In a new report, Integrity Commissioner Guy Giorno finds that Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel did not violate Sections 10 and 13 of the City Council Code of Conduct and came to no conclusion on whether or not Riel violated 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy in his correspondence with City staff.

This report follows a complaint lodged against the councillor by an anonymous staff member, who alleged that Riel’s email correspondence and in-person comments made towards her at a July 26th, 2024 public meeting concerning the Trinity drop-in centre violated these policies.

Section 10 of the Code stipulates that “a Member must not: a) use indecent, abusive or insulting words or expressions toward any other Member, any member of staff or any member of the public; b) speak in a manner that is discriminatory to any individual, based on that person's race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability; or c) engage in any Harassment of any other Member, any member of staff or any member of the public.”

Section 13 adds that “Each Member must show respect for staff, and for their professional capacities and responsibilities,” and section 4.1.6 b) of the Staff Relations policy directs staff and councillors to “foster and promote an environment of mutual respect and trust, guided by values of respect, accountability, cooperation, diversity, and transparency,” foster mutual respect and professionalism, “be respectful of the different roles, challenges, and responsibilities they each face,” “avoid discriminatory, disparaging, or vexatious comments, behaviour, or conduct toward one another,” publicly disparage one another in ways that might lead to embarrassment or reputational damage, and direct comments on staff performance to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).

The emails which gave rise to these complaints date back to summer 2024, when the City evicted residents of a Wolfe Street encampment after opening the Morrow Building as a temporary shelter for evictees. 

The complainant, acting as Commissioner of Community Services (a portfolio of municipal departments which Riel co-chairs alongside Town Ward Councillor Alex Bierk) at the time, emailed Riel and Bierk on July 19th—three days before the City would begin issuing trespass notices to residents of the Wolfe Street encampment—to let them know about the impending move.

“This is a quick update to let you know that the team is working on [evicting the Wolfe encampment], but I don’t have any concrete details that I’m able to share at this time,” reads the email reproduced in Giorno’s report. “As I’m sure you can understand, there are many moving pieces that we’re trying to coordinate… I will send a message to all the Councillors when I have more information about the path we’re taking and when.”

Riel responded half an hour later, expressing his frustration with he and Bierk receiving little information about the impending evictions, despite their roles as Community Services portfolio co-chairs.

“This cloak and dagger mentality of senior staff must stop as all City Councillors are fielding emails and phone calls every day about what is happening in our City. I have to wonder why we have Portfolio Chairs when we are kept in the dark, and professional staff are mak[ing] all of the decisions. If this continues, I will gladly hand over the reins of my Portfolios and furnish the public with your names, phone numbers and emails so that you can address the public’s concerns directly,” replied Riel.

Giorno’s report includes no indication that the complainant replied to this email, but Riel’s comments about a “cloak and dagger mentality,” being “kept in the dark,” and being willing to give news media and the public the names, phone numbers and email addresses of staff would become the main subjects of their complaint.

The complainant only contacted Riel again on July 22nd, 2024, when they advised all councillors of the ongoing encampment actions.

Their email included key details about the current situation, as well as guidelines for councillors to follow in their correspondence with the public. Notably, they were asked not to directly associate the ongoing eviction with the opening of the Morrow building as a temporary shelter.

Later that day, Riel and Bierk voiced frustration with staff who shared information with the press which they did not have access to, despite their roles as Community Services co-Chairs.

“… Respectfully, what staff do we contact to get [shelter usage statistics], as half of you at any given times are on holidays, and the ones left in charge have no idea what I need?” asked Riel. 

“In a conversation with Councillor Bierk today, he was told by the acting Commissioner [Employee] he and I are not on a list of who’s to know,” he added.

The section of Giorno’s report concerning the July 2024 Wolfe evictions includes another important finding: “On Friday, July 26, as scheduled, the Morrow Building ceased operation as a temporary shelter. Though it had been available since Monday, no individual used it,” reads his report.

