NO PUNISHMENT FOR DEFIANT COUNCILLOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER BLAMES COMPLAINANT

By Dean Hickey At its first scheduled meeting following the summer recess, council heard from Janice Atwood of Principles Integrity on the matter of councillor Derek Giberson having been found in breach of the Code of Conduct. A report received by council was critical of a Facebook post Giberson made earlier this year in which he commented on a police media release about a private individual. To make matters worse, he ignored the report and chose not to delete his comments, allowing them to remain active for the better part of a month afterwards. In an unexpected twist of events, the Integrity Commissioner proceeded to cast blame for Giberson’s defiance directly upon the individual who laid the original complaint. As many of our readers will know, I am that person. A complete transcript of the presentation to council will be made public by The Central in the days to come, however it is important to look closely at a few key comments that were made. “Council is…receiving the Recommendation Report, sitting in a disciplinary function” Although no sanctions against Giberson were recommended, members of council have the ability under the Municipal Act to undertake measures that would punish one of their colleagues, and show the residents of Oshawa that certain behaviour will not be tolerated or simply ignored. In this instance, Giberson remained non-compliant, even in the face of a report that recognized the influence his comments could have on a matter that is before the courts. “It is somewhat unfortunate that the complainant would not have, promptly, communicated with us in regard to the Facebook post remaining in place.” Following a brief outline of the facts, the Commissioner was asked by Ward 4 councillor Rick Kerr if sanctions against Giberson were in fact warranted, due to his not having removed his Facebook post immediately after receiving her report. The response was nothing less than disturbing to anyone who has at one time or other sought accountability on the part of elected officials. I advised the Commissioner of Giberson’s Facebook post remaining active between May 3 and September 20. When pressed by councillor Kerr, the Commissioner said no form of sanction was recommended, as the post had been “removed” days before. She then proceeded to lay the blame for this squarely at my feet for not having forwarded my concerns much earlier. “But still, it is…unfortunate that it wasn’t brought to our attention more promptly, as we would have promptly reached out to (Giberson) and it would have been down 23 days earlier” There’s a lot to unpack based on the Commissioner’s remarks. One has to wonder if I am now the gatekeeper of councillor Giberson’s Facebook page, and whether I am expected to bear responsibility for his having refused to take down the offending post. If the Commissioner laments the fact Giberson acted as he did, then why did she persist in not recommending any form of sanction? Is the Code of Conduct being applied only partially, and if so, is that a clear signal that this form of oversight is being compromised? Important questions, to be sure. At one point during her presentation, the Commissioner indicated that input from private individuals, including a complainant, is “irrelevant” once a report is issued. She then went on to suggest I somehow failed in my civic duty to keep her office informed. For someone in such a position of authority to willingly turn the tables of responsibility away from an elected official, only to throw that burden onto the shoulders of a private citizen, is nothing less than unprofessional and seriously misguided. Throughout the transcript of the presentation, one can easily discern repeated efforts by the Commissioner to prop up Giberson’s character to the point of seeming to advocate on his behalf. She went on to say, “…we accept the explanation that we received from (Giberson) with regard to the ‘lag’ in time for removing the post.” What that explanation was, and how it negated his defiance in the face of the report, remains unknown. Councillors subsequently voted on this issue without full knowledge of the facts. Ward 2 councillor Jim Lee suggested that Paragraph 79 of the Commissioner’s report was evidence enough to show why no sanction should be imposed. The Paragraph states, “The Respondent has acknowledged that, in hindsight, he would be more circumspect in his actions, and would likely refrain from making any similar such comment.” Perhaps councillor Lee can explain to the citizens of Oshawa exactly how he feels his colleague from Ward 4 has shown any semblance of having got the message. Quite the opposite, in that councillor Giberson’s refusal to take down his Facebook post demonstrated a clear attempt at non-compliance, and a further attack on a private citizen. To add to council’s seemingly inept stance, Ward 5 councillor Rosemary McConkey declared a conflict, advising the Mayor, “I believe I have too much of a bias” to be able to vote on the matter. One has to seriously ask how anyone could be seen as biased when trying to uphold the key principles of Council’s Code of Conduct. Councillor McConkey showed nothing less than political and moral cowardice on this issue. In last week’s edition of The Central, a Page 3 article took a look at what appears to be an unwritten rule of cooperation among those in power to seek advantage over others. Choosing not to exercise their right to sanction a fellow member of council who breached the Code of Conduct and openly defied the Integrity Commissioner’s report, shows council to have circled the wagons in an effort to shield one of their own from punishment, and that is not only disappointing, it is reprehensible. THIS WEEK IN COUNCIL HISTORY September 29, 1991 The Oshawa This Week Sunday Edition included a lengthy letter to the editor by councillor Brian Nicholson on the future of the city’s waterfront. He told readers, “It (is) evident that the residents of Oshawa want a better future for their community than dusty, noisy, obnoxious, polluting heavy industry.” He would go on to say, “Jobs-at-any-cost thinking has resulted in environmental damage that will take decades, if not centuries to repair.” The marina would eventually cease to operate, however the development and enhancement of parks and amenities would take place in the years since.