January 15, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 12:01 PM it being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That consent items 2.1 to 2.9 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   Argyle Business Improvement Association 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2024-01-15 Staff Report - Argyle BIA 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Argyle Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Argyle Business Improvement Association proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $493,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $315,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law A.-6873-292 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Argyle Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

2.2   Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2024-01-15 Staff Report - Hamilton Rd BIA 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $354,592 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” of the staff report; 

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $70,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law C.P.-1528-486 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

2.3   Hyde Park Business Improvement Association 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2024-01-15 Staff Report - Hyde Park BIA 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $740,869 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $599,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1519-490 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

2.4   London Downtown Business Association 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2024-01-15 Staff Report - LDBA 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Downtown Business Association:

a)    the London Downtown Business Association proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $3,010,227 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by the Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $2,050,227;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-2 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the London Downtown Business Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

2.5   Old East Village Business Improvement Area 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2024-01-15 Staff Report - Old East BIA 2024 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Old East Village Business Improvement Area proposed 2024 budget submission in the amount of $656,100 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2024 fiscal year for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $42,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

2.6   Corporate Asset Management System Contract Amendment – Brightly Software Canada Inc.

2024-01-15 Staff Report - Coporate Asset Management System Contract Amendment

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Corporate Asset Management (CAM) Software System:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report January 15, 2024 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on January 23, 2024 to:

i)    approve the amending agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Brightly Software Canada Inc. to provide for ongoing license and support fees for the Corporate Asset Management Computer System (the “ Amending Agreement”);

ii)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Amending Agreement;

iii)    delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the authority to approve future amending agreements to continue the Corporate Asset Management Computer System; and 

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to execute amending agreements approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports;

it being noted that the Amending Agreement will provide for license and support fees for the Corporate Asset Management Computer System at the price of $116,905 + HST for the year 2024 with an increase of 3% annually for the remaining four years (2025, 2026, 2027, & 2028) of the contract in accordance with Schedule “B” – item 6 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy.

Motion Passed

2.7   Single Source SS-2023-350 City Hall Campus Cooling Tower and Controls Replacement

2024-01-15 Staff Report - SS 2023-350-City Hall Campus Cooling Tower and Controls

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement of a replacement cooling tower and controls for City Hall and Centennial Hall (Single Source # SS-2023-350):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to engage Enwave Energy (London District Energy) to supply and install a cooling tower and controls compatible with the existing distribution system; 

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as outlined in the Source of Financing as appended to the staff report dated January 15, 2024 as Appendix “A”; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in part a).

Motion Passed

2.8   City Hall Front Entrance Canopy Repairs and Remediation

2024-01-15 Staff Report - City Hall Front Canopy Repairs

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the City Manager, the report dated January 15, 2024, “City Hall Front Canopy Repairs and Remediation” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.9   Assessment Growth for 2024, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments

2024-01-15 Staff Report - Assessment Growth for 2024

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated January 15, 2024,  “Assessment Growth for 2024, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments” BE RECEIVED for information purposes;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated January 11, 2023 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That items 4.2 and 4.3 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.2   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia

2024-01-15 Submission - Proclamation-National Day of Rememberance

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That based on the application dated December 12, 2023 from Muslim Wellness Network, January 29, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia.

Motion Passed

4.3   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Black History Month

2024-01-15 Submission - Proclamation-Black History Month(1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That based on the application dated December 12, 2023 from WeBridge Community Services, the month of February 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Black History Month.

