While the decision was not unanimous, council here has agreed to suspend Mayor Lou Maieron’s pay for one month in response to a scathing integrity commissioner’s report that states Maieron has repeatedly violated council’s code of ethics.
The resolution, which passed by a 3-2 recorded vote, also recommends Maieron take a leadership training course as a result of what integrity commissioner John Craig called his “poor” treatment of town staff members.
Maieron however, has refused to accept Craig’s report and its recommendations, as well as the decision of council on Tuesday night.
“I will not be muzzled,” the mayor stated at the Dec. 3 meeting.
Maieron, who contends there was widespread collusion to undermine his position as mayor, attached a five-page response to the report that disputes the report’s findings and alleges Craig may have “exceeded [his] authority” in suggesting contraventions of the code of ethics.
On Tuesday night the mayor spent roughly 25 minutes refuting the process behind Craig’s hiring, as well as Craig’s qualifications, the process in which the investigation was conducted, its findings, the allegations themselves and the recommendations.
On Nov. 27, Craig issued a detailed 24-page report about Maieron following complaints lodged in July by fellow councillor Josie Wintersinger.
Craig’s report focused on five main items contained in Wintersinger’s complaint, which alleged the mayor:
– revealed confidential information to the public;
– accepted an improper payment as a gift relating to the costs of a trip to China;
– left a council meeting while it was in progress;
– knowingly provided false information to the public on the process to recruit a new CAO; and
– made comments, both verbally and via email, that were “disrespectful, intimidating, demeaning and/or impugned upon the professional or ethical reputation of staff and others.”
In his report, Craig ruled Maieron breached the code of ethics in three of five of those matters.
As sanctions for the various breaches of the code, Craig recommended the following:
– council suspend the mayor’s remuneration for one month and that the mayor complete a training course designed for leadership in the public sector;
– council retain the services of a facilitator to help council and staff set a path to a more cooperative working relationship;
– council review its expense policy to clarify the definition of the term “conference” and consider requiring members to seek council permission for extraordinary expenses; and
– that subsequent to the council appointment of a permanent integrity commissioner, all members of council and staff be provided training on the application of the code of ethics.
At the Dec. 3 meeting, council endorsed all of Craig’s recommendations. The vote was 3-2 in favour, with councillors Wintersinger, Deb Callaghan and Barb Tocher in favour, and Maieron and councillor John Brennan opposed.
For more on the Dec. 3 discussion on the report, see next week’s edition of the Wellington Advertiser.
A detailed synopsis of Craig’s report, which is available online at www.erin.ca as part of the Dec. 3 agenda (starting on page 25), follows under headings for the five main accusations.
Maieron revealed confidential information to the public
During a debate at council on June 25, it was alleged that Maieron revealed the previous CAO was terminated by council at a previous meeting in May. The concern raised was this was confidential and should not have been released to the public.
In his report, Craig stated that in his view, it is in the public interest to know that a senior employee has been hired, terminated, resigned or retired.
He stated some of the settlement details for a terminated employee may be considered personal information, but not the fact itself.
“I find that while the mayor did technically breach paragraph 4.6 of the Code of Ethics, it was not a significant transgression and most likely due to an error in judgement. In addition, the breach is based on a definition that in my view does not represent current best practices or lawful understanding of the term “confidential information.”
Maieron accepted improper payment as a gift relating to the costs of a China trip
Craig stated that in a small municipality, the exceptional nature of a visit to a foreign country for economic development brings matters of cost and benefit under very close scrutiny.
He suggested that ideally, a member of council or staff would ask their council for permission to join one of these trips. This was not the case in Erin, although council was informed by the mayor that he had decided to join the excursion. The question of “who pays” apparently did not come up.
“I find that the evidence available to me does not support the allegation Mayor Maieron breached Section 3.1 of the Code of Ethics by accepting gifts not permitted by the exceptions listed in Section 3.3.”
Mayor Maieron left a council meeting while it was in progress (on June 25)
Craig reported that the mayor left the meeting because he felt council was not following the rules and his protests were falling on deaf ears.
The commissioner clarified that his role was not to determine whether the meeting was properly called or conducted.
Craig stated that as head of council the mayor is required by the Municipal Act to provide leadership and preside over council meetings.
He stated there is no provision in the procedural bylaw requiring members to leave a meeting except in cases of conflict of interest or being expelled from the meeting. At the same time there is no prohibition from a member voluntarily leaving a meeting.
However, Craig indicated that just because doing something is legal does not mean that it is therefore the right thing to do.
