The County’s Integrity Commissioner, Robert Swayze, reported the results of his investigation into alleged breaches of conduct by one or more councillors on September 10.

The Commissioner, who has served the County since 2016, found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of councillors, but that did not stop him from censuring their conduct.

At issue was information that seemed to have been leaked from a series of closed sessions this summer that concerned the County’s litigation against Picton Terminals.

The investigation was initiated by four councillors who complained that information canvased in closed sessions of Council on June 11, June 25, and July 23, and therefore subject to confidentiality rules, had been aired in various public statements, including in citizen deputations to Council and in the Picton Gazette.

The Integrity Commissioner was asked to rule on whether the statements in question indeed disclosed confidential information and, if so, to find evidence of the source of the disclosure.

Mr. Swayze reported that his investigation started on 2 July with “a confidential search of all records available to the IT department against all members of Council and applicable internal staff from the period of June to August 2024.”

Over 5,000 records were retrieved, including emails, Microsoft Teams messages, and SharePoint files sent to external contacts.

No records indicated electronic transmission of confidential information or documents related to the litigation against Picton Terminals.

The Commissioner noted, “The fact that litigation was in process was common knowledge and, as of June 11, it was public that Council had decided to instruct Counsel to negotiate settlement.

“I have reviewed all of the public statements which have been sent to me in various complaints. One example is the statement given to the Picton Gazette by Councillor John Hirsch: ‘I am solidly in favour of continuing to pursue the court case’, said Councillor John Hirsch. ‘The costs involved are nothing compared to the damage that will be caused to the County if Picton Terminals succeeds in getting what it wants. Picton Terminals has been very explicit about what it plans to do.’

“Although Councillor Hirsch should not have given this interview to the Gazette,” wrote the Commissioner, “I have dismissed several complaints that he disclosed confidential information.”

The Commissioner noted the councillor had expressed his own opinion on the matter of a settlement with Picton Terminals, but did not breach confidentiality. “He also disagreed with Council but did not misrepresent the Council decision. In my opinion he is entitled to disagree publicly and did not contravene the Code, Procedural By-law or the Media Relations Policy.”

The report concludes, “I am left with the opinion that a breach of the obligation to keep closed meeting discussion confidential by one or more attendees has occurred. The detail of the comments from the residents in deputations to Council and the reports in the media are sufficiently close to many things discussed in the meetings that I believe the Code has been contravened. However, I have insufficient evidence to identify any attendee.”

During the question period, Councillor Hirsch noted, “you cited an example in the report of an interview that I happened to give to the Picton Gazette, and concluded I had done nothing inappropriate. Nevertheless you make the statement I should not have given this interview. I’m wondering why.”

“I didn’t impose sanctions against you for what you said,” said the Commissioner, “but I disagree with your decision to give that interview to the Gazette. It’s litigation and you are benefitting possibly the other side, and you need to keep everything confidential as far as I’m concerned.

“Even if you are just opposed to the decision of Council, I don’t need the other side learning that, it doesn’t help the County at all.”

The Commissioner also noted that confidential information marked a number of deputations to Council.

“There were several deputations from residents and representatives of groups in the County who spoke of discussions by Council in-camera, which made me certain that they had talked to attendees at one or more of the three closed meetings. However, I have no jurisdiction over residents and cannot recommend sanctions against them.”

The Integrity Commissioner’s role is to adjudicate complaints from residents, staff and members of Council concerning suspected breaches of the Council Code of Conduct, the policies of the County, and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction over County staff or residents. 

Update: Councillor Braney presented a notice of motion pertaining to Integrity Commissioner services at the September 24 meeting of Council. “We’ve had a first public investigation report, the first in several years. I’d like the clerk to bring forward options on the Integrity Commissioner’s contract for Council’s consideration of next steps.” That motion will come to a future Council meeting.