Motion Passed

4.1   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - World Thinking Day

2024-01-15 Submission - Proclamation-Girl Guides

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That based on the application dated December 5, 2023 from Girl Guides of Canada, February 22, 2024 the proclamation request BE REFERRED to the January 23, 2024 Council meeting for consideration.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Request for Indemnification for a Judicial Review - Councillor S. Stevenson

2024-01-15 Submission - (5.1) Indemnification Letter-S. Stevenson

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the communication dated January 10, 2024 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to Indemnification for a Judicial Review BE RECEIVED and NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1    Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations  

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.2    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations  

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.3    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.4    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.5    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.6    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.7    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.8    Security of Property    

   

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board, including communications necessary for that purpose. Disclosing information related to the locations of data centres and key telecommunication interconnection sites to the public could be misused by a bad actor as part of a cyber threat campaign against corporate systems, data, and public services.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:41 PM to 2:06 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:09 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (58 minutes)

Okay, let’s call this meeting to order. It’s one o’clock. The second meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, Linawapak, the Adawandran, and the Adawandran, sorry. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

We currently have myself, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Ramen, and Councillor Van Merbergen online. We have visiting Deputy Mayor as well here today. So first item, looking for disclosures of, oh, sorry, before I get there, sorry. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csc@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Now getting to the agenda. Item one is disclosure of pecuniary interest, looking for any disclosures. Seeing none, we will move on to consent items.

I have not been asked to have anything pulled separately, so perhaps a motion to have this moved as a walk. Councillor Ramen, do we have a seconder? Councillor Stevenson. Okay, so all of the consent items are on the floor, looking for any questions on those items.

Right, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I was wondering through you if staff could comment on the item from the resident with the question around 2.9 as to whether there’s some value in deferring this and having it be part of the budget conversation. Yeah. Thank you, through the chair.

So this report today before you is simply the information report to tell you what it is. So there’s nothing really that is being approved. What the resident is referring to is our assessment growth policy and we have delegated authority to bring forward business cases that follow the policy that is approved by council to bring forward those business cases. So that is a separate process.

He is calling into question the validity of the actual policy as approved by council. So given that is my direction, that is the current policy that we follow, I don’t have any other further comments, but what is before you today is entirely different, is not the policy. This is simply the reporting out of what the assessment growth is. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Rhomme.

Thank you and through you. My questions pertain to our BIAs and the levies that are in front of us. I’m going to kind of collectively ask a question if that’s okay. First, I wanted to start by saying thank you to our BIAs.

I know many of our heads of the BIAs are here in the gallery today and I just want to say thank you for meeting our timeline and providing your budgets to us. And I think it’s really helpful to be able to see these all together kind of all at once as we do every year. One of the things when I was looking at the budgets, I noted that there were some staffing increases within each of the budgets and I’m just wondering how we go about and whether or not we do any analysis around the salaries of our different BIA staff members to help them with comparators, but also just to help to find perhaps some industry related standards. I’m sure they do that themselves, but I’m just wondering what kind of supports we may provide if any.

Would staff like to comment or do we want to pass that up to the BIAs? Thank you through the chair. So we as civic staff generally do not do that kind of comparative analysis at the end of the day. Ultimately, each of these BIAs have their own staffing needs, staffing compliments, different types of positions and resources that they may require that may not necessarily be comparable between them.

So there’s a lot of factors that would play into what one BIA plays their staff versus what another BIA may pay their staff. What we do though as civic staff is facilitate ongoing conversations and discussions amongst the BIAs, information sharing opportunities to kind of weigh in and discuss opportunities or areas of shared concern. So we do have those conversations regularly and that is something that perhaps could be discussed as part of that forum, but as civic staff know, we do not look at something like comparable salary rates between the BIAs. Thank you, I appreciate that.

I think it’s just helpful to have that response just to consider for future. I know that our BIAs work very closely together and they have strong relationships and information share and find efficiencies where they can, which I think is great that they’re so collaborative. But just looking at the budgets, I do see that there’s probably opportunities for more discussions on how to collaborate perhaps on some marketing or similar project initiatives where there’s overlap or perhaps there’s similarities and some of the things they’re doing. And so I welcome hearing more about that in the future from our BIAs.

Thank you. Thank you. Did the BIAs want to comment at all on that? Or are we okay with the staffers’ months?

Okay, go ahead, Kevin. We’ll get the mic turned on for the gallery, thanks. For the guy. There was Kevin Morrison on the general manager of the oldies village BIA.

