions of City staff.”  

I believed what the Mayor wrote me right up until I read the Code and its “City staff are accountable to the City Manager who is accountable to City Council”. Certainly, the Mayor chose to make me believe that City Council was accountable for the actions of City staff.

It’s only five years afterwards do I now realize, thanks to the Code, that the Mayor/Councillors are not free to hold staff accountable. The City Manager does that. (Or doesn’t.)

This window-dressing accountability trail was a major revelation inside the Code. It explains why City staff so often fail to comply to Corporate polices, procedures, guidelines, by-laws and even provincial legislation. Elected officials can’t investigate Staff directly! Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

Members of Council should expect a high quality of advice from staff based on political neutrality and objectivity irrespective of party politics, the loyalty of persons in power, or their personal opinions.

[Seriously. Does anyone believe that?! Time and time again, it’s been proven that the only consistently “high quality of advice from staff” comes from Mary Ellen Bench, the City Solicitor and that’s it! Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

The City’s Respectful Workplace policy applies to Members of Council. Staff and Members of Council are all entitled to be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace

[“Staff and Members of Council are all entitled to be treated with respect” —no matter how often they lie, deny and/or stonewall to those they profess to serve. Back to Page 25 of the Code.] 

25

END OF PAGE 25 OF THE CODE. PAGE 26 BEGINS

 

5. It is inappropriate for a Member to attempt to influence staff to circumvent normal processes in a matter, or overlook deficiencies in a file or application. It is also inappropriate for Members to involve themselves in matters of administration or departmental management which fall within the jurisdiction of the City Manager. Any such attempts should be reported to the Integrity Commissioner.

[Item 5’s second sentence, “It is also inappropriate for Members to involve themselves in matters of administration or departmental management which fall within the jurisdiction of the City Manager.” explains why neither the Mayor or any of her Councillors bothered to read a single document that I offered them through Freedom of Information. There was never any point because the Mayor and Councillors do not monitor/discipline staff! 

When you add the next sentence, “Any such attempts should be reported to the Integrity Commissioner.” then Rule No. 13’s Item 5 imposes an impenetrable barrier between City staff and Elected Officials so inclined to hold them accountable.

In Rule 12 Item 2 of the Code, we saw how Mayor/Councillors are protected from an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner:

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.

Meaning City Staff in Human Resources will conduct an”independent investigation” of the Mayor/Councillors and, according to the Code, “will provide guidance to an independent investigator” and of course, select that “independent investigator”. Thus City of Mississauga Elected Officials neatly avoid the Integrity Commissioner conducting an investigation.

While Rule 12 points out that, “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”, seriously, how is that possible without conducting an investigation of the “independent investigator”? (City of Mississauga hires retired staff as “consultants”. Or as Mayor McCallion observed at the January 23, 2012 Good Governance committee meeting, “defeated politicians” morph into “consultants” .)

It’s all perfectly circular: the Code’s Rule 12 ensures that the City’s Human Resources staff protect Mayor and Councillors from an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner and Rule 13 protects all City staff from any Mayor or Councillor who might want to hold an employee accountable. 

I wonder how many other Ontario municipal Council codes of conduct are this slick with illusion and window dressing….

Like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct has huge hidey-holes in just the right places to create the illusion that the HMS MYTHissauga should spring fewer leaks “going forward”.

Nope.]

26

END OF PAGE 26 OF THE CODE.

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy." “There seems to be a complete disregard for policy”
—Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee

 

Signed, MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

“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

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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 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.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 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.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 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.

 

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

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.]

Commentary

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.]

Commentary

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.]

 

23

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. ]

Rule No. 12

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.

(cut-and-paste)

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.]

Commentary

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
policy.

[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.

24

END OF PAGE 24 OF THE CODE.

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy."
“There seems to be a complete disregard for policy” 

—Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

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
Representative Government
Responsible Government
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)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“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

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”

January 9th, 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 of the Code.

Just a reminder that 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.


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 11 begins)


Rule No. 3

Councillor Expenses:

There are a range of expenses that support a Member’s role in community development and
engagement activities within their ward. For federal and provincial elected officials, these
expenses are often paid for by Riding Association funds. Municipal elected officials do not
have this benefit. Subject to the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy, this section of the Council
Code of Conduct deals with community expense-events, will indicate allowable expenses for
reimbursement and provide guidelines for Members of Council respecting community
expenses related to a Member’s role in community development, and reflecting which
expenses are eligible for reimbursement from a Member’s office expense budget.

1. Raffle tickets, table prize tickets and other gaming tickets are not eligible for
reimbursement.

2. Sponsorship of teams or individuals, such as the provision of uniforms or equipment, are
not eligible for reimbursement.

3. Expenses incurred by Members working during normal meal periods serve a legitimate
public duty purpose, provided that the expenses incurred are reasonable and appropriate in
the circumstances. Reasonable and appropriate expenses are those that are incurred for an
official duty or function; are modest and represent the prudent use of public funds; and do
not involve the purchase of alcoholic beverages.

4. Official duties or functions include those activities that are reasonably related to a
Member’s office, and must take into consideration the different interests, the diverse
profiles of their wards, their different roles on committees, agencies, boards and
commissions. Municipal elected officials will be expected or required to extend hospitality
to external parties as part of their official duties and functions, and it is legitimate for
expenses to be incurred for this purpose. It is legitimate for Members to incur hospitality
expenses for meetings that include:

a. engaging representatives of other levels of government, international delegations or
visitors, the broader public sector, business contacts and other third parties in
discussions on official matters;

b. providing persons from national, international and charitable organizations with an
understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its
municipal government;

[With me having so much video, Freedom of Information and “workings” from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, I can only interpret Item b two ways. Either Item b is a lie and the City really doesn’t provide “persons from national, international and charitable organizations with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government” —or (horrid thought) the City of Mississauga does inform “persons from national, international and charitable organizations” about the City’s unethical corporate landscape of Fudge, Fabricate, Lie, Deny, Stonewall and that the “persons from national, international and charitable organizations” are okay with that!  Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

c. honouring persons from the City of Mississauga in recognition of exceptional public
service and staff appreciation events;

[Re: “honouring persons from the City of Mississauga in recognition of exceptional public service ” Here’s a fun way to spend a weekend. Scribble down the names of all the City of Mississauga’s “Citizens of the Year” hanging up in the gallery outside Council Chambers of City Hall’s second floor. (Say from 1980 to current) Google them, then examine all “Team Hazel” councillors’ election financial statements for 2006 and 2010.

Only then will you gain some insight into the deliberately deceptive silliness of the Code‘s references to “volunteers”, “volunteer services” and “campaign contributions”. Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

d. recognition events for various agencies, boards and commissions of the City;

[In yesterday’s blog, I alerted readers to the true meaning of “community events” —that the majority are simply political campaign events in non-election years. In Item d, the Code introduces the concept of “recognition events”.  The City of Mississauga’s “recognition events” are just like “community events” meaning “political campaign events in non-election years” except more lavish.

The best example of a City “recognition event” is the Mayor’s $350.00 90th Birthday Bash back in February 2011. Another would be the City of Mississauga’s Tribute Dinner to McCallion-Starr-Mahoney-Crombie-Team-Hazel supporter, Victor Oh.  Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

11

END OF PAGE 11 OF THE CODE. PAGE 12 BEGINS

e. ratepayers associations, minor league sports associations and other community groups.

5. Hospitality expenses may be incurred while extending hospitality in the course of
travelling on a duty or function or as a Member of Council, provided the expenses are
reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

6. As community leaders, Members may lend their support to and encourage community
donations to registered charitable, not-for-profit and other community-based groups
monies raised through fundraising efforts shall go directly to the groups or volunteers or
chapters acting as local organizers of the group and Members of Council should not handle
any funds on behalf of such organizations.

Members of Council routinely perform important work in supporting charitable causes and
in so doing, there is a need for transparency respecting the Member’s involvement. The
following guidelines shall apply:

a. Members of Council should not directly or indirectly manage or control any monies
received relating to community or charitable organizations fundraising;

[Notice how Item 6 deals only with money to community donations to registered charitable, not-for-profit and other community-based groups, and not moneys/contributions that could potentially slip unnoticed into the Mayor/councillors’s war chests through (say) as the Code puts it so well, “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”? Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

b. Members of Council or persons acting on behalf of a Member shall not solicit or accept
support in any form from an individual, group or corporation, with any pending
significant planning, conversion or demolition variance application or procurement
proposal before City Council, which the Member knew or ought to have known about.

[Oh MY! “ought to have known about”! HAHAHAHAhahahah! Sorry, can’t help it. “ought to have known about”? You mean like how Hazel McCallion “ought to have known about” common law?… Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

c. With reference to member-organized community events, Members of Council must
report to the Integrity Commissioner, the names of all donors and the value of their
donation that supplement the event.

[Reminder from yesterday’s blog and the Code‘s Rule 2 d. “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”.  The Power of Team Hazel’s Incumbency comes not so much from money donated, but her “Friends of Hazel” and their incalculable “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”.  Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

d. Where a Member of Council sponsors and/or lends support to a community or
charitable event, this Code recognizes that all donations are subject to the Elected
Officials’ Expenses policy.

[Oooo, We can all feel so much better nowwwww. Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

e. No donation cheques should be made payable to a Member of Council or to the City of
Mississauga. Members of Council may only accept donation cheques made payable to
a Business Improvement Association, charity or community group and only for the
purpose of passing the cheques on to such group.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Making “cheques made payable to a Business Improvement Association, charity or community group” ensures they’re tucked safely from scrutiny of any kind. Exempt from Freedom of Information. Example, any cheques written to the annual Mayor’s Gala spring immediately to mind. Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

f. Members of Council should not handle any cash on behalf of any charitable
organization, not-for-profit or community group, and should always remain at arm’s
length from the financial aspects of these community and external events. If a Member
of Council agrees to fundraise on behalf of a charity or community group, the Member
should ensure that payment is received by a means that does not involve cash,
including bank draft, money order, credit card or cheque made payable to the
applicable group or organization.