“In this situation we find a mayor who has chosen not to lead, build consensus, avoid discouraging and destructive conflict, and conduct himself in accordance with the procedure bylaw.”
“I find that Mayor Maieron breached Rule 7 of the Code of Ethics by leaving the council meeting on June 25, 2013.”
Mayor Maieron knowingly provided false information to the public on the process for recruiting a new CAO
“I find that although coming close to breaching Section 9.3, Mayor Maieron did not breach Rule 9 as alleged in his communications with the press, public or other members of council.”
Mayor Maieron spoke and/or wrote emails in a manner that was disrespectful, intimidating, demeaning and/or impugned upon the professional or ethical reputation of staff and others.
In his report, Craig stated that from July 8 to 13, Maieron wrote emails to a resident, staff and councillors in which he chastised staff and council members, deliberately impugning their professionalism, reputation and performance.
The commissioner said the mayor did not deny writing these emails.
Craig stated the evidence provided to him suggests there is plenty of ill will to go around the town hall.
“It was easy to conclude from my interviews that most of the acrimony surrounds the relations involving the mayor. There is strong evidence of harsh feelings expressed in emails, press reporting and during meetings of council.”
This evidence reveals a serious and persistent level of tension and grinding frustration in the workplace, Craig stated.
“It is probable that information is not being fully and properly shared with the mayor because of the anguish cause by anticipation of another potentially relentless round of contrarian argument and criticism.”
Craig noted, that “with the exception of meetings, the mayor communicates mainly and copiously by email and to a lesser extent by telephone. Most people contacted indicated that he is rarely seen in the office except for attendance at meetings.”
Craig said the mayor’s response to those claims was that he was afraid to attend the town hall except when the public is in attendance for fear that anything he does or says may lead to an accusation of code of ethics violations.
“I find this to be a ridiculous assertation – unbecoming of a person in a leadership position, yet consistent with his self-portrayal as the victim,” Craig stated.
“Mayor Maieron’s contrarian and argumentative style in his email messages and personal interactions is relentless.”
Craig added, “it has been reported and I have noticed that the mayor is quick to lay blame ahead of finding solutions to problems. He often takes an approach to questioning or challenging a matter by personalizing the debate – attacking the individual rather than dealing impersonally with the topic at hand.”
Craig stated, “Evidence supports the fact that much of the poor behaviour displayed by the mayor has been ongoing for quite some time and continues.”
In his defence to Craig, the mayor claimed that he has been treated in a condescending and demeaning way. Maieron also described his frequent frustration with the responsiveness to citizen complaints, unresolved web mail problems and the lack of consultation and information sharing.
Maieron supplied several solicited letters from residents and businessmen in the community, some of which were in the form of character references. Several echoed the view that council and staff were not functioning well together, lacked leadership and seemed not to have a handle on “who does what.”
One of his supporters described the mayor as “obstreperous or obdurate” stating that “the intransigence of the municipal bureaucracy necessitates dynamic leadership.”
To that, Craig commented, “I agree that dynamic leadership is required, but obstreperous or obdurate (rowdy and inflexible) are terms not usually associated with dynamic leadership.”
Craig added he had already read communications to the mayor which were disrespectful and inappropriate to the office of mayor.
“However, I note that this is most often in response to a perceived personal slight or contrarian comment or action.”
“I find that Mayor Maieron repeatedly breached Sections, 14.4, 14.6, 14.7. 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 of the Code of Ethics. Although taken separately the offensives may be considered somewhat low on the range of misconduct, the mayor’s behaviour repeatedly crossed the line into forbidden territory. Considered together, I judge the pattern of his transgressions to be harmful on a personal, corporate and community level demanding immediate corrective action.”
Conclusions
Craig noted, “Even in his communications with me (over 65 emails and 200 pages of response material) there were attempts to intimidate with insulting accusations about my independence and integrity, citing completely fictitious personal and outrageous references.
“In fact, of the nearly 200 pages of his responses to the allegations, only several paragraphs were actually relevant to the allegations. Most of the evidence in his defence came from elsewhere.”
“When called to account for his behaviour, he immediately became argumentative, aggressively denying everything, then counter-attacks with distorted or fabricated criticisms and allegations; if this is insufficient, he quickly feigns victimhood to evade accountability by trying to manipulate others through the use of guilt.
“To me, his responses indicate an overbearing belief in his qualities of leadership, but he seems to be unable to distinguish between the true qualities of leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, trust and integrity) and the traits of a bully (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, distrust and deceitfulness).”