And actually that’s an excellent question. And something that is very tiny in that, I know that you have so many challenges coming ahead when you’re looking at the municipal budget coming forward. And just so this committee is aware, we do meet on a, I think it’s a quarterly basis, all the BIAs together. And during the last meeting, we did discuss briefly as to how we can work together for simple things like the plant plants in our districts under beautification.

Can we find one source? Can we find someone to hang them together? Can we find someone that’ll water them without going into a lot of details? That’s just one example, but you’re right.

And I think you’re going to find two moving forward that we are going to be working even closer together. And just for that, if we can streamline those expenses and get more favorable rates when it comes to services that we are all using, then I think you’ll find that a lot of those numbers will change. Go ahead. Yeah, actually you covered a lot of the things that Kevin has already, sorry, you’ve already covered a lot of that.

But we do an annual survey, salary survey. So, and that is presented every year to us by our HR person. So, yes, we are very competitive when it comes to salary rates. Okay, thank you for that additional commentary.

I’m not seeing any more questions from committee, but I would just like to say to Bethany, Carolyn, Donna, Barb, Kevin, thank you for coming. Thank you for putting these budgets in front of us. And you do a lot of great work in our community. I know the business is appreciated and helps the residents too.

So, I just want to say thank you and best of luck in 2024. Okay, seeing no other comments, we will open the voting on that. And that’s for all the consent items. Closing the vote motion carries four to zero.

Okay, moving along, we have no scheduled items. We are on items for direction. There are three applications in terms of proclamations. I’m okay to put these on the floor of the block if someone wants to move that.

Okay, Councillor Ramen, moving that. I’m gonna get a seconder, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, are there any comments on these proclamations? Okay, seeing none, we will all get that in the system and open that for voting when it’s ready.

One moment, Councillor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you just for consistency in how we do our proclamations. I did note that for World Thinking Day, we didn’t have a local contact for the Girl Guides. I did reach out to them to try to find a local contact, just so you know.

But I don’t know if we have an update from Clerk or anybody on that. So does the Clerk have any further comment? Okay, and I noted that as well. That is the Girl Guides one.

So we do typically have a local connection. There’s time we know in council if we wanna refer this, and that’s what we have done previously in corporate services. If that’s the direction we wanna go. Would you like that referred to council?

Okay, so we can remove the first, or sorry, 4.2 and 4.3 and then have 4.1. We have that referred to council and someone from the Clerk’s office reach out for a local connection, thank you. So this is just what’s open for voting is 4.2 and 4.3. Wasn’t the vote, motion carries four to zero.

Okay, we’ll now put 4.1 of for voting and that’s just to have that referred to council with the Clerk reaching out to see if we can get the local contact added to that. Okay, we’re opening 4.1 for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries four to zero. Okay, we’re now on to section five, which is deferred matters in additional business.

There’s a request for indemnification for a judicial review by Councillor Stevenson. Do you wanna start the conversation? Sure, so as recommended and guided out of the December 19th council meeting, following those instructions and it was to bring forward a letter expressing what I was looking for and the name and address of the lawyer. So I’ll just read the letter that I put in the agenda.

As discussed during the December 19th, 2023 council meeting, the issue of procedural fairness regarding the integrity commissioner’s recommendation is to be dealt with through a judicial review or with the ombudsman. Section 3.1 of our indemnification policy states that the corporation shall indemnify a member of council in respect of any administrative action or proceeding by a third party arising out of acts or omissions done or made by such a person in his capacity as a member of the council. The recommendation of a formal reprimand by the integrity commissioner was an administrative action against me that did not abide by the protocol contained within our code of conduct. Councilors are entitled to procedural fairness and the reasonable expectation that our code of conduct will be followed in a way that provides protection and accountability to both the public and to the councilor whose conduct may be in question.