[See previous comments regarding the non-unit of measure “at arm’s length”. The only thing that Item f accomplishes is to remind Mayor/councillors to have someone else handle the money. Perfect example. Councillor Ron Starr’s annual, Starr’s on the Credit annual fundraiser. Now Starr doesn’t touch the money but his daughter’s company, Elegance on the Move does! So now you know what the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct means by “arm’s length”! Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

7. Nothing included herein affects the entitlement of a Member of Council to:

12

END OF PAGE 12 OF THE CODE. PAGE 13 BEGINS

 

i) use the Member’s office expense budget to run or support community events subject to
the terms of the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy section relating to Community
Expense events;

[By now when you see “community events” you should automatically think “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

ii) urge constituents, businesses or other groups to support community events and advance
the needs of a charitable organization put on by others in the Member’s ward or
elsewhere in the City;

[Repeat. By now, when you see “community events” you should automatically think “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

iii) play an advisory ex officio, honorary or membership role in any charitable or nonprofit
organization that holds community events in the Members’ ward; and

[Again, translate “community events” into “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

iv) collaborate with the City of Mississauga and its agencies, boards or commissions to
hold community events.

[HAHAHAHAAhahaha. Who’d have thought reading the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct would be such entertainment! “(C)ollaborate with the City of Mississauga and its agencies, boards or commissions to hold community events.” That’s MYTHissaugaspeak for “conspire with the ‘Friends of Hazel to hold campaign events in non-election years, all in the best interests of the City (of course). Back to Page 13 of the Code.]


Commentary

By virtue of the office, Members of Council will be called upon to assist various charities,
service clubs and other non-profits as well as community associations, by accepting an
honourary role in the organization, lending their name or support to it or assisting in
fundraising. Transparency and accountability are best achieved in today’s era by encouraging
contributors to make donations to such organizations on-line through a website or where that is
not possible through a cheque made payable directly to the organization. Cash should never
be accepted.

[Regarding, the Code’s assertion that “Transparency and accountability are best achieved in today’s era by encouraging contributors to make donations to such organizations on-line through a website.” So how was making donations on-line directly to Michele Starr’s Elegance on the Move website going to best achieve transparency and accountability? Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

13

END OF PAGE 13 OF THE CODE.

Next blog deals with the Code’s Rule No. 4, Confidential Information.

As “homework” for the Code’s Rule No. 4, Confidential Information and evaluating the Code’s reference to “ought to have known about”, here’s video of an April 14, 2010 scrum where Mayor Hazel McCallion tells the Traditional Media Snoozers, “Well, I don’t think there’s —today, I don’t think there’s nothing confidential. There’s absolutely nothing confidential. Freedom of Information —you can get anything you want.

I created that title back in April 2010 and for the most part, I still think that Traditional Media SUCKS!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION / CAROLYN PARRISH “BAD TO THE BONE” CATFIGHT! (plus Traditional Media SUCKS!) (5:45 min)

Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

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
Representative Government
Responsible Government
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)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“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

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”…

January 8th, 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 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Just a reminder that 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.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011  (Page 7 begins)


Rule No. 2


Gifts and Benefits:

1. No Member shall accept a fee, advance, cash, gift, gift certificate or personal benefit that is
connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his/her duties of office unless
permitted by the exceptions listed below. No Member shall accept the use of property or
facilities, such as a vehicle, office or vacation property at less than reasonable market value
or at no cost.

For these purposes, a fee or advance paid to or a gift or benefit provided with the
Member’s knowledge to a Family Member or to a Member’s staff that is connected
directly or indirectly to the performance of the Member’s duties, is deemed to be a gift to
that Member.

The following are recognized as exceptions:

a. compensation authorized by law;

b. such gifts or benefits that normally accompany the responsibilities of office and are
received as an incident of protocol or social obligation;

c. a political contribution otherwise reported by law, in the case of Members running for
office;

[CITIZEN ALERT! Item c, “a political contribution otherwise reported by law, in the case of Members running for office” is also a political contribution to the Power of Incumbency.  And contributions can take can take varied and subtle forms.

Having researched the “Friends of Hazel” it’s surprising how many political “contributors” to McCallion-approved-councillors‘ campaigns are public relations spinmeisters. And graphics designers and printers! Not surprising is that the most fanatic of these “Team Hazel” graphic designers/printers-supporters also design and print City-event glossy brochures and reports!

And let’s not forget the most prevalent political contributions  to Team Hazel that few even notice: the soldier-ant highly-orchestrated support that the Mayor and Her Councillors enjoy from the Mississauga Board of Trade and the Mississauga Chinese Business Association.

Another significant source of McCallion’s support that goes unnoticed are the number of high profile “Friends of Hazel” who are real estate agents!  Team Re/Max and Team  LePage very much double as Team Hazel. Back to Page 7 of the Code.]

d. services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time;

[CITIZEN ALERT! Item d, “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time” is the biggest loophole in the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct. How often has Mayor Hazel McCallion lavished praise on “community volunteers”? How often has she thanked them for their thousands of “volunteer hours” dedicating themselves to “Mississauga”?

But it’s only when these same “community volunteers” morph into (let’s call them) political volunteers, and provide “services without compensation” to Hazel McCallion and Her Councillors that their true value becomes apparent. The Mayor’s Power of Incumbency begins and rests on “d. services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”. Back to Page 7 of the Code.]

e. a suitable memento of a function honouring the Member;

f. food, lodging, transportation and entertainment provided by Provincial, Regional and
local governments or political subdivisions of them, by the Federal government or by a
foreign government within a foreign country or by a conference, seminar or event
organizer where the Member is either speaking or attending in an official capacity at an
official event;

g. food and beverages consumed at banquets, receptions or similar events, if:

i. attendance serves a legitimate business purpose;

ii. the person extending the invitation or a representative of the organization is in
attendance; and

iii. the value is reasonable and the invitations infrequent;

h. communication to the offices of a Member, including subscriptions to newspapers, and
periodicals; and

i. sponsorships and donations for community events organized or run by a Member or by
a third party on behalf of a Member and subject to the limitations set out in the Code of
Conduct respecting Council Member-organized community events, where all costs are
incurred and where all such events occur on or before Nomination Day.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Item i’s “sponsorships and donations for community events organized or run by a Member or by a third party on behalf of a Member ” is another loophole.

In yesterday’s blog, I wrote, “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”.

When you see “community events” in this Code, the City really means “campaign events” in non-election years.

Next. Re-read the Citizen Alerts for Items c and d. Item c’s “a political contribution otherwise reported by law, in the case of Members running for office” and the biggest loophole, Item d’s “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time” all figure prominently in the Power of Incumbency.

For example, the Mayor’s Gala describes itself as “Mississauga’s premier social event of the year.” The Mayor’s Gala relies on “sponsorships and donations”, and is “organized or run by a third party on behalf of the Mayor”.   The annual Mayor’s Gala falls under the Code’s definition of “community event” yet you’d be hard-pressed to find more political scuttling, lobbying and campaigning under any one roof in Ontario than November Gala night.

As for the Code’s silly “subject to the limitations set out in the Code of Conduct respecting Council Member-organized community events, where all costs are incurred and where all such events occur on or before Nomination Day”,  “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time” are incalculable —easily fudged. And don’t take my word for it.

Here’s what the Community Foundation of Mississauga has to say about the difficulty of attaching monetary value to volunteer services.

2 i  Donated Services

The Board of Directors and other volunteers contribute services to the Foundation
in carrying out its operating activities. Because of the difficulty in determining the
fair value of these contributed services, they are not recognized in the financial
statements.

The Community Foundation of Mississauga‘s admission that it has “difficulty in determining the fair value of these contributed services” means there’s plenty of room to low-ball volunteer services (ie: “Friends of Hazel” Rally, Mayor’s Gala, Golf Tournaments, Safe City Mississauga events…).

Bottomline, the “Friends of Hazel” volunteer services lavished on the Mayor and Her Councillors are incalculable.

What monetary value, for example, would you put on “volunteer”, Ted Woloshyn, McCallion’s personal columnist at the Toronto Sun? Or “volunteer”, Jake Dheer, McCallion’s very own TV station manager? Back to Page 7 of the Code.]

7


END OF PAGE 7 OF THE CODE.   PAGE 8 BEGINS

 

Commentary

Members should be transparent in their dealings with the public, and neither a Member of
Council or the City should handle funds on behalf of any organizations. Members should
remain at arm’s length from the financial aspects of these events and initiatives.

[NOTE. Do you know what “at arm’s length” means? Because I don’t!

And a reminder. I’ve frequently said that Freedom of Information confirms the degree to which City Staff fail to comply with Corporate policies, procedures, by-laws, guidelines and even provincial legislation. I’m also on record as saying that some of the City’s elected officials have “infinite capacity to pervert”. Surely there’s nothing easier to pervert than “at arm’s length”!

Can there be a more deceptive non-unit of measure than the length of an “arm”?! Especially in the Ontario municipal realm of unaccountable spitzbuben?  Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

a) Members may use their office expense budget to run or support local charities and
community events subject to the terms of the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy;

b) Members may urge constituents, businesses and other groups to support community events
put on by others in the Member’s ward or elsewhere in the City;

[CITIZEN ALERT! Re-read b) only this time, replace “community events” with “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

c) Members may work with community groups to assist them in finding sponsors and
participants to support community events put on by the community group in the Member’s
ward or elsewhere in the City.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Need I say this? Re-read b) only this time, replace “community events” with “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

d) Members may play an advisory or membership role in any organization that holds
community events in the Member’s ward; and

[CITIZEN ALERT! By now when you see “community events” you should automatically be converting to “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

e) Members may collaborate with the City and its agencies to hold community events and
may participate in the City’s Festival Funding Review Committee and other events
approved by City Council.

[CITIZEN ALERT! “Community events” = “campaign events in non-election years”. Note: The City’s Festival Funding Review Committee determines what groups are worthy of funding (and by how much) based on their political clout and/or campaign contributions. Best example, compare what the City’s Festival Funding Review Committee granted the Malton Community Festival versus any festival squawking for grant money south of the QEW. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

2. In the case of exceptions claimed under categories 1. b, e, f, g, h and i,

a) where the value of the gift or benefit exceeds $500, or if the total value received from
any one source during the course of a calendar year exceeds $500, the Members shall
within 30 days of receipt of the gift or reaching the annual limit, list the gift or benefit
on a Councillor Information Statement in a form prescribed by the Integrity
Commissioner, and file it with the Integrity Commissioner.

