By John Francis, Bruce Peninsula Press
Perhaps the most dramatic moment of MNBP Council’s year came in the August 8, 2022 Meeting, when council voted to reprimand Deputy Mayor Debbie Myles for a code of conduct violation. MNBP’s news release about the Meeting states:
“Council received a report from the Integrity Commissioner dated August 4, 2022 as it relates to the matter of a complaint lodged against Deputy Mayor Debbie Myles.
“Council approved the recommendation from the Integrity Commissioner and suspended Deputy Mayor Myles’ compensation for a period of 30 days.”
MNBP’s Integrity Commissioner, Harold Elston, details the complaint as follows:
“…on Friday, May 20, 2022, you made a telephone call to Carla Watson, Tobermory Harbour Master, in which you failed to treat Ms. Watson with respect, were abusive and intimidating to her, and attempted to use your authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing Ms. Watson, with the intent of interfering in her duties. In so doing, it is alleged that you contravened sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.7, 6, 7.1, 7.4, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9 and 8.1 of the Code.”
The Background Story
In 2020, MNBP Council decided to change its policies for Lion’s Head Harbour, to increase the number of seasonal slips so as to accommodate several dozen people who had been on a waiting list for years and also, to accommodate slightly larger vessels (despite an engineer’s report which warned that this might increase storm damage in the harbour).
Deputy Mayor Myles disagreed with this decision at the time (it was approved by the other four members of Council) and has reiterated that position at other meetings when the harbour has been discussed. On at least one occasion, she has demanded a “judicial enquiry” into the governance of MNBP.
Integrity Commissioner Elston sets up the current complaint as follows:
1. “The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula has two main harbours, Lion’s Head Harbour and Tobermory Harbour. Due to on-going construction work on the Lion’s Head dock, at the start of the boating season some boats from that harbour were moved to the Tobermory Harbour, pending completion of the work. This transfer was necessary to facilitate the on-time launching of all vessels.
2. “Deputy Mayor Debbie Myles became aware of this arrangement, but was under the mistaken assumption that the transferred boats were not being charged. She felt this was wrong, particularly when there is a waiting list for slips in Tobermory. In an email about this sent to the Municipality’s Chief Administrative Officer on May 20, 2022, Deputy Mayor Myles asks: “Who’s idea was this and why wasn’t council or all of council made aware of this? If this is true, is this really how council is suppose (sic) to work?”
3. In her response, the CAO says: “Thank you for your email. You are correct, some boats will be going to Tobermory until the dock project is complete. They will return to LH when the project is complete. They have all been charged for the 2022 boating season. This was a requirement this year so all boats could be lifted in and we could start the season on time without having additional disruption. Have a great day.”
4. The Deputy Mayor immediately replies, asking: “So how do we have room in Tobermory to allow for more boats, and if that is the case why can we not get some of the boats off the waiting list in Tob?” The CAO tells the Deputy Mayor that she can’t answer the question but will speak with the Harbour Masters and respond the following week.
5. Presumably not content to wait to hear back from the CAO, Deputy Mayor Debbie Myles called Carla Watson, the Tobermory Harbour Master, shortly past noon that same day. This report concerns a complaint flowing from that telephone call.”
A Councillor’s Role
Integrity Commissioner Elston explains a Councillor’s role as: “to develop and evaluate policies and programs of the Municipality. An individual Member must never intervene or interfere with Staff as they perform their duties.”
Integrity Commissioner’s Report
Commissioner Elston notes (para 11) that “Deputy Mayor Myles reports that she is quite saddened by the accusations of Ms. Watson and thinks that Ms. Watson is upset with her because she believes that the Deputy Mayor is the one who complained about her. In her defence, the Deputy Mayor says that she did what she felt was her job and that was to relay the complaint of a taxpayer to the attention of the CAO…”.
Commissioner Elston continues in para 13 that: “Ms. Watson is convinced that Deputy Mayor Myles made the call thinking she, Ms. Watson, would give information that would support allegations of wrongdoings at the harbour.”
Here are the last eight paragraphs of Commissioner Elston’s 23-paragraph decision:
“16. It is always difficult to choose between two competing versions of a conversation, particularly when there is no direct, corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that Ms. Watson has accurately relayed the tone and content of the May 20th call from Deputy Mayor Myles. I found her evidence to me to be forthright and credible. She has nothing to gain by making a complaint against a sitting Deputy Mayor and no reason to embellish what was said to her.
17. Moreover, during the course of this inquiry, other similar instances of Deputy Mayor Myles’s personal engagement with municipal staff were brought to my attention. While I have judged this episode solely on the basis of what I believe was said (and left unsaid) by the Deputy Mayor to the Complainant, Ms. Watson’s evidence to me aligns with a pattern of behaviour that has the Deputy Mayor meddling in operations that are exclusively the day-to-day preserve of staff.