Therefore, I am seeking indemnification for a judicial review and my intention is to retain my own lawyer to represent me in this matter. John Mascaren aired in Burles LLP, Brookfield Place 181, Bay Street, Sweet 1800, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5J, 2T9. Okay, thank you. I’m going to just pass the chair over to Councilor Raman so I can comment on this.

Oh, sorry, is there anything on the floor? Well, I was instructed to provide a letter. So that’s what I’ve done. I’ll be looking for guidance as to how to proceed with this.

I did the instruction which was provide a letter in the name and address. Okay, so what you’re requesting though would require a motion to request the clerk speak to the process. Thank you and through the chair that is correct. The letter on the agenda would require a motion simply to request that indemnification pursuant to that by-law.

Okay, so we can put that motion forward then? There are a seconder. There’s no seconder so that motion doesn’t go anywhere. I would like to pass the chair over to Councilor Raman if I could.

Okay, this came out of Council and this as per the direction out of that Council meeting. So it seems odd to me that in that meeting, I’m told that there’s avenues and procedures and I follow them and then the avenue is going to be closed. I don’t know why I was informed of that in public session then. So the Councilor can choose alternative options.

This is just a committee recommendation. You’ve put forward a motion. There’s no seconder, so the motion fails. But I am going to pass over to the chair to Councilor Raman.

Just to be clear though, there’s not a seconder. I am, I’m chairing, so I’m passing it over to Councilor Raman, thank you. Thank you, I acknowledge I have the chair and I have Councillor McAllister on the speakers. Let’s go ahead.

Okay, thank you. And I’m going to put forward a motion to receive the correspondence and take no further action. Thank you. I’m looking for a seconder.

I cannot see if Councillor Vameer-Bergen, I can’t see if he’s participating. I’m not able to see his screen, but I’m comfortable seconding. Okay, I’m comfortable seconding if needed a second. And I will.

And I can do that from the chair. Okay, I will just finish my comments before I take the chair back over. I do believe there are other avenues that the Councillor can pursue. The Ontario Ombudsman is a free service.

I don’t believe that this is the best use of taxpayer money and I will not be supporting it. And that’s why I put forward this motion, that we receive the correspondence and take no further action. Thank you. And I can take the chair back.

Yeah, go ahead and conduct the vote, thank you. Thank you, any further speakers? Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I will not be supporting this.

In the council meeting, the mayor, the deputy mayor, and the solicitor, they did what the avenues or supported the solicitor saying what the two avenues were, judicial review and ombudsman report, ombudsman office. The judicial review is the only avenue to which I can get the result that I’m looking for. So I didn’t want to be in this position or put council and the taxpayers on the hook for these costs. It’s interesting that we’re speaking about costs now and we haven’t talked about them in terms of what is it costing the taxpayer.

Every time someone is offended by a social media post of mine and files a complaint, we haven’t talked about that. I tried to make my full case to council as to how the integrity commissioner did not follow our code of conduct complaint protocol. The majority of council decided that council was not a forum to have that debate. Council could have chosen not to receive the report.

They could have chosen not to issue the reprimand. Thank you. Councilor, can you stick to what’s on the floor right now which is the motion to receive and take no action? Okay, so I just want to make it clear that we’re on the receive and take no action right now.

Yeah, I’m explaining why I’m saying voting no to that motion of take no action. Instead, the mayor, deputy mayor and the city solicitor discuss the avenue and the remedies of the superior court. Everyone knows that this comes with significant costs. I’m sure that council believes procedural fairness should be available and not just to those who can afford it with their own private wealth.

I don’t believe that anyone recommending the avenues and remedies at the December 19th council meeting thought I should or would bear the cost personally. The 20 to 30,000 dollar estimate that I gave to the media is the full estimated possible cost to the taxpayer because the integrity commissioner is already indemnified. So that would be the fees for both sides. This motion should come as no surprise.

I am following the recommendations of the December 19th council meeting. Council could have chosen to deal with it. They pointed me down this avenue. So I find this shocking quite frankly.