[NOTE. 2 a’s, “where the value of the gift or benefit exceeds $500” translates to Members accept gifts or benefits not exceeding $499.99 so they won’t have to file with the Integrity Commissioner. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

b) Subsection a) does not apply to the receipt of up to two tickets to a dinner or
fundraising, as long as the Member is attending only one such event with the same
individual or corporation within any calendar year.

c) For clarification, Members are authorized to receive gifts, mementos and benefits
which are common to receive in the normal course of fulfilling their duties. Members
are not obliged to list on a Councillor Information Statement or anywhere else, a record
of their receipt, unless the total value of such gifts or benefits received from any one
source in a calendar year exceeds $500.

[NOTE. 2 c’s, Regarding, “Members are not obliged to list on a Councillor Information Statement or anywhere else, a record of their receipt, unless the total value of such gifts or benefits received from any one source in a calendar year exceeds $500.”   Told ya! Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

3. On receiving a Councillor Information Statement, the Integrity Commissioner shall
examine it to determine whether the receipt of the gift or benefit might, in the opinion of
the Integrity Commissioner, create a conflict between a private interest and the public duty
of the Member. In the event that the Integrity Commissioner makes that preliminary
determination, he/she shall call upon the Member to justify receipt of the gift or benefit.

8


END OF PAGE 8 OF THE CODE. PAGE 9 BEGINS

 

4. Should the Integrity Commissioner determine the receipt was inappropriate, the Integrity
Commissioner may direct the Member to return the gift, reimburse the donor for the value
of any gift or benefit already consumed, or the Integrity Commissioner may order the
Member to forfeit the gift or remit the value of any gift or benefit already consumed to the
City, or a City agency, board or commission. Any such direction ordered by the Integrity
Commissioner shall be a matter of public record.

5. Beginning April 30, 2011 and quarterly thereafter, each Member shall file a Councillor
Information Statement with Integrity Commissioner and all such statements shall be a
matter of public record.

[NOTE. With Page 9’s Item’s 4 and 5, I’m sure you can feel there’s integrity happening, right?  Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

Commentary

Gifts and benefits are often received by elected officials in the course of their duties and
attendance at public functions is expected and is considered part of their role. Business-related
entertainment and gift-giving can be a token of respect and admiration for the elected official,
but can also be seen as an instrument of influence and manipulation. The object of this rule is
to provide transparency around the receipt of incidental gifts and benefits and to establish a
threshold where the total value could be perceived as potentially influencing a decision.

[NOTE.  Regarding, “gift-giving can be a token of respect and admiration for the elected official, but can also be seen as an instrument of influence and manipulation.” Was there ever a Mississauga “gift-giver” who’d admit his gift was specifically contrived to be an instrument of influence and manipulation?  Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

The practical problems that nominal gifts and benefits create require a Code of Conduct that
provides clarity and transparency. Personal integrity and sound business practices require that
relationships with developers, vendors, contractors or others doing business with the City be
such that no Member of Council is perceived as showing favouritism or bias toward the giver.
There will never be a perfect solution.

[CITIZEN ALERT.  Reminder that I’d warned readers that no word makes it into any of the City’s Corporate documents/communication without the carefullest of deliberation. Reminder too that it’s not what the City tells you that citizens need to know, it’s what they don’t!

The Code’s statement, “Personal integrity and sound business practices require that relationships with developers, vendors, contractors or others doing business with the City be such that no Member of Council is perceived as showing favouritism or bias toward the giver” is true. Personal integrity and sound business practices does require “that no Member of Council is perceived as showing favouritism or bias toward the giver.”

The problem is what the City and this Code don’t tell you: This City was built on unfettered nepotism, cronyism and favouritism! I’m not even sure they could operate aboveboard and truthfully.

Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

Each Member of Council is individually accountable to the public and is encouraged to keep a
list of all gifts and benefits received from individuals, firms or associations, with estimated
values, in their offices for review by the Integrity Commissioner in the event of a complaint.

Those gifts or benefits that exceed $500 or the annual limit of $500 for one source, need to be
kept on a form prescribed by the Integrity Commissioner and filed with the Integrity
Commissioner on a quarterly basis to ensure transparency.

Examples of gifts that are required to be listed on the Councillor Information Statement may
include:

i) property (i.e. a book, flowers, gift basket, painting or sculpture, furniture, wine);

ii) membership in a club or other organization (i.e. a golf club) at a reduced rate or at no
cost;

iii) an invitation to and/or tickets to attend an event (i.e. a sports event, concert, play) at a
reduced rate or no cost;

iv) or an invitation to attend a gala or fundraising event at a reduced rate or at no cost.

Use of real estate or significant assets or facilities (i.e. a vehicle, office, vacation property) at a
reduced rate or at no cost is not an acceptable gift or benefit. Having said that, it has to be

9

END OF PAGE 9 OF THE CODE. PAGE 10 BEGINS

 

recognized that Members of Council will have friends and will develop friendships with
individuals who may from time to time have business relationships that will involve the City in
some way. The purpose of the Code is not to prohibit Members from accepting all invitations
to socialize at a vacation property of personal friends.

[Fair]

Proper caution and diligence must however be exercised when a social function occurs within
close proximity to the individual having an issue before City Council or staff for approval. It
is always prudent to consult with the Integrity Commissioner before accepting or attending at
any such engagements.

[Fair]

Any doubts about the propriety of a gift should be resolved in favour of not accepting it or not
keeping it. It may be helpful to consult with the Integrity Commissioner when a Member
chooses to decline a gift as well as when a recipient may opt to keep a gift.

[Fair]

An invitation to attend a function where the invitation is directly or indirectly with the
Member’s duties of office is not considered to be a gift but is the fulfillment of an official
function or duty. An invitation to attend a function with a developer or supplier, however,
could be seen as allowing the giver an opportunity to influence the elected official. Such
invitations should only be accepted if the invitation is within the scope of permissible gifts and
benefits, meaning that Members should not consistently accept invitations from the same
individual or corporation and should avoid any appearance of favouritism.

[Hmmm. The Mississauga Chinese Business Association comes to mind here…. Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

For clarification, an invitation to an event celebrating the successful completion of a
development or project or the opening of a new business within the Member’s ward on the
other hand could serve a legitimate business purpose and be seen as part of the responsibilities
of office provided the person extending the invitation or that person’s representative is in
attendance.

[Fair]

An invitation to attend a charity golf tournament or fund-raising gala, provided the Member of
Council is not consistently attending such events as a guest of the same individual or
corporation, is also part of the responsibilities of holding public office. Likewise, accepting
invitations to professional sports events, concerts or dinners may serve a legitimate business
purpose. Where a Member is uncertain in regards to whether an invitation is or is not
appropriate, it may be prudent to consult with the Integrity Commissioner before attending any
such event.

[CITIZEN HEADS-UP! Regarding, “provided the Member of Council is not consistently attending such events as a guest of the same individual or corporation”:  http://amazing-women.ca   Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

Regular invitations to lunch or dinner with persons who are considered friends of Members of
Council is acceptable in situations where the Member pays their portion of the meal expense
and treats it as a personal expense, meaning a claim is not made under the Elected Officials’
Expenses policy. Proper caution and diligence not to discuss matters before the City for a
decision must be exercised at all times. Again, when in doubt it is prudent to consult with the
Integrity Commissioner.

[CITIZEN ALERT. Regarding, “Proper caution and diligence not to discuss matters before the City for a decision must be exercised at all times.” Like that’s enforceable.]

10

END OF PAGE 10 OF THE CODE.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

TOM URBANIAK MISSISSAUGA "media-barren environment" HAZEL MCCALLION, RON LENYK (former publisher Mississauga News) JAKE DHEER (station manager ROGERS CABLE 10 Mississauga) and "Friend of Hazel" TED WOLOSHYN (TORONTO SUN columnist
“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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

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
Representative Government
Responsible Government
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)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies”

January 7th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation from yesterday’s entry, Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 1) Line by line, word by word.

Just a reminder that 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. Part 1 examined pages 1 through 5 of the Code.

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.

There was something important that I forgot point out yesterday. I was only reminded of it while going through this exercise. 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”.

That’s enough of an intro. We completed Page 5 of the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct. It’s on to Page 6.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011  (Page 6 begins)

i. Members of Council shall seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the
letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies established by the Federal
parliament, Ontario legislature, and by City Council.

[By now I’ve filed about $3,500 worth of Freedom of Information examining all manner of governance issues at the City of Mississauga. These documents confirm City Staff’s chronic non-compliance to Corporate policies, guidelines, by-laws as well as provincial legislation. Here’s just one example: video of Hazel McCallion bemoaning Staff’s “complete disregard for policy”.

And after the Mayor’s “It was just common law” performance at Sunday’s Mayor’s New Year’s Eve Levee, it’s obvious why the City of Mississauga’s corporate landscape is littered with “public servants” who believe that laws and policies do not apply to them.

Here’s what www.canadiana.ca says about the “just common law” that McCallion dismissed and demeaned.

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

British Common Law

Definition

British common law, also called traditional law, is law that has evolved from decisions of English courts going back to the Norman Conquest in 1066. These earlier decisions set “precedent,” which are used in future cases of a similar nature. Precedent can be overruled by new laws, or statutes, passed by the appropriate government.

Today Common law is applied in most countries settled or ruled by the British. In Canada, law in all the provinces except Quebec is based on common law.

Note, “In Canada, law in all the provinces except Quebec is based on common law.” Except Mississauga too!

Back to Page 6 of the Code.]

Commentary

The provisions of this Code are intended to be applied in concert with existing legislation and
go beyond the minimum standards of behaviour set out in current federal and provincial
statutes.

