Dear Mayor Leal and Councillors,

I am writing with respect to report LSCKL25-010, and specifically the motion, as recommended at the General Committee meeting of June 2nd, to impose no penalty upon Mayor Leal in response to the Integrity Commissioner’s report.

This motion, if adopted as written, would damage the legitimacy of City’s Code of Conduct, of the role and work of the Integrity Commissioner, and indeed of Council itself. Reflecting upon the vote in support of this motion, and the rationales provided in support of it by members of Council, both within the Council Chamber and in the public discourse, I am deeply saddened. To allow the findings of the Integrity Commissioner to stand without imposing any penalty suggests that Council either fails to understand that the Mayor’s behaviour is harmful, or does understand but is willing to condone or ignore harmful behaviour.

I urge Council to impose a reprimand of Mayor Leal, in a strongly worded motion which clearly states that Council respects its Code of Conduct, that it recognizes the Mayor violated the Code through specific instances of intimidation and bullying of Councillor Bierk and Councillor Lachica, and that it condemns those actions.

I am one of the complainants in Therrien-Hale et al v. Leal. My complaint was filed on April 9, 2024, and specifically focused on the question of a conflict of interest. I am satisfied with Commissioner Giorno’s finding that there was no conflict of interest, although I wish to provide some comments on this issue.

Some members of Council have suggested that the complainants, and other members of the public, are “out for blood” or have already decided the Mayor’s guilt and the appropriate penalty. This insinuation is wildly inappropriate and, itself, serves to undermine the value of the Code of Conduct and the complaints process through the Integrity Commissioner. My concerns were genuine, and my complaint was filed in good faith. It was taken seriously by the Integrity Commissioner, and investigated appropriately. I welcome and celebrate the finding that the Mayor did not have a pecuniary interest in this instance. I also welcome the recommendation that the language in sections 29 and 30 of the Code of Conduct should be clarified.

All the same, I believe that the Mayor should have declared a conflict of interest and not participated in votes or debate on the matter of the Bonnerworth Park development, at least once it had begun to attract public controversy. Strong mayor powers notwithstanding, mayors in Ontario have remarkably little by way of “hard” power. Instead, when done well, the role of mayor is one of “soft” power - moral and social leadership, to steward the decision-making process and protect the legitimacy of the City and Council.

While there is not a conflict of interest in this instance from a legal standpoint, there can be no question there was a strong perception of one within the community. Certainly, the Mayor felt close enough to the matter at hand that it negatively affected his behaviour at the meeting of April 2, 2024. Declaring a conflict of interest, even without acknowledging anything more than a perception, would have served as this sort of moral leadership and protected the perception of Council’s integrity.

A similar situation in my memory is the controversy around the Peterborough Transit budget in 2011, which as I recall was the first budget cycle for some of our most experienced councillors. Many Peterborough residents, myself included, were concerned and outraged that Mayor Daryl Bennett would participate in business around deep cuts to the transit budget while owning a taxi company.

Mayor Bennett never acknowledged that a conflict existed, but did declare a “perceived conflict” and recused himself. With hindsight, I’m not certain whether a genuine conflict existed, and I have no reason to question Mayor Bennett’s motives. These questions were never tested, because Bennett appropriately addressed the matter. This should serve as an example for our present Council.

Regarding the matters where Mayor Leal was found to have violated the Code of Conduct, I also welcome the findings of the Integrity Commissioner, but in these instances there is nothing to celebrate. Much of the substance of Therrien-Hale et al v. Leal was a matter of public record long before the Commissioner’s report. Until reading the report, I was only dimly aware of rumours that Councillor Lachica had filed a complaint as well, and knew nothing of its substance.

I am profoundly disturbed by what I read of Mayor Leal’s conduct toward Councillor Lachica.

I note that there was an attempt to resolve Lachica v. Leal privately, between Councillor Lachica, Mayor Leal, and Commissioner Giorno, which was unsuccessful. I appreciate the need for confidentiality in this matter. However, Councillor Lachica’s reaction at Monday’s meeting, to Councillor Baldwin’s suggestion that the Mayor has apologized, is telling."