The integrity of our code of conduct and complete protocol within it needs to be defended. If the city is unwilling to defend it and asks me publicly to take it to court, I was willing to do that. No one is gonna pay me for my time. No one would I seek that.

There were cheaper avenues. Council chose not to. If council wishes to make a different recommendation than the ones that were made at the December 19th council, I am willing to do that and to do this in a faster and cheaper way. Finally, I’m being held a part of the code of conduct and we have a by-law that is, it should matter.

It’s a procedure. The, there’s so much that is wrong with this. I will not be supporting this. To take no action is to say that at the December 19th council meeting, I was sent down a wild goose chase and you guys are saying you’re gonna close the gate on that avenue.

That’s fine, you have the right to do that. But this is going to be held in the public court of opinion as well. And we’re gonna see how that plays out. Because it is not a prescribed thing to have social media use covered under the code of conduct.

In fact, the ombudsman report says that if a municipality intends for its code of conduct to apply to social media, this should be clearly stated in the code. And I’m getting into the details and I will take the ombudsman route. But understand that the ombudsman, all they can do is make recommendations on best practices is my understanding for the integrity commissioner. They can’t do anything about what council chose to do on December the 19th.

So I think we need to look at that at what happened there ‘cause I will actually quote that the mayor said, I do believe in the right to procedural fairness. If the report is flawed in any sort of way, it has to be determined through the ombudsman or superior court. Ms. Pollett and the IC outline the avenues through which a full and robust review of procedural fairness can occur.

If the counselor pursues some procedural fairness, she has every right and every avenue to pursue that through the proper bodies. And I always respect someone’s right to pursue that fairness. The counselor has recourse if she has challenges with that report. If a counselor has a problem with the report, they will seek other recourse, which is what I brought forward here.

The deputy mayor said the counselor feels that she has a concern about procedural fairness. And I think she has presented evidence that would suggest that she has reason to pursue that. And that will come where it may, which is today. Ms.

Pollett said if there is an issue as to process or the result that can be through other avenues, such as through judicial review through the superior court of justice or the ombudsman’s person. She also said again, because it was asked a second time, if there is some question as to procedural fairness or the findings, the remedies are to go to court and ask for a judicial review of the integrity commission’s report or there is an avenue through the ombudsman’s person. So in closing, I think this instance during this kind of budget time, because what does the city do when their contractor does not meet the standard set out in our bylaws? Do we do anything about it?

In fact, I’d like to ask staff, what is the process to follow when a contractor does not meet the standards? What do we do in other cases? And what staff are responsible for this one? Thank you, follow-up, so your question is specific to which contractor?

I’m asking which staff is responsible for the integrity commissioner contract and what do we do as a city to ensure that we get the results and outcomes that are and the standards to which we hold our service providers? I think there’s a lot of concern about not getting results across this city and this may be indicative of that process. So what is our process as a city? Sorry, just to clarify.

So you’re asking, first, who is the staff member responsible for the integrity commissioner? And second, you’re asking, particularly, the process to follow up with the integrity commissioner, should they not be meeting the contract? No, so my first question is, as a city, what is our process when a contractor does not fulfill the requirements of the contract? What do you do?

Okay, so we have problems with results in many areas. So I’m sure we have a standard of practice that we do when there’s an issue and I’m wondering what that is. Okay, thank you. So you’re asking a general question.

Okay, so right now we’re on the issue of receiving the correspondence in front of us and whether or not to take any action. So again, I’m going to stick to what we’re here to talk about. So if you wanna go back to some of the questions that you have related to the integrity commissioner, I just ask that you frame it around the letter that you provided so that we can frame the question properly. Okay, thank you.

So we’ll do that specifically then. In this case, we have a contractor that did not follow the bylaw and the protocol there. What, if council wishes to take no action here or if the committee is, if the motion forward is take no action, then what, I’d like to ask then, what is the recommendation because I am following what came out of committee. So what options are there then to let’s go back to the other question.