To ensure the Code remains a living document that will remain current and continue to be a
beneficial guide, the Code shall be brought forward for review at the end of each term of
Council, with any changes to be implemented at the start of the following Council session.

j. In fulfilling their roles as elected officials, Members of Council shall respect the
role of staff in the administration of the business affairs of the City and in so
doing will comply with the City’s Respectful Workplace policy.

[Item j. is simply outrageous. “Members of Council shall respect the role of staff…” Repeat: Freedom of Information confirms the degree to which City of Mississauga Staff fail to comply to Corporate policies, guidelines, and by-laws ,as well as provincial legislation. And videotape of Audit and Council meetings confirm the degree to which elected officials not only look the other way, but cover up for Staff.

An even ghastlier joke is the Code’s reference to the City’s Respectful Workplace policy. Video evidence to follow.

Back to Page 6 of the Code.]

Commentary

Decision-making authority lies with Council, and not with an individual Member. Members of
Council recognize that it is the role of the officers and employees of the City to implement
Council’s decisions and to establish administrative practices and procedures to carry out
Council’s decisions. Council is the source of all legislative authority and will make decisions
on whether and to what extent to delegate this authority to others, including the Mayor,
committees and to staff. Only Council as a whole has the capacity to direct staff members.
Council as a whole must be able to access information in order to fulfill its decision-making
duties and oversight responsibilities however, individual Members of Council must also
recognize that the information they receive in their capacity as elected officials, is subject to
confidentiality and disclosure rules contained in federal and provincial legislation and City
policies.

[Item j’s “Council as a whole must be able to access information in order to fulfill its decision-making duties” echoes yesterday’s blog where I deal with the Code’s Rule No. 1 which states, “Members of Council recognize the public’s right to reasonable access to information in relation to how decisions are made.”

Item j’s caveat, “Members of Council must also recognize that the information they receive in their capacity as elected officials, is subject to confidentiality and disclosure rules contained in federal and provincial legislation and City policies.” echoes the Code’s Rule No. 1 which states, “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.”

Whether it’s the Code’s Rule No. 1 assertion regarding “the public’s right to reasonable access to information” or the Code‘s Item j’s “Council as a whole must be able to access information”, guaranteed, the City will protect itself against providing Information that a member of the public or a Member of Council really needs by hiding behind the many exemptions in the Province’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

 And here’s another fact. While Item j’s statement, “individual Members of Council must also recognize that the information they receive in their capacity as elected officials, is subject to confidentiality and disclosure rules contained in federal and provincial legislation and City policies” is true, if confidentiality rules are violated (for example, by elected officials’ emails), neither the public or a Member of Council can access the necessary information to prove that the elected official violated the confidentiality rules! That is, the Violator’s emails are themselves protected in the confidentiality provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act!

Fact is, you can suspect that a municipality’s elected officials are engaging in a brisk email trade in human trafficking. But you’d be denied access to their emails to prove it! That was fun, so let’s stop here.]

END OF PAGE 6 OF THE CODE.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

 1.    The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

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
Representative Government
Responsible Government
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)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word. (Part 1)

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.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

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.]

Application

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
provided.

[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
Integrity Commissioner.

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
following legislation:

• 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 UPCRUCIAL 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.]

Definitions

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
family;

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;
• siblings.

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.]

Commentary

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.]

Commentary

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.]

Bonnie Crombie Wins Ward 5!  Community, News, People, Politics | October 21, 2011 by misslife | Comments (0)

Photo Credit: MISSISSAUGALife

[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.]

Commentary

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
Commissioner.

Commentary

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
public scrutiny.

Commentary

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.

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

 

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.

Email sent to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel asks the obvious question –and then asks who else asked it.

August 20th, 2011  

For the record, this email was just sent to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell and Naomi Loewith asking the obvious question about Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Trade “Mission” to Brazil that delayed the release of the Judicial Inquiry’s report until after the September 19, 2011 Ward 5 By-election voting.

[EMAIL BEGINS]

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: William McDowell; Naomi Loewith; Gerry Timbers; Louie Rosella; Chris Clay; Megan O’Toole; San Grewal; Tom Urbaniak; Royson James; Crystal Greer; Peel Council; City of Brampton Council; John Stewart
Cc: mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:53 AM
Subject: Two Questions regarding Hazel McCallion’s Trade “Mission” to Brazil

[To City of Brampton, Mississauga and Peel city clerks. I ask that this August 20, 2011 email to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell and Naomi Loewith be added to your earliest September 2011 Council meeting minutes as Correspondence. Thanks.]

Hi Mr. McDowell and Ms. Loewith,

As you know, I’m the citizen-journalist who appeared before the Inquiry requesting to videotape the proceedings. The Commission did one better and actually gave me access to the Inquiry Rogers Cable 10 feeds, and I thank you again for your commitment to the public’s right to know.

I’m writing because you’ve made the decision to delay the release of the Inquiry report until after the Ward 5 by-election.

I’ve got two questions, but first this time line for context:

* Jun 28, 2011 (Missisauga News) Inquiry report after Labour Day

– The much-anticipated final report from the Mississauga judicial inquiry, already delayed several times, will be released sometime after Labour Day.

* June 29, 2011 (Missisauga News) By-election set for September

– Ward 5 residents will go to the polls on Sept. 19 to fill the City Council seat left vacant when former councillor Eve Adams jumped ship to Ottawa.

* Jun 30, 2011 www.brampton.ca Business Headlines & BramFacts

– GTMA Plans Business Mission to Brazil – Brampton Companies Invited to Particpate [sic] …..The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA) is in the planning stages of a return mission to Brazil. The program will run for 5 days from September 12th – 16th and will focus on the Futurecom Conference which will take place in Sao Paulo.

* Jul 22, 2011 TWITTER. Greater Toronto Martketing Alliance announces Business “Mission” to Brazil. gtmatoronto GTMA

– Join the GTMA on a GTA Business Mission to Brazil! Inquire about the early bird special by July 29th > http://t.co/0dBRiNG22 Jul

* Aug 16, 2011 (Missisauga News) Inquiry report delayed

– The much-anticipated release of the Mississauga judicial inquiry report has been pushed back once again because Mayor Hazel McCallion will be out of the country next month….McCallion’s trip is part of the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance Trade Mission to Brazil, which has been in the works since last fall, said the mayor’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre.

So that’s the sequence of events. Here’s my first question:

Given that McCallion’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre:

– would or should have known that the Mayor’s “Trade Mission” to Brazil had been in the works since last fall, and
– would or should have known by June 28, 2011, that the Inquiry report was scheduled for release after Labour Day, and
– would or should have known by June 29, 2011 that Ward 5 residents will go to the polls on September 19, 2011, then

On what date did McIntyre (or Hazel McCallion) first inform you and Justice Cunningham that she would be out of the country for the Business “Mission” to Brazil?

Second question:

Has anyone else (ie: Traditional Media, etc) asked you that obvious question?

Thank you,

Ursula Bennett
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

“‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”‘    –George Orwell, 1984

 

[EMAIL ENDS]

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

At the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, citizens were more likely to hear the two words, “Fuck Off” than “Ontario Ombudsman”.

March 6th, 2011  

This Blog is meant to be a companion piece to the Mississauga News’ March 1, 2011 editorial, “Probe a costly mistake”.

Regarding the City of Mississauga’s new $625.00 an hour integrity commissioner, the editorial states:

“The situation is ludicrous. The previous council rushed Rust-D’Eye’s interim appointment through at the last minute and now we’re paying the price. Literally.
Where’s the integrity in that?

By acting rashly, they eliminated the necessary competition for this key position. Surely there must be a qualified candidate out there who is willing to sort out sticky ethical questions at City Hall for half the fee we’re paying Rust-D’Eye.”

“rushed”, “acting rashly” —true and then some. But you have to ask why. Why did City Staff recommend $625.00 an hour George Rust-D’Eye? And above all, why did the previous Council bulldoze-rush installing an integrity commissioner?

It turns out an obscure item in the City’s Budget Agenda last week provides the answer. Damage Control!

Watch and learn, junior. Watch and learn.

The video, followed by the transcript.

At the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry we were more likely to hear “Fuck Off” than “Ontario Ombudsman” (3:46 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reading from the Budget Agenda while Mississauga Council is in-camera, March 2, 2011)

Office of the Integrity Commissioner. But let’s read it because this is a lot of fun!

“The integrity commissioner is not a mandatory position and the Municipal Act 2001 even allows this role to be performed by a staff person.”

That’s right. Mike Harris’ 2001 Municipal Act even allows the integrity commissioner of a municipality to be the municipality’s own employee. Think about it!

“There are too many pitfalls and potential to putting staff in this position, assuming you could find someone who would do it.”

I can think of four people already who would do it. The Security Bosses around here.

Next. (laughs) You know, you gotta laugh because this place is like so absurd!

Okay.

“The expert panel that testified at the Judicial Inquiry praised the work we had done in putting a Council Code of Conduct and Integrity Commissioner in place.”

That’s right. The panel of experts at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry —and the entire time they were in a panel discussion, not once did you hear the two words that were really important —”Ontario Ombudsman”. In fact we were more likely to hear at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry the two words, “Fuck Off” than “Ontario Ombudsman”.

And then it says:

“If the City was to now to delete it—”

Meaning The Office,

“—the Commissioner would likely be very critical when he reports his findings, as would the media, and the public. In addition, if there was enough criticism, there is potential for the Province to come in and make the position mandatory, as it is in Toronto.”

—meaning if the City doesn’t have a pretend integrity commissioner in, there’s a real danger that the Province will butt in.

What you’re dealing with here is a Stage 2 Moral Development.

“They could quickly enact an amendment to the Municipal Act to apply specifically to Mississauga if they wanted to, and they could justify it based on the findings of the Judicial Inquiry and the Commissioner’s report. This is a worse case scenario.”

Actually, notice it’s “worse case”? A “worse case” scenario?

Cuz the worst case scenario for the City of Mississauga is for the Province to say “Enough’s enough. We are going to extend the Ontario Ombudsman’s investigative authority into Municipalities.”

