Robert Fisher
Staff Reporter
KILLALOE – The integrity commissioner for the Township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards issued his report on the complaint against Coun. Bil Smith on Sept. 30. Chief Administrative Officer Tammy Gorgerat presented the report at the Oct. 7 council meeting. The integrity commissioner issued a qualified finding of no breach of conflict of interest rules.
Background
Mayor David Mayville announced, at a council meeting Aug. 5, that he had submitted a complaint against Smith in relation to a proposed grant application. Council discussed two possible projects for the grant under the Enhancing Access to Spaces for Everyone (EASE) program; building an accessible ramp at the front of the township office, or an accessible boat/kayak launch on Brennans Creek. The boat launch was supported by the Community Resource Centre (CRC) and the CRC would have applied for the grant on behalf of the township.
Smith declared a conflict of interest and left council chamber during discussion of the competing grant proposals. Council voted in favour of the accessible ramp based on information from Community Development Co-ordinator Colton Charbonneau that the accessible ramp was an eligible project under the terms of the grant. In his presentation to council, Charbonneau listed several possibilities, “as well as an accessible entrance to our front door here at the township office. All these projects are eligible,” under the grant program, he told council. He also told council that staff discussed the ramp project and determined the grant amount would cover all or most of the cost to install a ramp. Charbonneau also told council that the provincial advisor informed him that the kayak launch likely had a better chance of success, however, he made no indication the advisor told him the ramp at the township office was ineligible for the grant.
“Both those applications fit directly under the funding priorities for this grant,” Charbonneau told council and that both would have an equal chance of success, “From what I’ve read and what I’ve been told.”
Gorgerat told council at the Aug. 5 meeting that the kayak launch, “better aligns with the program’s focus on outdoor accessibility,” and asked council whether it would like to reconsider its previous vote. She did not state the ramp at the municipal office was ineligible for the grant. She also referred to the kayak launch as “CRC’s proposal” and that the township would, “assist with permitting, provide construction support and assume annual maintenance,” for the launch. When reading the resolution to change course and support the kayak launch project, Gorgerat referred to it as, “CRC’s EASE grant application,” and if successful, “assume responsibility for ongoing upkeep and maintenance …”
The guidelines for the 2025/26 list as, “examples of potentially eligible projects,” under the category of Retrofits, “permanent entrance ramps, additional barrier free entrances, multiple universal washrooms or enhancements to current universal washroom(s). change stall(s) [sic], and adding additional accessibility features at swimming pools.”
The program description states the program, “could support projects such as installing assistive kayak and canoe launches, charging stations for mobility devices, installing mobility mats at beaches, building accessible washrooms at parks to improve access and remove barriers to outdoor spaces for people of all ages and people with disabilities.”
The grant priority is stated to, “Implement improvements to outdoor spaces and the built environment, including housing, to increase accessibility for people with disabilities and older adults.”
Integrity commissioner report
Tony Fleming of Cunningham Swan Lawyers stated that Smith’s advocacy for the kayak launch after the initial council vote supporting the ramp at the municipal office did not amount to a conflict of interest because neither Smith nor the CRC would benefit materially from the project and that Smith had recused himself, “out of an abundance of caution.” Fleming said Smith told staff and council members following the July 15 vote that, “he understood the grant opportunity would not cover the municipal project (the office ramp).”
Fleming noted in his report that there is an, “objective, reasonable observer” standard for conflict and the commissioner found that, “a reasonable person, apprised of the circumstances of the CRC’s level of involvement would not consider the member to be in breach.”
Fleming qualified his findings by stating that since Smith did declare a conflict, “the Code of Conduct requires that the member not take any steps to influence the decision. In this case, the member did in fact attempt to influence the decision after they discovered that the accessible dock project had not been approved. If the member had an actual conflict of interest, their actions in attempting to have the decision reconsidered would have amounted to a breach of the Code of Conduct.”
Fleming wrote, in conclusion, “The Integrity Commissioner does recommend to the member and all of council that if they declare a conflict of interest, even if only to avoid the perception of a conflict, they should abide by all of the restrictions contained in the (Municipal Conflict of Interest Act) and Code of Conduct. Acting as if there is no conflict after making the declaration confuses the public and risks complaints.”
Council discussion
Following Gorgerat’s presentation, Coun. Carl Kuehl said the township has dealt with two complaints recently, “and I think we got more coming,” and asked how much the most recent one cost, suggesting it would be $5,000 to $7,000. Mayville replied that he didn’t know because he hadn’t yet seen the invoice.
“I guarantee you it’s going to be $5,000 to $7,000 people are going to be paying for,” Kuehl declared.
Smith, following Kuehl’s words, made a lengthy speech to the gallery, not to council, reminding people of some of the remarks Mayville had made including inappropriate attempts to influence staff, breach of procedure and disregard for policy.
Mayville said, in his announcement of filing the complaint said it was not political, rather about integrity and respect for the rule of law.
“In those statements, I would suggest that Dave was saying ‘I don’t respect the rule of law, I’m not accountable, I don’t have integrity and all the other crap in there.
“I operate in the grey,” Smith said, because he is involved with several community groups which may have business with council.
“There was never a CRC project,” he said and that the kayak launch, “was always a township project,” and about creating new municipal infrastructure.
“There was absolutely no breach,” Smith stated, according to the integrity commissioner report. “The integrity commissioner said I did absolutely nothing wrong.
“I don’t know what the mayor’s motivation was. He said it wasn’t political. I question that.”
Coun. Ted Browne spoke to, he said, clarify information for the public. He said council was not given, “all of the information,” and that the grant, “specifically said that we would not get it if we put in for that project,” despite being told the opposite in the July 15 meeting.
Coun. Maureen MacMillan, who is employed with the CRC, said she took from the integrity commissioner report that the CRC is a gift to the township and wondered why the mayor would make a complaint to the integrity commissioner when the CRC is giving its staff time to the township and, “you have this generous gift being given.”
robert@thevalleygazette.ca
About the Author