What is the, who is the staff responsible for this contract? Thank you. Ms. Livingston, if I might go to you and just if you can provide some background in terms of the staff that is with this particular integrity commissioner contract would fall under, thank you.

Yes, thank you. So with this particular contract, it is let on behalf of council. This is council’s integrity commissioner. The clerk manages that contract, but it is a council tool, a council contract.

The results of it are managed and decided by council. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So could the question then be to staff, what would staff the clerk’s recommendation be in the case when the contract has not followed our bylaw?

Thank you. So just to follow up, councillor. So this is your interpretation of whether or not the bylaw has been followed. So if you’re asking for council, because as Ms.

Livingston just explained, this is council’s direction. So if something is it meaning council’s direction, then my interpretation would be that that would be back on council and not staff. So if you’re asking us as a body, I think that’s what the letter’s about. And again, in front of us, we have a motion to receive and take no action.

Right, but on the matter of taking no action, again, I say it’s budget time. We have a contractor that we’re paying to provide a surface that is not, that did not and has stated that they don’t agree with what we’ve asked them to do. So I’m asking for staff’s advice. And that’s what we do is to ask what is recommended then for us to do to ensure that our contractor follows our bylaw and protocol, what rather than take no action, what could we do?

Thank you. And I’ll say my limited understanding of what you’re asking, I would say that’s a bylaw review. And so if we as a council want to undertake a bylaw review, that would be the action. Other than that, as an individual councillor, I think you’re exercising those options that are in front of you as stated in your letter.

But again, we’re on the receive and take no action. If you’d like, I’ll go to the clerk and see if he has anything else to add. Thank you through Madam Presiding Officer. I have nothing further to add.

I would just point out that the integrity commissioner is an independent appointment that can make interpretations of various policy as was indicated in the report back to council. Thank you. I do have other speakers. Did you have one follow final question?

Yeah, the follow up is it’s not even people who voted to reprimand said that there was evidence provided that it’s very clear the protocol was not followed and the integrity commissioner said they weren’t gonna follow it. I do believe there is a bylaw review needed. Absolutely, that’s a separate issue. But in this case, what do we do when a contractor does not fulfill the contract?

That’s what I’m asking is what, and I understand that it would be council decision, but I’m looking to staff to say what do we do as a city when we pay for a contract and the contract is not fulfilled? I’m sure we have a process that we follow and I’m asking for some guidance there. Thank you. Do you have anything further, Ms.

Livingston? I’m not sure if you have anything further on that from a procurement perspective, but just wanted to give you the opportunity to comment. Thank you and through you. Yes, we have a number of steps that we take in the contracts that we manage.

Usually they’re articulated in the contract. There are a number of remedies that we can undertake. Not sure that’s the case in this instance. I don’t wish to speak about that.

This is a council matter. This is a third party that is contracted on behalf of council to undertake a set of roles and responsibilities. Council received that and made a decision. If council wished to make changes to that, then that would be a conversation or perhaps direction out of council to the clerk or to members of council to undertake a discussion with the integrity commissioner.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Seeing that the councilor’s exhaustion questions, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So I will say, although I’m not a voting member of this committee, I’m inclined to support this direction at council.

And I wanna explain why. And Councilor McAllister alluded to this in moving it. The first and appropriate step to me is to submit a complaint to the Ontario ombudsman. I recognize that the councilor’s indicated she doesn’t feel that that can provide her the results that she’s looking for.

But I think what the ombudsman would provide us back is an opinion on whether we need to make any changes to our processes, whether the process was followed correctly. Having seen a couple of ombudsman reports, while I recognize that they cannot necessarily order us to take a specific action, they can provide a number of recommendations and alternatives for us to consider, which may include a recommendation that we support a judicial review because they can’t direct anything further. But without that public process through the ombudsman, well, I should coach that, public is relative. It’s a public body, but the process would be obviously a confidential session sort of scenario with the ombudsman.

