An Erin resident is alleging councillor Deb Callaghan breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest of Act by voting on matters affecting her husband’s salary.
Callaghan’s husband Dan, is the Town of Erin’s fire chief.
In March, resident Mark Adamiak submitted an application to the Superior Court of Justice’s Guelph office, which will be heard in Guelph on Sept. 8.
In his application Adamiak said he is seeking:
– a declaration from Callaghan stating she has contravened the provisions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act;
– the removal of Callaghan from office;
– an order requiring Callaghan pay restitution to the town in the amount of any increase; and
– a requirement for Callaghan to pay the costs of the court application as well as any further costs deemed applicable.
Adamiak states that Callaghan breached provisions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting multiple times on motions where she had a direct or indirect interest, including town staff pay increases and a motion to proceed with a municipal operational review.
Callaghan told the Advertiser, “I have my suspicions about how this happened … but I can’t tell you anything because I don’t have any proof.”
She said the matter goes back to 2013 with the passing of the budget, pay increases and the operational review.
Callaghan admitted she did vote on the 2013 staff pay increase.
“I looked at this as a big picture/corporation increase and I honestly did not see it as just a fire department increase,” she said, adding the vote increased councillor wages as well.
“I did make a mistake and I did vote on that.”
In a telephone interview with the Advertiser last week Adamiak stated the information within his court application “speaks for itself.”
Much of that document involves minutes from previous Erin council meetings, during which the alleged breaches took place.
Earlier this year a package marked “private and confidential” and containing minutes from Erin council meetings was sent to the Advertiser, along with a note from the Erin Taxpayer’s Alliance.
The package contained allegations of conflict of interest and inflammatory and derogatory statements about Callaghan, but no indication of any legal proceedings.
Adamiak, a member of the town’s committee of adjustment, later commented, “I can’t believe I’m the only one who noticed this going on.”
He later found out he wasn’t.
Adamiak explained, “After chatting with a few people last year at a Christmas party, I was astounded to find out that actually there were other people paying attention.”
He said community reaction has been very supportive.
“They can’t believe … I’m the only one who said something,” he told the Advertiser.
The September court date means the matter could be resolved less than two months before the Oct. 27 municipal election.
Adamiak wants Callaghan to be ineligible to run for the next term.
“It would speak volumes to anyone following,” he said.
Charlene Millett, spokesperson with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, stated in an email that if a judge determines a councillor has contravened the Conflict of Interest Act, the penalty can include “disqualification of a member from being a member for up to seven years.”
Other possible penalties are declaring the member’s seat vacant “and restitution where there is personal financial gain.”
In early April Callaghan was served papers notifying her of Adamiak’s application. She said her understanding is the applicant was notified of the issue as a result of a document dropped at his doorstep.
“I have no idea … what this man is trying to get,” she said. “I think it is kind of a payback, but I have no idea where the document came from (which started this).”
She later added, “I had to hire a lawyer and had to file an affidavit. Low and behold, if the mayor doesn’t file an affidavit supporting this.”
In a telephone interview with the Advertiser Erin Mayor Lou Maieron was reluctant to go into much detail on comments contained in his affidavit since the matter is still before the courts.
He said Callaghan has claimed her alleged conflict was due to inadvertence.
“The applicant came to me and asked if this was a legitimate reason,” said Maieron. “After I thought about it, I made my comments. Fundamentally, I did not think inadvertence was a legitimate reason.”
However, Millett said intent can impact the final outcome.
“A judge may find that a contravention occurred through inadvertence or an error in judgment of a member … in such a case, a member may not be subject to penalties,” Millett said.
Callaghan also admitted to voting on the town’s 2013 operational review.
She voted against it initially, and when the item came back to council for reconsideration, she again voted against it, though it was passed by council.
“My vote did not make the difference,” she said.
She later added, “In the bigger picture, there was no way (my vote) had anything to do with Dan, because it was about an operational review – not an organizational review,” she said.
Later Callaghan came back to council and stated that she did not believe she should have declared a conflict on the matter.
“But because of a ratepayer’s comment I thought I would declare a conflict … and that would be the end of it.”
Legal advice was given, and subsequent to that Callaghan has declared a potential conflict on anything related to the fire department, she said, even if it does not involve financial gain for her husband.
“How the hydro bills at the fire hall would benefit Dan I have no idea, but I’ve been declaring a conflict on everything,” said Callaghan.
She said she heard one of the concerns of the person filing the complaint was that the media had not covered the issue.
“Now this is going to get the publicity that the complainant and whoever else is involved (wants) … they are getting what they want,” Callaghan suggested.
-With files from Chris Daponte