But I’d have to say that the greatest horror that the City of Mississauga would have is if Andre Marin were to come in here, kick down the doors with his subpoena powers and say, “I’m investigating you people.”

Boy would I love to see that! God would I love to see that! But it isn’t going to happen.

In the meantime we’re going to have a lot of Pretend. OH! And something else! Just for the record.

Where it says:

“If the City was to now to delete it, the Commissioner would likely be very critical when he reports his findings, as would the media, and the public.”

I wouldn’t be critical at all. I don’t support that use of an integrity commissioner at the City of Mississauga. I think that that’s $100,000 flushed when you could have the Ontario Ombudsman dealing with all 440 municipalities.

So I’m opposed to allowing municipalities to hire their own integrity commissioner.

Or that said, yes, hire one, but also have the Ontario Ombudsman come in because you can’t trust Ontario municipalities to even hire their own integrity commissioners. And worse is now to have some kind of a structure being developed by AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) again to create the illusion of accountability. It’s Local Authority Services all over again.

Bad.

BadBadBad.

Bad.

Worse than Bad.

[LOGO]
[Music:“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Another MYTHissauga Motivation question.

Click here for larger (986 X 627) version

“What goes on in Peel stays in Peel.” Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga’s Culture of Secrecy. (Ontario Ombudsman, HELP!)

March 2nd, 2011  

Yesterday’s Mississauga News editorial, “Probe a costly mistake” really nails it with the statement, “The previous council rushed Rust-D’Eye’s interim appointment through at the last minute and now we’re paying the price.” True. In fact the entire Code of Conduct/Integrity Commissioner debacle was a rush job to create the appearance of creating the appearance of caring about accountability.

This is the picture.

Brampton, Caledon, Mississauga and Peel cannot and should not be trusted hiring their own integrity commissioners. With MYTHissauga budgeting $100,000 and Brampton poised at $150,000 that’s a lot of Pretend just to avoid authentic scrutiny.

Related topic. Yesterday I also stumbled upon a January 2011 Mayor’s Report “Caledon council works hard to make sure it’s transparent and accountable” in the Caledon Citizen. Written by Caledon Mayor Marolyn Morrison, the communication is rife with Failure to Mention.

Morrison’s assertion that “For anyone to suggest Caledon council operates secretly simply demonstrates their lack of understanding of the laws of the Province of Ontario” is simply insulting! In my one experience with Caledon Council I can say that it’s even more secretive than MYTHissauga!

Watch and learn, junior. Watch and learn.

The video, followed by the transcript.

“What goes on in Peel stays in Peel.” Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga’s Culture of Secrecy (4:15 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting, March 1, 2011)

It is Monday, March 1, 2011 and this is the Caledon Citizen Mayor’s Report and the title is “Caledon Council works hard to make sure it’s transparent and accountable”.

Oh reeeeeeally?

Caledon Councillor who-objected-to-having-his-image-used, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

I’m not directing to you. Behind you there’s a member of the audience who’s taking two types of pictures and I’d simply like to know for what purpose? Understanding completely that this is an open forum. I can understand —I’m not really sure why someone would want to take my picture but the still photos, I don’t understand what purpose they eventually have.

Mayor Marolyn Morrison, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Um I guess the question is—

Someone, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

She wants to answer you.

Mayor Marolyn Morrison, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Would you like to answer?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Oh, absolutely!

Caledon Councillor who-objected-to-having-his-image-used, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Are you doing a research project or can you give us the reason for your interest in taking these pictures.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Um. I sat in on the Bill 130 deliberations back about this time last year –December 6 to 11th, 2006 at Queen’s Park when they are talking about Accountability and the appointment of an investigator. Whether to go by the Provincial Ombudsman or how municipalities will make their decision.

And then I was also at the luncheon —the Right to Know luncheon at the Dominion Club on October 31st.

The Ontario Ombudsman there made a point of saying that, you know, citizens should become involved in things.

And I’m not just a Mississauga resident, I’m a resident —proud resident of Peel, Peel Region, and that’s why this is as important to me what happens here in Caledon and in Brampton as it is in Mississauga.

And I really would like this to be a record —this is history, I really believe this is history happening. And I’d like it to be because citizens now have the technology, that I’d like to use that technology instead of minutes or even my own notes, which is essentially “He Said She Said.”

Whereas this is real. What you say today is recorded and stuff like that.

Caledon Councillor who-objected-to-having-his-image-used, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Well I appreciate your interest in what I have to say and the rest of Council—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Well, not just you, sir but—

Caledon Councillor who-objected-to-having-his-image-used, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

I do have to say that what goes on in Peel stays in Peel. And I would like it known to the Chair that if there’s any further use of these photos on my particular part, I would need to be informed prior to their being shown.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Uh, they’re not photos.

Caledon Councillor who-objected-to-having-his-image-used, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

I understand that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

So video. I’ll be happy to delete you.

Caledon Councillor who-objected-to-having-his-image-used, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Thank you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Yeah.

[chuckling/mirth from Councillors and the audience]

Mayor Marolyn Morrison, (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Thank you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH speaking into camera (Caledon Council meeting on Bill 130 Closed Meeting Investigator, December 4, 2007)

Wow. Ew…

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting on the Caledon Citizen Mayor’s Report, March 1, 2011)

Then there’s a lot of specifics here. Blah Blah Blah. And then the Caledon Mayor writes, “Moreover, the Town has retained Local Authority Services to provide “Closed Meeting Investigations”—

As with so many other mayors, the Brampton Mayor, the Caledon Mayor, the Mississauga Mayor, it is this. It is what they don’t tell you that you need to know. Local Authority Services is a subsidiary corporation of AMO —the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Which essentially is, municipalities investigating themselves.

That’s one thing. But the most important thing that the Mayor doesn’t mention is that Bill 130, the “applicable act”, allows, or has provisions for a free investigation by the Ontario Ombudsman!

So what you’ve got is “Moreover, the Town has retained Local Authority Services to provide ‘Closed Meeting Investigations’— TRANSLATION: “We denied Caledon residents access to a free investigation by the Ontario Ombudsman!” That’s the reality!

[DIP TO WHITE]

To the Mayor of Caledon, I have this for you.

[hand gesture, LOGO]
[Music:“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

FACT. On December 4, 2007, when a Caledon Councillor objected to photos being taken of him and denied use of his image, the Town of Caledon had two video surveillance cameras inside Council Chambers violating the privacy rights of citizens.

By failing to provide signage informing people of the existence of video surveillance cameras, the Town of Caledon violated Ontario’s Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places (Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.)

"Well I appreciate your interest in what I have to say and the rest of Council, I do have to say that what goes on in Peel stays in Peel." —Caledon Councillor Doug Beffort (Caledon Council December 12, 2007 Bill 130 Closed Meeting presentation)"

CFRB NewsTalk “Beat the Press”: Hazel McCallion links media “animosity” to Tuscon shootings. And Councillors’ homes to be searched?

January 14th, 2011  

In our January 11, 2011 Blog I reported on Hazel McCallion’s “Friends of Hazel” and their Orwellian DELETION/ERASE operation of hundreds of readers’ comments at the Mississauga News.

In yesterday’s blog we featured Hazel McCallion chastizing National Post’s reporter, Megan O’Toole at Wednesday’s Mississauga General Committee meeting.

Today we highlight Mayor McCallion’s “angry exchange with CFRB reporter Amber Gero” on Tuesday’s CFRB NewsTalk radio.

According to veteran reporter, John Stewart (Mississauga News):

McCallion accused Gero of stirring up unneeded controversy and suggested that such irresponsible questioning by the media was, in part, responsible for escalating tensions that lead to incidents such as the shooting this past weekend of a United States (U.S.) congresswoman in Arizona.

“Often the press is out to cause controversy,” McCallion said. “I think what’s happening in the U.S. is an example of the press building animosity against politicians and the government. I hope some good will come out of what has happened.”

Time for another video. The first 25 segment contains audio of McCallion’s heated words on CFRB fingering the press for “building animosity against politicians and the government.”

The video then switches to the next day’s Mississauga General Committee meeting —this time it was Councillor Eve Adams who had some heated words for McCallion. As always I’ll provide the transcript.

Special thanks to CFRB NewsTalk for the audio in the first 25 seconds.

CFRB Hazel McCallion links media “animosity” to Tuscon shootings Councillors’ homes to be searched?  (3:51 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

Reporter Amber Gero (CFRB NewsTalk 10-10 Tuesday, January 11, 2011)

—It’s just that

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion (CFRB NewsTalk 10-10 Tuesday, January 11, 2011)

I hope—

Reporter Amber Gero (CFRB NewsTalk 10-10 Tuesday, January 11, 2011)

—talking about taxpayers money, I—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion (CFRB NewsTalk 10-10 Tuesday, January 11, 2011)

The press is —often the press is out to cause controversy. And I think what’s happened in the United States is a good example of the press building animosity against politicians and  government. And I hope that there’ll be some good will come out of what has happened.”

[DIP TO WHITE]

Councillor Eve Adams (Wednesday, January 12, 2011, Mississauga Council Chambers)

I was really, really, really upset when I got the call from the media. I was being asked whether or not I was going to one of these $700 parties. So you know, [inaudible] on the meat of the issue and welcome a proper debate as opposed to this Orwellian debate where we’re talking about, you know, having people come into people’s home and checking our Staff’s computers. For what amounts to actually a really legitimate issue.

Somebody raised a legitimate issue. And we had a discussion about it.

If we want to have a discussion about what else transpired yesterday, I for one was really offended as a mom when somebody raised the Arizona shooting as a defense.

Do you know the name of the little girl —the 9-year-old girl who died? It was Christina. And she died because she was an innocent victim. She did absolutely nothing wrong.

And for someone to hide proper public discourse —to hide the expenditure of public tax dollars on a birthday party behind the death of an innocent girl is offensive. I mean that was pretty awful. And embarrassing as a member of this City Council.

[CUT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2011, Mississauga Council Chambers)

—the very first utterance —or audiotape that I ever made, which was May 5th, 2006 —when the City Manager said, We don’t have, “We don’t just have pockets of Excellence in this organization. We have Excellence throughout.”