But I believe that is the appropriate step to take, not jumping directly to judicial review. I think I’ll leave it there. I may have a question for our city solicitor, but I think right now it might be rather redundant to drag us in camera on something that we may not have any direction to go with right now. So I may just follow up with that offline.

I think I’ll leave it at that right now. I think the appropriate process moving forward, if the council feels that the outcome, as she indicated back in the council meeting in December, was a result of an improper process that that needs to go through the ombudsman for a review of the steps that both she and the integrity commissioner followed during this complaint process and get some recommendations back from the ombudsman before taking any further action. I just think it’s important to note that, particularly as we are talking about a matter in which a reprimand was issued. And I recognize that that still is a concern.

And absolutely, I don’t deny that the council wants to defend her integrity and her point of view, absolutely, and every right to do that. But for me, there’s not a pecuniary penalty. There was no pay suspension or anything like that. And so I think to jump right to judicial review is getting the card ahead of the horse.

I think it needs to go to the ombudsman first, in my opinion. So that’s why I’m inclined to move in this direction. That’s my thoughts for today. Call point of personal privilege if I need to, ‘cause I get to comment on that, but we good?

Thank you and through you. So sorry, thank you. So you’re calling a point of personal privilege, go ahead. Yeah, just to clarify some of what the deputy mayor said.

The avenues, although I appreciate what he’s saying, the avenues that were presented to me at council by our solicitor were one of two things, judicial review or the ombudsman. I have sought legal advice, and to deal with the issue is the judicial review. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be going there. I don’t want to be spending my time on that either.

The ombudsman is, although the deal is probably the best practices for the integrity commissioner. I will go that route if I need to, but it’s not going to deal with the issue. And according to the ombudsman, it says that the courts have recognized that a municipality is master of its own procedure for such matters and that council has codified the protocol for complaints about themselves in a by-law, who better to decide the procedure or protocol governing those investigations? And that’s right from a judicial review report.

So if we think that me filing an ombudsman report is going to then guide us somehow in the protocol and the procedures that we want our integrity commissioner to follow to hold us to the code of conduct and deal with complaints, that’s not, that isn’t it? It truly is up to us. We are the master of our own procedure. We have a protocol.

It is a by-law. It is also part of the statutory scheme is what’s told in the judicial review. The judicial review is the path if council is serious about dealing with the issue. If they’re just looking for a sort of some guidance and advice, then they’re not really literally willing to deal with the fact that we have a procedure, a by-law that— Thank you.

It’s OK. Thank you. I don’t have a microphone, so I’m just— I’m giving you leniency when it comes to the point of personal privilege, but I need you to clarify what the point of personal privileges. Well, it was that we have the deputy mayor stating what he would do, OK?

That wasn’t stated. More has it been spoken to me? No one has come to me since December 19 to guide me in any way. I am— Thank you.

OK, so I understand, and I see that as a difference of opinion on the matter. I don’t see that as a point of personal privilege. OK, thank you. So are there any further speakers?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 3 to 1.

I’ll return the chair to Councilor McAllister. Thank you, I’m recognizing I have the chair. We are now moving on to confidential items, so I’d ask for a motion to go in camera. To ramen, who’s the motion?

I get a seconder. Thank you, Councillor Van Nurbari. Closing the vote. Motion carries.

4 to 0. Recording in progress. Councillor Cuddy. I’m going to need you to report out.

Just one moment, we’re not quite there yet, but— Thank you, and through you, chair. We met in— Just wait one moment, and we’re not quite ready yet. OK, we just need a moment to get back online there. So Councillor Cuddy, I just want to report out for the closed session.

Thank you. Thank you, chair, and through you. We met— Councilor— committee met in private session from 145 to 207. We discussed matters, and we made progress on all those things that we discussed.

Thank you. OK, thank you. And our last item is adjournment. I get a motion to adjourned.

Councillor Stevenson, seconder. Councillor ramen. and we’ll do a hand vote, all those in favor. Great, okay, thank you everyone for your time.

Motion carries.