Integrity Commissioner has recommended the sanctioning of a member of City Council

By Pepper Parr

April 13th, 2022



Very early Wednesday morning the Gazette will publish a recommendation from the Integrity Commissioner in which they set out a case for sanctioning a member of City Council.

Stand By says the city motto – for how long one might ask?

The recommendation comes after a three month investigation when two other members of Council filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner.

The Councillor named in the report is believed to be preparing a Statement.

The recommendation from the Integrity Commissioner is to go to the City Council meeting on April 19th.

It is not know at this time if the report will be read in a Closes Session of Council.

The Integrity Commissioner is reported to have said that it was “their preference” to have the report not made public until it was actually before Council.

The City Clerk is reported to hold the same view.

The issue is related to how and when Council chooses to go into a closed session and what gets reported from the Closed Session.

The report is lengthy and sets out issues that deserve open and public debate.

Mayor Meed Ward has been involved in discussions with the City Manager on this issue.


Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 comments to Integrity Commissioner has recommended the sanctioning of a member of City Council

  • Bruce Leigh

    WOW ! Hersh, Gaeton again spouting forth their positions and opinions on a subject about which they have absolutely no knowledge of the actual facts.

    Hersh even calls the action of the two complainant councilors as being “despicable”. What an immoral position to take. Hersh is effectively saying those two councilors should have turned a blind eye to what they believe to be a major wrongdoing. We have an Integrity Commissioner for a reason. That reason is to have an independent body deal with such issues and not have cover-ups. Hopefully Marsden is in agreement!

    I would have thought Hersh of all people would have supported transparency.

    Yes, Ms Hersh, you are correct the report is required to be made public. The article suggests the Commissioner has only asked that it not be made public in advance of the Council meeting on the 19th. There is no report in the article suggesting the Commissioner or anyone has sought to keep the report secret.

    • Joe Gaetan

      Bruce Lee, Buy a dictionary and look up the words “perception” vs “opinion” and the meaning of “stand to be corrected”.

      • Bruce Leigh

        Perception – a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.

        Opinion – a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

        It would seem the two are intertwined. Your perception forms the basis of your opinion.

        Stand to be corrected – I use I stand to be corrected. It’s a quick way of saying ‘I might be wrong about that statement I have just made and feel sure somebody will put me right if that is the case’.

        You have been corrected.

        Stolte was found to have beached the rules and so must be held to account. So that in itself justifies the implementation of the process.

        In my opinion, if it had been Stolte referring Mayor MMW to the Integrity Commissioner for breaking confidentiality rules, all those turning a blind eye to Stolte breaking the rules would be all over the Mayor for breaking them and demanding her blood.

        Gaetan, OK?

  • Penny Hersh

    While we wait to see if the Integrity Commission Report will be something that becomes a closed session or confidential item on April 19th Agenda.

    Residents need to know the following:

    Municipal Act…Municipal Integrity Commission…section 223.6

    Requires the municipality and each local board ensure that reports received from the commissioner by the municipality or board as the case maybe, are available to the public.

    Residents deserve to know who initiated the report and the reasons for doing so? The councillor being sanctioned has the right to defend their position with the public being able to hear first hand what is transpiring.

    Too many issues are discussed in closed session, with residents being left in the dark.

    I have to ask is this what residents expected from their councillors when they voted in the last Municipal Election?

    I for one never expected that a councillor would take another councillor to the Integrity Commission. Certainly this could have been handled “in house”.

    Did we not vote for our councillors to make certain that the rights of the citizens they represent are defended by them?

  • Bonnie

    With the issue apparently being around the many ‘closed door’ sessions and the lack of reporting after these sessions, I cannot believe the Mayor and City Manager will once again go into a closed door meeting on this report. The public needs to hear from the council members who issued the complaint, as well as from the council member being sanctioned.

  • Joe Gaetan

    Nothing like a good whodunit. My perception of whether it was the worth the effort to apply to the Integrity Comissioner was, it wasn’t worth the bother. I will stand to be corrected as this saga unfolds in real-time.

  • Penny Hersh

    That 2 members of council would take a fellow council member to the Integrity Commission is absolutely despicable. Certainly whatever the issue is could have been settled without going to the Integrity Commission.

    Leadership comes from the top and I would have to think that the Mayor could have prevented this from happening. My question is why not? What are these 2 members who signed off on this expecting to happen? Do they not realize that in time it could be them who are reported to the Integrity Commission?

    There was such great hope when this new council was elected in 2018. Unfortunately, this council seems to be more toxic than the previous one.

    I hope the councillor who is being targeted takes a firm stand and defends themselves which most could see as a “bullying” tactic.

    No “in camera” or “confidential” meeting should be tolerated by the residents of Burlington. Enough is enough.