Updated at 4:30 p.m. on April 10
Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin says he’s willing to do another investigation of Sudbury city council – but only if his office is restored as the city’s closed-door investigator.
In a letter posted to the ombudsman’s website Wednesday afternoon, Marin’s office also renews hostilities with City Solicitor Jamie Canapini, with whom Marin has clashed several times in the past.
In explaining his decision not to do another investigation in Sudbury, Marin’s office writes that the moment city council’s decision to fire him came into effect – Feb. 26 – he could no longer carry out investigations.
“When Sudbury council opted out of the oversight services of the Ontario Ombudsman, it ousted any jurisdiction we have over any secret meetings complaints as of the date of the passing of the resolution,” writes Laura Pettigrew, senior counsel in Marin’s office.
“As of Feb. 26, 2013, we can no longer investigate or act on any complaints regarding closed-door meetings, regardless of when they were received or the timing of the meeting complained about.
“The council of Greater Sudbury, of course, has the power at any time to reconsider the resolution that vacated the Ombudsman’s authority. Should council decide to do so and thereby reinstate the Ombudsman … only then would our office be able to resume these services for the citizens of Greater Sudbury.”
There have been a number of complaints that there was a secret meeting before the Feb. 12 city council meeting, where, acting quickly on a notice of motion from Ward 3 Coun. Claude Berthiaume, all city councillors except for Mayor Marianne Matichuk voted to fire Marin.
Three councillors changed their vote – Ward 1 Coun. Joe Cimino, Ward 8 Coun. Fabio Belli and Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig — at the Feb. 26 meeting, but it wasn’t enough to reverse the decision.
In the days following the vote, Marin said his office had received more than 40 complaints alleging city councillors had met in secret before the Feb. 12 vote. In an interview with Northern Life in February, Berthiaume said he had discussed his motion with fellow councillors one-on-one, but denied any meeting had taken place.
On March 26, Matichuk asked city councillors to support sending Marin a letter formally asking him to investigate those complaints. The city’s new closed-door investigator, Local Authority Services, has said it can’t look into any meetings held before it was officially appointed.
“I would like to request our city solicitor send a letter to the ombudsman requesting he investigate the complaints we know he has received,” Matichuk said March 26. “I think we owe it to the public … to close this gap.”
But in the April 3 letter Canapini sent to the Ombudsman, the city’s lawyer suggests Marin has a conflict of interest in this case, and says the city would be satisfied if he were to delegate the investigation to a third party.
“Having regard for the importance of a closed-door meeting investigator’s independence and impartiality, the investigation of the alleged meetings by the Office of the Ombudsman … may result in a conflict of interest,” Canapini writes.
“As such, my client would be amenable should Mr. Marin choose to exercise his powers … to delegate the investigation to an independent investigator.”
However, a day later, the mayor’s office sent a letter saying that Canapini had gone beyond what was asked of him.
“The letter you received April 3, 2013, contains opinions of the city solicitor that the mayor and council did not authorize him to express,” Matichuk’s letter says.
“To clarify, these opinions do not represent the will of council, his client. And he did not consult with the mayor or council, his client, before drafting and sending the letter to you.
“Please be assured that it remains the will of council, and specifically the desire of Mayor Matichuk, that the ombudsman’s office take responsibility for investigating the outstanding complaints so that public confidence in the political process in Greater Sudbury is restored.”
A spokesperson for Marin said Wednesday he was in meetings all day and didn’t have time for interviews.
“I trust you have seen the letter and hope it speaks for itself,” Linda Williamson said in an email.
In a press release Wednesday, Matichuk said she respected Marin’s reasoning, but expressed disappointment with his decision.
“Transparency and accountability are important to the citizens of Greater Sudbury, and they are important to me and to city council,” Mayor Matichuk said.
“While I had hoped we could close the door on this issue, it is important now that we return our focus to the business of growing our city and building Greater Sudbury into a great city in which to live, work and play.”
Canapini and Marin have been at odds since June 2012, when he advised city councillors they had the right to have him present when Marin’s investigators came to interview them.