18. The exchange between Deputy Mayor Myles and the Harbour Master contravenes two basic principles enunciated in the provisions of the Code reproduced above. Those two principles may be stated to be: 1) It is the role of Council, as a whole, to develop and evaluate policies and programs of the Municipality. An individual Member must never intervene or interfere with Staff as they perform their duties; and 2) Members must be respectful of the role of Staff and not use the authority of their office to influence or intimidate them.
19. Applying the first principle, I find that in her inquiries of both the CAO and the Harbour Master Deputy Mayor Myles has overstepped her role as a policy maker and improperly intervened or interfered with staff. The decision as to how best to accommodate the boaters impacted by the dock construction work and manage the waiting list for slips is clearly and solely the responsibility of staff.
20. Not only does the Deputy Mayor stray much too far into the weeds, but in her emails to the CAO she does so in an aggressive and accusatory manner. Not satisfied with the response she received from the CAO, she immediately turns her inquiry directly towards the Harbour Master.
21. On the second principle, I find that the Deputy Mayor’s exchanges with both the CAO and the Harbour Master display a lack of respect for their positions and can only be seen as an attempt to use her authority to intimidate both members of staff. In particular, the Deputy Mayor’s comments to the Harbour Master that “You better watch what you say to me this is Debbie Myles” and that being Harbour Master was a “good job” can only be seen as being meant to intimidate.
22. Accordingly, I find that on May 20, 2022, Deputy Mayor Myles contravened sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.8, 7.1, 7.4, 7.6, 7.8 and 7.9.
23. It is my recommendation to Council that Deputy Mayor Myles’s compensation be suspended for 30 days.”
Integrity Commissioner Elston’s full report is included in the Agenda for Council’s Aug 8 Meeting. It can be found online.
Council’s Decision
Deputy Mayor Myles announced that she would leave the council chambers while the report was discussed but before leaving, she posed two questions:
How did a report dated August 4 make it on to an agenda with an August 3 cutoff? and: Why was the strict cutoff time changed to make sure it got on this agenda?
Municipal Clerk Cathy Addison explained that the deadline for inclusion in the Agenda can be extended at the Clerk’s discretion. In this case, she continued, the extension was necessary because all such proceedings must be completed before the “lame duck” period begins on August 19 and this was the final meeting.
Councillor Megan Myles began the discussion: “I know we have all had [conflict of interest] reports, but this one is different.” There is a clear council/staff relationship protocol that we need to be aware of and follow. It does not hurt to remind staff taxpayers are watching, but as councillors we need to be constantly supporting staff — they are subject to complaints from the community and are occasionally treated quite poorly and blamed for council decisions. It is our due diligence to watch but not interfere with daily operations. Councillor Myles stated that she supported the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendation because of the need to protect staff. Councillor James Mielhausen expressed agreement with this.
Mayor Milt McIver followed the thread, observing that “…sometimes we get a little confused with what is and is not our job”. The CAO is Council’s representative; any complaints/concerns should be channelled through her. “When there are taxpayer complaints, I turn them over to the Clerk, with a copy to the CAO. If it appears on Agenda that’s good, we can ask for a report.”
Council unanimously accepted the Integrity Commissioner’s report and its recommendation that Deputy Mayor Myles be docked a month’s salary.
A Rush to Judgement?
In an interview, Deputy Mayor Myles is clear: “I do understand where I went wrong. I shouldn’t have called Ms Watson.” But she is deeply concerned with the way the complaint was handled.
The time frame, for example: the complaint was registered on May 26, but Deputy Mayor Myles didn’t hear about it until June 28, when she received a terse communication from Commissioner Elston’s office detailing the complaint (text appears as paragraph 5 of this article) and a request that she respond by July12.
Deputy Mayor Myles states that it is hard to respond to a complaint with no “facts” in it. What exactly was she alleged to have done? She replied on July 4 with a request for more detail and heard nothing for a week. She reiterated that request on July 11; this time she got a response: an acknowledgement of her request and a promise of a quick response. On July 29, she got that response with more detail. She responded on August 2 with a list of people she felt he should contact. She received the completed report the next day, with no indication that the Commissioner had talked to the people she suggested.
She feels this constitutes a rush to judgement — a lack of procedural fairness. She suggests that the investigation could not be completed in a timely fashion and should have been abandoned. She draws attention to “section 223.4 (7) of the Municipal act, which states ‘If the commissioner has not completed an inquiry before nomination day for a regular election as set out in section 31 of the municipal elections act 1996, the commissioner shall terminate the inquiry on that day’. It does not say the the Integrity Commissioner should rush through a complaint in order to get it off his desk by that date.”
She also disputes the way her conversations with staff are being framed. “How can you serve the taxpayers,” she wonders, “if you can’t talk to staff to get answers to taxpayers’ questions?”