I spent four years saying, “Uh uh uh, that’s not the case at all.”

[CROSS DISSOLVE]

That the mistrust that is occurring and it’s kind of bubbling up in the United States right now talking about mistrust of government and the heated rhetoric there. Yes, the rhetoric is heated, but make no mistake that the mistrust of government is justified!

[DIP TO BLACK]

Councillor Eve Adams (Wednesday, January 12, 2011, Mississauga Council Chambers)

So if people around this table are upset that something was leaked to the media, I’m upset! I’m upset because I got a call from the media saying that politicians were going to have $700 perks given to them. And I don’t want to be one of those people that walks [sic] around in this city as people at the grocery store or at my doctor’s office look at me and say, “Are you one of the politicians that accepted the $700 perk?”

I did not leak this information to the media.

If the integrity commissioner would like to come and check my cell phone records and do all sorts of forensic audits of my computers and so on? God Speed, I will not be submitting to that voluntarily. I don’t know what the proper legal recourse is but if you can actually obtain that, I would be really impressed and I will happily submit to all of that, I have absolutely nothing to hide.

But that isn’t the issue.

The issue isn’t the leaking of the information. The issue is actually the meat and substance of it, which is, I don’t believe that tax dollars should be used for personal birthday parties. And I don’t think that Staff have the authority to make these types of decisions. And if they do, we ought to be looking at the delegated authority we’ve provided because it’s not a one-time occurrence. It’s now happened twice in a couple of months.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

And for fun, or for those who are really, really, really missing Councillor Carolyn Parrish right now…. this dark comedy video. Featuring Mayor Hazel McCallion, McCallion-supporter-Councillor Ron Starr and June 2007 footage of Councillor “This isn’t a secret society” Carolyn Parrish.

Music: “Don’t crash the ambulance” Dire Straits.

Hazel McCallion and Ron Starr versus the National Post –and Ghost of Parrish Past (3:44 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy."

“There seems to be a complete disregard for policy.” –Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting

E MALAMA KAKOU. To Care For All.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

"The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga" "Justanopinion  Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM       Face reality  Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!  MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMME

“The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga” MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMMENT:

“Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM

Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!

Loathing authentic scrutiny, Hazel McCallion chastizes National Post’s reporter, Megan O’Toole regarding leaked emails

January 13th, 2011  

Last Blog I reported on Hazel McCallion’s “Friends of Hazel” and their Orwellian DELETION/ERASE operation of hundreds of readers’ comments at the Mississauga News. The “Friends of Hazel” Great e-Rase  continues unabated.

In this blog we deal with Hazel McCallion herself and her bullying and intimidation of reporters deemed to be “negative” and fueling controversy.

In his article, “Councillors compare leaked memo to Wikileaks” Toronto Star Urban Affairs Reporter San Grewal observed:

During Wednesday’s council meeting, Councillor Katie Mahoney, a McCallion ally, asked for an investigation into who forwarded the memo to the media. “I would ask IT (information technology) come do a search of all my equipment in my office and my home,” she said.

Mahoney went on to compare the situation to the recent Wikileaks controversy and suggested all members of council should have their homes and offices searched.

“In my opinion, it’s a cowardly act,” she said of the leak. “I ask if anyone wants to own up right now, publicly.” She then paused. “No one. I’m talking about a search of my staff’s equipment as well as my own.”

Councillor Ron Starr, another McCallion ally, continued the theatrics. “Within minutes, within minutes, the media has copies,” he said of Friday’s event. “It becomes a toxic environment because we’re looking over our shoulders the whole time. I think it’s totally unacceptable and we’ve got to stop this.”

Translation: Ron Starr’s reference to “toxic environment” is MYTHissaugaSPEAK for “authentic scrutiny”.

True to form, Hazel McCallion was not kind of scrutiny yesterday —this time going after National Post reporter, Megan O’Toole. O’Toole was in attendance inside Council chambers observing the General Committee meeting.

Like her cult-worshippers, “Friends of Hazel”, McCallion herself spit venom to malign the Press and media, accusing them of foaming up mistrust for government.

After Council went in-camera I filed this report. So, here’s the video and the transcript.

Dedicated to National Post reporter, Megan O’Toole.

Hazel McCallion chastizes National Post’s reporter, Megan O’Toole regarding leaked emails (3:57 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

It is Wednesday, January 11th, [sic] 2011. And I’m back at Mississauga Council after two months being a lot better elsewhere on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. And it’s the same thing that —the loathing that the City of Mississauga has for external scrutiny!

And this time [laughs] it’s Megan O’Toole that got the lambasting!

[DIP TO WHITE]

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

I sometimes wonder if I should call Megan O’Toole to find out what resolutions—

(Someone)

She’s up there.

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

She is? We would, [looking up towards Megan O’Toole] —maybe we should add you to Council because you know more about what’s going on. There’s resolutions in the National Post that has [sic] never come to Council on overturning the appointments, etc.

So, communication with Megan O’Toole is great. I think we should add her to an extra chair over there. [looking up towards Megan O’Toole] So at least you’ll be here to discuss the issues.

I think it’s sad—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

[whispers into camera] Yes, it’s called accountability, Hazel. You haven’t had it for thirty years.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

[chuckling] It’s a nice change from me getting shit all the time. So. Anyway.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

I returned from my two months on Maui to find that I no longer have the luxury of coming to Mississauga Council meetings —be here at 9 o’clock and stay for however long it takes.

So my data collection is essentially over and it’s now at a stage where I report what the video evidence has determined over, I guess, since December 2006 when I began videotaping Mississauga Council. Freedom of Information since January 2007.

And I will go on record now and say that City of Mississauga staff lie, and there is a genuine, substantiated reason why you mistrust government. Because government lies. And the staff right up to senior do. And I have that on video. That’s why I’m able to say that with —as a statement of fact, instead of allegation.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

The other thing I want to say is, I registered for office (of) Mayor just to see what it’s like to run against Hazel McCallion and the kinds of —the difficulty, just to understand the dynamics of the City of Mississauga. The Corporate Structure but also the powerful backing of developers right down to what are called “The Friends of Hazel”.

I’ve experienced it all.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

December 21st, I was on the top, in the crater-summit of Haleakala on winter solstice at exactly 1:38 pm Hawaiian time. And I gave own oath which is to tell the story about MYTHissauga from the very first utterance —or audiotape that I ever made, which was May 5th, 2006 —when the City Manager said, We don’t have, “We don’t just have pockets of Excellence in this organization. We have Excellence throughout.”

I spent four years saying, “Uh uh uh, that’s not the case at all.”

And that’s what I want to explain. That the mistrust that is occurring and it’s kind of bubbling up in the United States right now talking about mistrust of government and the heated rhetoric there. Yes, the rhetoric is heated, but make no mistake that the mistrust of government is justified!

And I can’t talk about Federal government. I can’t talk so much about Provincial government. But have I got the goods on municipal government.

You have to mistrust. Because otherwise [whispers] they’re gonna feel you up in your sleep!

Turning camera off.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

A reminder of the treatment Toronto Sun reporter Joe Warmington got from Hazel McCallion’s handler when she announced that she was running for Mayor.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER TRIES TO GAG TORONTO SUN FROM ASKING MAYOR THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY (3:48 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

And on the October 25th election night inside the Great Hall, how a “Friend of Hazel” prevented the Mississauga News from interviewing McCallion

Did this charmer prevent the Mississauga News from getting an interview with Hazel McCallion? (2:25 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy."

“There seems to be a complete disregard for policy.” –Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting

E MALAMA KAKOU. To Care For All.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

"The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga" "Justanopinion  Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM       Face reality  Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!  MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMME

“The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga” MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMMENT:

“Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM

Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA “INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER”? What happened to the ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN?

May 20th, 2010  

You’ll (almost) read about what happened with the City of Mississauga hiring its own integrity commissioner in the Toronto Star’s article, “Mississauga puts off vote on new ethics measures Solicitor’s report recommends code of ethics and, to police it, integrity commissioner”.

Imagine the “integrity” direction over the next few years —to improve municipal governance in Ontario, every town, village and city, over 440 of them, is free to hire their own “integrity commissioner”.

Look how Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals dealt with the Ontario Ombudsman, when Andre Marin became too effective in advocating for improvements to public service! Watchdog with too much bite?… McGuinty gets rid of him! Expect municipalities to do the same. (Pssst. Town of Aurora.)

I’m a liberal but may the entire Liberal party go down next election for the dirt they’ve worked against Marin and his SORT Team! (I’ll be videotaping myself in a booth voting Conservative next provincial election!)

Next. As always, here’s the video of yesterday’s “Please put off the vote on the integrity commissioner” plea complete with transcript. Dedicated to our finestkind Ontario Ombudsman and his finestkind SORT Team.

Video: CITY OF MISSISSAUGA “INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER”? What happened to the ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN? (4:34 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (May 19, 2010 General Committee Deputation):

Good morning, Councillor Adams and Council.

I came here to discuss the minutes of meetings and then walked in and saw this one here —can I have this on?

The Code of Conduct for Mayor and Members of Council for integrity commissioner. And I consider that way more important than anything that I’ve got to say about minutes. So I kind of regret that I didn’t know about this.

But you can’t just switch, can you?

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR EVE ADAMS CHAIR ( May 19, 2010 General Committee):

It actually is on the agenda so you can speak to it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (May 19, 2010 General Committee Deputation):

Yeah but I’m not good on my feet, I need to prepare ahead of time, I’m not swift.

But I was hoping that —this is really important. If people remember, it was Councillor Mullin who had said that there were issues that were chronically coming up regarding —and she was mentioning Donald Barber, as an example.

And she had recommended that, you know, once and for all to, to, to deal with it. And this is how, I think the idea of the integrity commissioner came up. And I also recall, I had urged Councillor —I think Councillor Saito was going to lead the charge on this. And I’d asked her to say “Invite the Ontario Ombudsman in” to address Council to give them some idea as to how to set up an integrity commissioner.

This is —you know I’ve been observing Council since June 14, 2006. And I’m talking about audiotape, videotape and stuff like that. This has got to be the most important Corporate Report and direction, certainly from the view of treatment of citizens and Ethical Infrastructure.

