Councillors could have faced charges for not co-operating: Ombudsman

An already miserable summer for city councillors got even worse Aug. 30 when a report from Ontario’s ombudsman singled out Sudbury’s local politicians as the most uncooperative his office has ever dealt with.

“The fact that only four of the 14 individuals we asked to interview were prepared to co-operate with my office is an affront to the citizens of Sudbury,” Andre Marin wrote in a report that otherwise cleared council of accusations they held illegal closed-door meetings.

“The abysmal co-operation level of this city council has offended the Ombudsman Act ... Council for the City of Greater Sudbury now has the dubious distinction of being the least co-operative body we have ever investigated.”

Marin wrote that under the act, anyone who refuses to co-operate with an investigation is subject to a fine of $500 and up to three months in jail. While his office isn’t pursuing charges, he criticized councillors for not “respecting the rule of law.

“In future, we expect greater maturity from council members under investigation. We will not hesitate to avail ourselves of the legal tools at our disposal to ensure that the Sudbury council co-operates fully.”

Marin’s office was asked to investigate four private or ‘in camera’ meetings held last year. In his report, he writes the meetings were held to discuss whether to renew the contract of Auditor General Brian Bigger. In those meetings, held in October, November and December 2011, council agreed to have Mayor Marianne Matichuk find a firm to audit Bigger’s office.

Marin ruled that councillors were discussing a personnel matter and, under the Municipal Act, are allowed to hold those meetings behind closed doors.
But when Marin sent three investigators to interview the 12 city council councillors, the mayor and the city clerk, only the mayor, the clerk and two city councillors co-operated. Ten councillors refused to be interviewed unless someone from the city’s legal department was present.

One councillor even objected to Marin’s habit of tweeting about the cases he’s investigating, and cited the ombudsman’s exposure on social media as a justification for not co-operating with the investigation.

Under the act, when the Ombudsman conducts an investigation, people being interviewed can have their own lawyers present, but not the municipality’s lawyer. And in any case, the ombudsman has no power to sanction anyone for violating the Municipal Act. All he can do is write a public report on his findings.

Matichuk, who had her own lawyer present during the interview, said Aug. 30 she didn’t expect the harsh wording from Marin.

“I was quite surprised by the report,” she said. “I made a personal choice to co-operate, and all the councillors could have made that personal choice. It’s entirely up to the person.”

She said it’s up to everyone at the council table to find ways to move forward for the good of the city.

“We need to take this information and see how we can do better,” she said. “We need to be accountable, and we need to be transparent.”
She also heaped praise on Bigger’s office, which she said is helping to transform the way city operates.

“I have always supported the office of the auditor general, and I pledge to the citizens of this city that I will continue to support the auditor general as long as I am mayor,” Matichuk said. “The auditor general has done extremely good work for this community …. He’s opened up issues that existed way before my time and they’re all coming to light now. And that’s good. Because you can’t fix things until you know there’s a problem.”

The two councillors who co-operated with the ombudsman – Ward 3 Coun. Claude Berthiaume and Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig – took exception to Marin’s harsh comments. Reading the report, you could almost miss the fact that they were cleared, they said.

“We did nothing wrong,” Berthiaume said. “To me, the whole investigation had to do with whether we followed the Municipal Act or not, and we did. So I don’t know what the rest of this stuff is about.”

He said he wasn’t “thrilled” about talking to the investigators without someone from the city’s legal department present, but was confident because he was certain they did nothing wrong.

“I talked to them and gave them the information they wanted,” Berthiaume said.

“The funny part about the lawyer thing is that we couldn’t have the city’s lawyer with us, but they had three people interviewing me, and one of them was a lawyer. So they had their own lawyer there.”

Berthiuame said he’s frustrated people forget it was city council who created the auditor general’s office, but they don’t get the credit.

“It was council that made the decision to hire (Brian Bigger). We opened our books and everything and told him to improve the city. To me, it’s a positive thing that we’re trying so hard to make the city more efficient … We were trying to be more open, more transparent, to make the whole city more efficient. But somehow that message doesn’t get out and everything is very negative.

“Every time I open the paper or listen to the media, it’s very negative and it’s ongoing. It just doesn’t stop. We’re doing a lot of positive things, but somehow that message doesn’t filter through. It’s negative stuff all the time.”

Craig said the tone of Marin’s report is more of a reflection of the high-profile auditor than of city council.

“Mr. Marin is noted for that,” he said. “He goes on with his evangelistic writings about the group he has dealt with. And in this case, it’s our city council ... That’s the way he writes his reports. That’s Mr. Marin. That’s his way of doing things.”

If this is what he writes when councillors have been cleared, Craig shudders to think what he would write if council had been found guilty.

“God help us if we ever get Mr. Marin here and he does have a reason to chastise us.”

The 10 city councillors who didn’t co-operate with Marin didn’t return calls from Northern Life seeking comment late in the afternoon Aug. 30, with the exception of Ward 6 Coun. Andre Rivest, who said he hadn’t read the report and didn’t want to comment until he had time to digest it.


Matichuk, Craig and Berthiaume all said they are open to a suggestion from Marin that future closed-door meetings be recorded. That way, the ombudsman could simply review the records if a complaint is made in the future. But it’s something that requires study and debate.

“I would have to discuss that with other councillors,” Berthiuame said.

See the full ombudsman report at www.greatersudbury.ca/content/dept_cao/documents/Sudbury2012-Final.pdf