Another brief section of the report details the complainant’s experience of a community meeting on the role of the Trinity drop-in centre downtown. There, business owners complained of public drug use by users of the shelter, among other frustrations with the increased presence of unhoused people around the facility. The complainant, whose “regular duties… involve frequent contact with individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals living with addiction” (per the report) spoke to these business owners about challenges related to homelessness and addiction in Peterborough.

Later, they allege that Riel told all attendees that their role for this meeting was “to take notes.” If and exactly how this happened is a matter of a disagreement from which Giorno was not able to establish any conclusive version of events.

Still, this alleged remark became, for the complainant, yet another sign of Riel’s contravention of the Code of Conduct.

Further comments used as basis for the complaint include Riel telling staff “I do not need metrics or a drafted response to residents. What we need is the garbage picked up and someone with the management skills to deploy people to get the job done,” alluding to possibly quitting his co-chair position due to a lack of communication from staff, and complaining about said lack of communication.

“His behaviour is hurtful and uncalled for,” the complainant told Giorno in their statement. “It’s unfortunate that someone believes that they can speak to others with such animosity and be respected in return.”

This was unconvincing to Giorno, who found in his report that Riel’s statements were factual, if not at times “petulant.” On senior staff’s purported “cloak and dagger mentality,” Giorno concludes that “To interpret these words as a personal attack would require exaggerated interpretation, microscopic scrutiny, and unfair parsing.”

“There is no consensus on whether the Respondent made a dismissive, marginalizing comment about note-taking in an attempt to convey that the Employee should be present but not participate,” he later wrote. “Given the very different recollections, I make no finding on this point.”

On Riel’s complaints about his and Bierk’s exclusion from conversations about the July 2024 evictions, Giorno says that while the CAO is free to choose whether or not to disclose information about forthcoming bylaw enforcement operations with councillors, they remained statements of opinion. 

While Giorno wrote that Riel and Bierk not being informed of the July 2024 evictions as much as they would have liked to be did not represent a contravention of any municipal bylaw or policy, he found that Riel’s emails expressed, in effect, his belief that he and Bierk ought to be informed of activities relevant to their portfolio—which itself does not contravene the Code of Conduct.

Giorno also affirms Riel’s right to express his frustration in his correspondence with City staff, and says that his upset emails in no way violated the Staff Relations Policy. Were he able to confirm the complainants’ allegations about the community meeting on the Trinity centre, he says he would have found Riel in violation of the policy for his remarks there.

He does, however, warn Riel to direct his comments about the performance of City staff to the CAO and remain respectful in his correspondence with them in the future.

“This technical result applies in this instance only,” reads the report. “Some of the emails provided as similar fact evidence and pattern evidence are disturbing. In future, paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy will be applied to comments such as “What we need is the garbage picked up and someone with the management skills to deploy people to get the job done” and “Whatever you and your team are doing is not meeting the needs or expectation of the taxpayers of the City” when made to any staff member. Such comments do not exhibit respect and professionalism. To the extent they are meant as commentary on performance, they should be provided to nobody but the CAO, and never to an audience.”

These comments, writes Giorno, will also be considered contraventions of Section 13 of the Code of Conduct should they happen again in the future.

His report also includes recommendations which Peterborough City Council will consider at their general committee meeting next Monday.Among these, Giorno responds to an auxiliary allegation from the complainant that “meeting chairs have been unable to manage [Riel’s] conduct.”

While he did not evaluate these claims, seeing as meeting procedure is outside of the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction, Giorno notes that council is at liberty to seek advice from the City Solicitor and Clerk on how the chair can protect staff during meetings, should they see fit, as public humiliation of a City employee contravenes the Staff Relations Policy and section 13 of the Code. 

He also recommends that council reconsider the role of portfolio chairs, as the current system “blurs the line between the role of Councillors and the role of the staff.” This could involve a clearer definition of chairs’ access to information and relationships to staff in their relevant departments.

Finally, Giorno recommends that council consider uniting the different definitions of “harassment” in their Code of Conduct and Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy into a single one to avoid future confusions.

All of these recommendations, as well as Giorno’s ruling that Riel did not contravene the Code of Conduct and Staff Relations Policy, but will be considered in violation of both should he continue the investigated behaviour, will come under council’s consideration next Monday.