And yet this thing did not go through Audit Committee, for example. It just kind of showed up here. And Staff is recommending that you accept it.

There’s not any possibility even for public input. I don’t even know if it’s been run through (the) public.

And you know, I would think that first you’d check to see the validity of the public complaints system that you already have in place. The one for Corporate Security and the generic ones. And whether those are being handled properly.

Because if they’re not —and I’m saying they’re not, and I’ve got Freedom of Information saying it.

So you know the fact that, the fact that —well, okay, it’s not a “fact” because it’s based on evidence but it’s sort of ultimately my conclusion. And someone else may look at the evidence and see it differently.

But for me, I question any integrity commissioner that may —or a process here, because I just don’t see the Ethical Infrastructure in place to support something like that.

So I have concerns and I’d love to see Council perhaps not endorse it yet and really get  —run it through MIRANET, run it through some of your ratepayers’ associations.

Haz-Mayor McCallion was giving an address at UTM last week and I was there and she was talking about public input and the importance of it.

[CROSS ZOOM]

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (University of Toronto/Mississauga May 13, 2010):

The sky is the limit with the involvement of the people. Any decisions that politicians make, can be controlled. Believe it or not.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (May 19, 2010 General Committee Deputation):

And this just came up —it can be rubber-stamped today. And that’s it. So I would hope that Council might look at this and say, you know this is really important, let’s put some —let the public look at this and talk about it.

Anyway I’m hoping that —I’ll be, I’ll be preparing for this at Council. Because I’m better —I’m very scattered now —sometimes, I’m sorry.

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR EVE ADAMS CHAIR ( May 19, 2010 General Committee):

[inaudible] I think I might have some things to help you out here. If I can turn to the Councillors now who are listed, who I think may want to address some of their concerns.

[CROSS ZOOM]

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (University of Toronto/Mississauga May 13, 2010):

The sky is the limit with the involvement of the people. Any decisions that politicians make, can be controlled. Believe it or not.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE (at UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO/MISSISSAUGA   MAY 13, 2010) "The sky is the limit with the involvement of the people. Any decisions that politicians make,. can be controlled. Believe it or not"

SCREEN CAPTURE TORONTO STAR, "Mississauga puts off vote on new ethics measures Solicitor’s report recommends code of ethics and, to police it, integrity commissioner "

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSED (or avoided) a KEY "ROOT CAUSE" TARGET


“STONEWALLED” SUB-CONTRACTORS FALL VICTIM TO CITY OF MISSISSAUGA FACILITIES AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S “DUE DILIGENCE” OF CONTRACTS

February 27th, 2010  

This video has been prepared for the sub-contractors who appeared before the Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Mississauga Council meeting. Unpaid for their work, stonewalled and given the runaround, they too fell victim to City of Mississauga’s Staff’s chronic non-compliance to Corporate policies.

Truth be told, in the case of these sub-contractors, they fell victim to yet another policy believed to be “in place”, just that Mississauga’s Internal Audit did not find any trace of it!

And who was responsible for this contract? Why, none other than City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management! The same fine folks who honed City of Mississauga Corporate Security into the unaccountable, no oversight, unethical knobs who also profess to be a “dedicated team of security professionals”.

Have to say I felt so sorry for the sub-contractors. In the words of the deputant, “blue collar” workers comprised of “single parents with kids on disability that are being —that are losing a lot of money”.

Sure they’ve been stonewalled, screwed-over and eventually forced to file Freedom of Information to peer at the truth. But in some ways they’re lucky —it’s still just money.

This same City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management and their Corporate Security Guards arrest people/youth/minors.

By far the most offensive thing in the video I’ve prepared is Councillor Pat Saito looking the deputant in the eyes and saying, “I was assured by Staff at that time that when they did due diligence” and “Mayor McCallion and I did discuss that with Staff yesterday and we have been assured by Staff that they…”

Considering the number of times that I’ve advised Councillors that Staff’s word cannot be trusted, I’m just so offended she’d fling that “I was assured by Staff” turd at these people.

Saito’s “I was assured by Staff”comment alone is Perfect Testimony as to why the City of Mississauga can’t be trusted to hire its own Integrity Commissioner. There’s NONE THERE NOW!

This video is dedicated to the sub-contractors and their families who fell victim to the City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management’s chronic non-compliance to policy and procedure.

So. As always, the video —followed by the transcript.

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION/MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL DECEIVE SUB-CONTRACTORS AND PUBLIC –WITHHOLD VITAL INFORMATION (10:22 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

Okay, it is Thursday, February the 25th, 2010 and I’m here, underground, near 130 Adelaide Street and I’m to meet with the Judicial Inquiry investigators at 2 o’clock.

You know, I’ve been mentioning the non-compliance of City of Mississauga Staff to numerous policies. And you know, as recently as February 3rd I detailed quite a number of them in a deputation.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga General Committee Deputation, February 3, 2010):
* sequence edited for brevity and audio begins after Policies 1 through 6.

Now these are non-compliance.

  1. Video Surveillance Policy (The Corporation’s first SNOOP policy)
  2. Violence and Vandalism Policy (2000 to 2006)
  3. Violence, Vandalism and Bullying Policy (the existing current one)
  4. Corporate Security Code of Conduct
  5. Corporate Security Public Complaints Policy (if you can believe that)
  6. Conflict of Interest Policy
  7. Vendor (and this comes from Audit) Performance Policy (Assumed abandoned, Internal Audit could no trace of it.)
  8. Charging Interest to non-government organization Policy
  9. Infoplace Cash Collection Policy (cost the City over, what? —$700,000 plus)

And then By-laws —the Records Retention By-law. That’s confirmed through Freedom of Information, and even Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And the City Manager, Janice Baker responded with that she would simply not accept what I had said.

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga General Committee Deputation, February 3, 2010):

The accusations that she’s made about the behaviour of Staff at the City are extremely serious and, you know, I am actually quite taken aback by them.

[dip to white]

But to suggest that there is a callous disregard at —by the Staff at the City of Mississauga for both the responsibilities that we have for the care, custody and control of records, written and electronic, is something that I simply cannot accept. I’m sorry.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

So, what happened at yesterday’s Council meeting was quite remarkable.

It was the 2009 Corporate Awards for Excellence that had been —were being handed out. And you would hear “Leading Canada in management”.

[cross zoom]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

Mississauga is continually looked upon as a municipal leader.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

Our excellent Staff, our excellent commitment to the taxpayer.

[cross zoom]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

—to address the needs of all sectors and members of our community.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

They are Trust, Quality and Excellence.

[cross zoom]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

They have exemplified our values of Trust, Quality and Excellence.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And Excellence and Excellence and more Excellence.

[cross zoom]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

Just outstanding. Solves all problems. Brings Peace and Harmony on all issues that he faces.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And you know, it’s a killer when I know what Freedom of Information and the Audit Committee has revealed.

[dip to white]

And then, more to the point, there was a group of about six sub-contractors who went before Council* and detailed their frustration with being paid, or in this case, not paid, for work they’d done by [sic] a contractor that was hired by the City of Mississauga.

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

Very early in the project, we expressed our concerns to the City Staff that the sub-trades weren’t being paid.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

His frustration that there were people really counting on the money and feeling hardship at this point.

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

—to maybe do something, [inaudible] single parents with kids on disability that are being —that are losing a lot of money

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

Things wouldn’t happen —then there was, he used the word “stonewalled” on occasion.

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

Through the Freedom of Information Act —because I was being stonewalled by so many people—

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And then what was really interesting was, he asked, “Did the City do due diligence before hiring the contractor?”

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

"Through the Freedom of Information Act —because I was being stonewalled by so many people —through the Freedom of Information Act, I found out the information I do have."

Through the Freedom of Information Act —because I was being stonewalled by so many people —through the Freedom of Information Act, I found out the information I do have. I have access to the contract and to his —to the contract, to the statutory declarations that he was signing.

I also have, I also have his references and his resume, which at the least leaves much to be desired.

[dip to white]

Now there’s projects that he had that he put down as a reference, these are projects that he’s been, basically, kicked off for non-performance —this contractor, he’s done projects where there’s been liens to put on it and he’s been asked to leave.

And these are the —I want to know about due diligence of hiring this contractor and awarding him this job.

The sub-contractor says, "—I want to know about due diligence of hiring this contractor and awarding him this job."

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And as soon as I heard the “due diligence” I said (laughs) I knew about an Audit Committee just recently, where again, there was issue with contracts. And the Audit Committee had investigated just how contracts were being handled in the City and Hazel McCallion brought up some issues where there had been problems with contractors in the past.

[cross zoom]

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

We sit down with management as we go through the Audit and say exactly what our concerns are so that they have time to address them. And as you can see, by the end of June of this year, five out of seven of the recommendations will be completed.

And also that formal Vendor Evaluation Criteria will be developed by mid-2010.

[cross zoom]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

But on that point—

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

[inaudible]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

On that point—

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was a procedure set up years ago on Vendor [requisitions? inaudible]. Did you find any trace of it?

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

It’s just an informal vendor performance review right now [inaudible] it’s not being —there’s no formal process in there. The first thing—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was —there was a policy established. Every vendor, and especially on major contracts, that when we had bad experiences —and we have had some bad experiences—

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Yes.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was a policy established years ago that the vendor would be categorized. And in fact some would be cut off for future contracts.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

That’s not—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Did you find no trace of it?

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

No, it’s not in there.

COUNCILLOR PAT MULLIN (Chair, Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

No, the answer’s no. So I guess [inaudible]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Well it was set up, I can tell you.

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I remember the discussion.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Do you?

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I remember the discussions.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Some of you who’ve been around long will remember? It was set up. So obviously it got lost in the shuffle somewhere. Cuz we ran, we ran into some bad examples. And that’s when we set the policy. That’s years ago. That’s not —ten years ago, would I be right? At least. So where did that —what happened to it?

Hazel McCallion, "And that’s when we set up the policy. That’s years ago. That’s not —ten years ago, would I be right? At least. So where did that —what happened to it?"

DIRECTOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, SALLY ENG (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There is some mention of a purchasing By-law where we would be able to —or the purchasing agent has the authority to,  prevents [sic] the bidder from bidding in future contracts. But we have not been able to find any detailed processes relating to what you’re talking about.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Okay.

COUNCILLOR PAT MULLIN (Chair, Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

[inaudble] that we should look into, I guess for the future. Because I remember the discussion.

[inaudible —several speakers at once]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

That’s what one of the recommendations is.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I’m getting a little frustrated as Mayor as we set up policies and then they’re not followed. And that’s what bothers me. I was in the business —in the private sector and we had millions of dollars in contracts. And it’s been something I’ve been promoting  —is control of the contracts. And that policy was set up because we ran into one vendor who were [sic] behind two millions dollars, I remember.

Anyway.

So now we’re going to set up one up. Fine.

Someone:

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Just to conclude. Working with Facilities and Property Management, we’ve had a good rapport with them and I just want to thank Ken—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

The guy that did the renovations at the . I hope he never sees another contract.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Am I right?

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

And the one at the

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

And the one at the

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

That was a bad one.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

And I’ll be honest with you that’s—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Now that was a bad one.

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I think that’s when it was raised.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

[inaudible] of this audit, Madam Mayor they, ah,  that contractor again, there was no formal evaluation for those contracts. And that’s why we recommended that that be formalized and documented.

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was even an evaluation form used many years ago because of our bad experience with contractors and we’d see their name pop up again being awarded a contract.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010) :

So, Staff and Council approved a policy that outlined how to go about evaluating a contractor to make sure that the City would be doing this due diligence. And what was interesting is, that was never mentioned to the contractor [sic] sub-contractor who was up there!

[cross zoom]

COUNCILLOR PAT SAITO (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

I was assured by Staff at that time that when they did due diligence —and you questioned the due diligence on page 3, which is “I 3c” of the report you filed. You questioned the due diligence of the City.

[dip to white]

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR PAT SAITO'S ";And Mayor McCallion and I did discuss that with Staff yesterday and we have been assured by Staff that they went to three of the projects" is an insult of the highest order to both those gentlemen and me!

And Mayor McCallion and I did discuss that with Staff yesterday and we have been assured by Staff that they went to three of the projects —former projects, that this contractor had undertaken —that they’d used as references, and they were similar-sized projects.

And the information that we’ve received from our Facilities Staff, who oversaw the project, is that they received good reviews from two of them. They weren’t able, I guess to get a hold of the third one. But two of them did give good reviews and we have that review.

It doesn’t have a lot of detail in it.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

So instead McCallion and Councillor Saito said, yes, Staff did do due diligence and check [sic] things out.

And again, once I found out that it was Facilities and Properties [sic] Management, again, because I sat in on the Audit Committee, I know that there have been Audits done of that Department that describe their record-keeping as from adequate to non-existent.

February 24, 2010's Mississauga sub-contractor deputants and MISSISSAUGAWATCH have a LOT in common! Both Victims of City of Mississauga Facilities and Properties Management!

And because I research City of Mississauga Corporate Security, also part of Facilities and Properties [sic] Management, there’s a lot of non-existent as well in terms of record-keeping.

So —what’s interesting is, in front of the cameras, there’s this kind of a non-acknowledgment of what happened in the Audit Committee.

[cross fade: logo]

TRANSCRIPT ENDS

Signed,

The (If you like how Mississauga Facilities and Property Management bungles Contracts, you should see the cluster****bungleknobfest that passes for Security!)

P.S. Have I an appropriate sign-off pic? Yep!

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEEE JANUARY 24 2000 MINUTES

COMMENT left at the Mississauga News

The Mississauga Muse

Feb 27, 2010 9:07 AM

Really happy this morning…because I finally answered my biggest question

“Does Hazel McCallion know?” Meaning does Hazel McCallion know how Staff operate? Wednesday’s Council meeting CONFIRMS not just that McCallion KNOWS, but that she, like her Staff are Perps. By not telling those sub-contractors on Wednesday, that at the May 11, 2009 Audit Committee she found out that Internal Audit could find no trace of a formal Contractor Evaluation Policy that was passed by Council “10 years ago” she made her Respectful Workplace utterance about “honesty with the citizens both on the Council and on the part of Staff” a lie. First time I ever stepped foot inside Council Chambers (May 5, 2006). Got The Answer to “Does Hazel McCallion know? Wednesday, February 24, 2010. Zero doubt that Mississauga News “knows” too.

“Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers. And it’s not just Mississauga. This is for all Ontario municipalities.” MISSISSAUGAWATCH deputation to MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL

November 26th, 2009  

We’re up for air and back online.

Only purpose for this Blog is to document, for the record, a video that MISSISSAUGAWATCH showed at yesterday’s Mississauga Council meeting to oppose Mississauga Council hiring an Integrity Commissioner. MISSISSAUGAWATCH made it clear to Mississauga Council that “Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers.”

"ONTARIANS NEED THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN LOOKING INTO MUNICIPALITIES. FULL INVESTIGATIVE POWERS." MISSISSAUGAWATCH to MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 25, 2009

Our good friend (and sometimes colleague), citizen-activist Donald Barber also called for Mississauga Council to determine how the Ontario Ombudsman might play the (invited) role of Integrity Commissioner for the City until such time as the Province Gets Real and expands the Ombudsman’s Office jurisdiction into the MUSH sector ([M] of MUSH is “Municipalities).

So here is the video we showed —video weaving clips of the December 6, 2006 Bill 130 Standing Committee Queen’s Park deliberations with “The Mississauga Muse” inside Council Chambers, four years later —on November 11, 2009.

Followed by the transcript.

Video: “INVITE THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN IN AS YOUR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER” MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL URGED” (5:51 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Video taped at Queen’s Park regarding Bill 130 Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act Standing Deliberations,  December 6, 2006.

It includes debate between Brad Duguid, (Liberal) MPP, Scarborough Centre, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Ernie Hardeman (PC) MPP Oxford.

TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

Mr. Duguid: —this is in keeping with some of the recommendations that came forward from the Ombudsman in discussing the need that these duties be carried out in an independent manner. And that’s what this particular motion is designed to do. It clarifies that the ombudsman is to function in an independent manner.

The Chair: Very good. Any speakers to this? Mr. Hardeman?

Mr. Hardeman: I guess I say it in a kind of negative way but, it seems to me from the government’s side  —saying it doesn’t make it so. And from having an amendment that says we’re changing nothing about how it’s done but the Ombudsman says we should have an independent ombudsman or investigator —to just put that in and say they should be independent — unless it gives some direction of what independence means, I don’t know how anyone would take comfort from this being sure it’s going to be  independent.

If it still allows that independent person, that’s doing it now independently, to be an employee of council, I don’t know how the public could see that as independence.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: I really would like to think that most citizens aren’t stupid enough to accept an Integrity Commissioner that a municipality itself decides to hire. I mean there are 440 municipalities in Ontario. Some of them have to be corrupt!

And you’re gonna somehow say that we’re going to deal with this corruption by hiring our own Integrity Commissioner? What?!

Mr. Hardeman: Of course because of the whole nature of the bill, there will be no avenue for the public to be involved in whether it’s independent or not, because the very fact that the individual is appointed prohibits that person from going to the Ontario Ombudsman to ask for an independent review.

So, [inaudible] just saying it, to me, just doesn’t cut it.

There needs to be more direction as to how independent they must be, that they must be appointed separately from council, that it can’t be, as was suggested on a very negative note by the Ombudsman, it can’t be just hiring a lawyer who’s — no disrespect to lawyers — who is in fact, obligated to work for the people who hire them.

So obviously, an independent investigation by a lawyer hired is not going to suffice for the public—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: And here’s something else. If these people had done a minimum amount of homework, as far as checking the Code of Conduct and complaints system that they have passed in April 2008—if they have looked into that, and had examined what’s been happening since that one was implemented, they’d realize how important it is to get substantial complaints away from municipalities and into the Provincial realm.

Mr. Duguid: —There are a variety of interpretations to the wording in this motion that could provide some degree of difficulty for municipalities down the road, and we’d rather not complicate that. We have confidence that municipalities will — in fact, when we had AMO before us during the hearings, Mr. Reycraft made it very, very clear municipalities are not going to appoint somebody as an ombudsman who is not independent, and would not get an employee of the company, or of the corporation or the city or town or village or region to do that.

But there are issues in terms of definitions of “employee” that I think we’d rather not get into.

Mr. Hardeman: I recognize that the president of AMO, on behalf of all the member municipalities of AMO, was making a presentation and suggested that he would never, nor would any municipality, do anything that would be contrary to the best interests of the people who were being impacted by their decisions.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: And then the other thing about this report, it doesn’t deal with prior problems and any complaint —you’re only allowed six months.

Most people don’t know how badly they’ve been screwed over —for years! It took me about two years to figure out about Freedom of Information!

Mr. Hardeman: At the same time, I think, if you’re going to have a third party review for decisions that they make, I think the public would expect that third party review to be by an impartial third party. I think if we don’t do something like this, we’re going to have the old adage about “You can’t fight city hall” is going to be true, because the judge is going to be somebody at city hall, and I don’t think that’s an appropriate way.

So I think this is one that should be passed, and I do request a recorded vote on it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: Most people don’t have the resources that I have here or the time that it’s taken me to really understand why you can’t have an Integrity Commissioner. You need —Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers. And it’s not just Mississauga. This is for all Ontario municipalities.

They need help. You need something else, because everything else is just —pretense. Absolute pretense.

End slide: “saying it doesn’t make it so” Ernie Hardeman (PC) MPP Oxford, December 6, 2006.

NOTE: This video transcript differs from the official Hansard records and I have no idea why.

Signed,

The (Ontarians need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into municipalities. Full investigative powers. And it’s not just Mississauga. This is for all Ontario municipalities.) Mississauga Muse

"MISSISSAUGA CITIZEN-ACTIVIST" "DONALD BARBER" "CALLS UPON MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL TO INVITE THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN IN AS INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER"


Bear