Only Berthiaume and Craig co-operated without legal counsel.
It later emerged that councillors could have hired their own lawyers and had the legal fees covered by the city.
Matichuk and City Clerk Caroline Hallsworth were interviewed, but had their own lawyers present, the cost of which was covered by taxpayers.
The ombudsman subsequently cleared them of allegations of meeting improperly, but characterized Sudbury as the least co-operative council he had ever dealt with.
When Marin came to Sudbury in December, he said publicly that Canapini had given them “bad legal advice,” and said Sudbury’s solicitor had launched an unsuccessful complaint about him to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
In response, Canapini said Marin has yet to show the section of provincial legislation that says he couldn’t be present during interviews by the Ombudsman’s office.
Original story
Ontario Ombudsman André Marin says he’s willing to do another investigation of Sudbury city council – but only if his office is restored as the city’s closed-door investigator.
In a letter posted to the ombudsman’s website Wednesday afternoon, Marin’s office also renews hostilities with City Solicitor Jamie Canapini, with whom Marin has clashed several times in the past.
In explaining his decision not to do another investigation in Sudbury, Marin’s office writes that the moment city council’s decision to fire him came into effect – Feb. 26 – he could no longer carry out investigations.
“When Sudbury council opted out of the oversight services of the Ontario Ombudsman, it ousted any jurisdiction we have over any secret meetings complaints as of the date of the passing of the resolution,” writes Laura Pettigrew, senior counsel in Marin’s office.
“As of Feb. 26, 2013, we can no longer investigate or act on any complaints regarding closed-door meetings, regardless of when they were received or the timing of the meeting complained about.
“The council of Greater Sudbury, of course, has the power at any time to reconsider the resolution that vacated the Ombudsman’s authority. Should council decide to do so and thereby reinstate the Ombudsman … only then would our office be able to resume these services for the citizens of Greater Sudbury.”
There have been a number of complaints that there was a secret meeting before the Feb. 12 city council meeting, where, acting quickly on a notice of motion from Ward 3 Coun. Claude Berthiaume, all city councillors except for Mayor Marianne Matichuk voted to fire Marin.
Three councillors changed their vote – Ward 1 Coun. Joe Cimino, Ward 8 Coun. Fabio Belli and Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig - at the Feb. 26 meeting, but it wasn’t enough to reverse the decision.
In the days following the vote, Marin said his office had received more than 40 complaints alleging city councillors had met in secret before the Feb. 12 vote.
In an interview with Northern Life in February, Berthiaume said he had discussed his motion with fellow councillors one-on-one, but denied any meeting had taken place.
On March 26, Matichuk asked city councillors to support sending Marin a letter formally asking him to investigate those complaints. The city’s new closed-door investigator, Local Authority Services, has said it can’t look into any meetings held before it was officially appointed.
“I would like to request our city solicitor send a letter to the ombudsman requesting he investigate the complaints we know he has received,” Matichuk said March 26. “I think we owe it to the public … to close this gap.”
But in the April 3 letter Canapini sent to the Ombudsman, the city’s lawyer suggests Marin has a conflict of interest in this case, and says the city would be satisfied if he were to delegate the investigation to a third party.
“Having regard for the importance of a closed-door meeting investigator’s independence and impartiality, the investigation of the alleged meetings by the Office of the Ombudsman … may result in a conflict of interest,” Canapini writes.
“As such, my client would be amenable should Mr. Marin choose to exercise his powers … to delegate the investigation to an independent investigator.”
However, a day later, the mayor’s office sent a letter saying that Canapini had gone beyond what was asked of him.
“The letter you received April 3, 2013, contains opinions of the city solicitor that the mayor and council did not authorize him to express,” Matichuk’s letter says. “To clarify, these opinions do not represent the will of council, his client. And he did not consult with the mayor or council, his client, before drafting and sending the letter to you.
“Please be assured that it remains the will of council, and specifically the desire of Mayor Matichuk, that the ombudsman’s office take responsibility for investigating the outstanding complaints so that public confidence in the political process in Greater Sudbury is restored.”