"The findings of the report are clear: Mayor Leal treated one councillor with intimidation publicly. He bullied another behind closed doors. In the first instance, he made an insufficient apology which attempted to justify his conduct. In the second case, he was unable to reach a resolution with the councillor he bullied.

These are all matters of the Mayor’s behaviour, not of his character or intentions.

In light of these findings, it is disappointing that General Committee voted 7-3 to impose no penalty. That few Councillors spoke to their rationale in this decision is also disappointing.

Councillor Haacke spoke to the public shame which the Mayor has endured as a result of this matter, as a reason that no further penalty is necessary. I respect this position, but strongly disagree with it. I could be convinced of the merits of this argument if the issue was solely the public comments towards Councillor Bierk, but the Mayor must also be held accountable for his private bullying of Councillor Lachica.

In contrast, Councillor Baldwin, in making his motion to impose no penalty, spoke to the Mayor’s character and the fact that he has publicly apologized. Both of these arguments are unacceptable. Regarding an apology, in the first case the apology was inadequate, and in the second it did not exist.

Regarding Mayor Leal’s character, Councillor Baldwin’s arguments leave me uneasy. First, he appealed to his personal relationship with Mayor Leal and his confidence in the Mayor’s character. This is not relevant.

Second, he questioned CAO Raina about the Mayor’s conduct and character. This was an inappropriate question to ask in a public setting, given that Mayor Leal has the power to unilaterally dismiss the CAO. Further, this question seems to be in violation of section 7.3 of the Procedure Bylaw, which states in part that “members shall focus on issues not personalities.”

Third, he suggested the Mayor’s choice to recuse himself from debate on the report was somehow more honourable or legitimate than Councillor Bierk and Councillor Lachica’s choice to not do so. This is absurd on its face.

It is difficult to imagine these as the arguments of one who appreciates the import of the Integrity Commissioner’s report, and is engaging with it in good faith.

Councillor Crowley explained his rationale in a now-deleted Reddit comment. I will not address this in detail, other than to say it is regrettable he chose not to make these remarks during the meeting, and that they also did not seem to be the work of one who appreciates the import of the Integrity Commissioner’s report.

A repeated theme in the justifications to impose no penalty has been that these are isolated incidents, and not indicative of the Mayor’s broader working relationship with Council or staff. This is a flawed argument. As noted in footnote 96 of the report, “it could not have been City Council’s intention to proscribe abuse, bullying and intimidation only when present in multiple instances.” Even if this were an acceptable justification to impose no penalty, the Commissioner’s report causes me to doubt its veracity.

I will not speculate as to the substance of Mayor Leal’s character. I have no basis to doubt Councillor Baldwin and CAO Raina’s assessments, and know many people who speak highly of their interactions with the Mayor over his long career in public service. The Mayor’s character is not the issue. The issue is his behaviour.

The Integrity Commissioner’s report clearly outlines how that behaviour violated Council’s Code of Conduct. This should not be allowed to stand were it the behaviour of any Councillor, but it is significant that this was the behaviour of the Mayor.

As mentioned earlier, part of the role of the Mayor is to provide moral leadership for the City and Council. It is reasonable, honest, and honourable to hold the mayor to a high standard of behaviour. While one should be able to expect all members of Council to adhere to the Conduct, and refrain from intimidation and bullying, a contravention by the Mayor has greater weight and warrants a strong response. This is not a matter of being “out for blood”, this is a matter of respecting the City and its Council as institutions.

As Councillor Bierk correctly stated in General Committee, if Council chooses to impose no penalty on Mayor Leal, it may as well rip up the Code of Conduct, if violations of it mean nothing.

I do not envy Council the task of having to choose a penalty for Mayor Leal. I appreciate arguments that a financial penalty may be disproportionate, inappropriate, or otherwise undesirable. However, it is unconscionable for Council to fail to impose any penalty.

For this reason, as stated previously, Council must impose a reprimand of Mayor Leal, in a strongly worded motion which clearly states that Council respects its Code of Conduct, that it recognizes the Mayor violated the Code through specific instances of intimidation and bullying of Councillor Bierk and Councillor Lachica, and that it condemns those actions.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I urge you to make the right decision.

‍
Sincerely,
Rob Hailman