Thorold City Council has decided not to sanction Councillor Jim Handley over the latest integrity commissioner’s report on his misconduct.
"The process isn’t right here," said Councillor Henry D'Angela, during last night's city council meeting. "You’re putting us into a position not to work cooperatively over the next few years."
As ThoroldToday reported, Councillor Handley has come under fire for his participation in the 2022 Ottawa Trucker Convoy Protest.
The integrity commissioner found that Handley contravened the city’s code of conduct, that requires “members of Council to refrain from making statements known to be false or with the intent to mislead Council or the public, and to recognize that they are representatives of the City and that they owe a duty of loyalty to the residents of the City at all times.”
As a result, the commissioner recommended “that Council denounce the actions of the Councillor by way of a formal reprimand and impose a suspension of his remuneration as a member of Council equal to ninety (90) days.”
While Councillors Tim O'Hare, Ken Sentance, and Mayor Terry Ugulini voted to accept the recommendations, Councillors Henry D'Angela, Mike De Divitiis, Carmen DeRose, and Anthony Longo rejected them. Councillor Nella Dekker was not present for the vote.
"I’ve been friends with Jim for 30 years," said Councillor De Divitiis. "I'm not being a coward but I just don’t like this whole process. This whole thing is not good."
The decision on the sanctions took place after a meeting behind closed doors in which councillors discussed whether or not the city's code of conduct contravenes one's Charter rights.
That discussion was the result of a motion put forward by Councillor Handley at a Feb. 28 city council meeting, in which he asked the city to solicit an external legal opinion on the matter.
“We need to have a policy that guarantees one’s rights under the Charter,” he told councillors, at the time. “We currently don’t do it because my pay was suspended for going to a peaceful assembly."
While making the motion, Handley made no mention of the then-pending third investigation into his misconduct, although he was already well aware of it at the time.
“I will do everything in my power to protect my freedoms as a Canadian citizen regardless of the powers granted to you," he wrote to the integrity commissioner on Feb. 4.
On May 30, Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin presented his latest report on Handley to city council, and he addressed Handley’s claims that the city’s code of conduct contravenes his Charter rights.
“Council is well aware now that you have an opinion from a very well-respected constitutional law firm that says what it says,” Mascarin said. “We did look at his ability to politically make statements and we looked at that through the lens of protecting the right to freedom of expression of everybody in the country and we yet still found there were code violations."
When it was time for Handley to give his defence, he told council members he hadn't yet been able to read through the legal opinion he requested at the Feb. 28 council meeting.
“I did not receive the letter from the lawyer as requested,” he said. “I think it was sent to all councillors except me. I never got the opportunity to review or respond to the letter so for John Mascarin to talk about it is prudent as far as I’m concerned. For us to move forward now, I haven’t even had a chance to review it.”
“That legal opinion isn’t on the floor tonight or part of this matter,” responded City Clerk Matthew Trennum.
But after much discussion, councillors decided to defer any decisions on the commissioner's report to the June 20 city council meeting, to have the matter coincide with Handley's Feb. 28 motion.
Because legal opinions sought by the city fall under solicitor-client privilege, the discussion last night happened behind closed doors.
When councillors returned to open chambers the integrity commissioner's report on Handley's misconduct once again hit the floor.
"I wish we weren’t here again," said Councillor Sentance. "I have no ill will or malice towards Councillor Handley or anyone else but I will be sticking to what we hired the integrity commissioner for. It isn’t a personal attack. This is what I feel we are supposed to be doing and what I have done consistently the last two times. I will do the same thing for any councillor in this room, including myself."
Councillor O'Hare agreed, saying: "We hired [the integrity commissioner] for a job and the job was fulfilled. I’ll follow his guidance."
But every other councillor present did not want to take action.
"I find it very disturbing that I need to penalize a co-worker," said Councillor Longo. "I think the system’s unfair."
Councillor DeRose said he felt that Handley was being bullied and Councillor D'Angela announced his intent to abstain from the vote.
"Abstaining is a no vote, you know that," responded Mayor Ugulini. "You can’t say you’re abstaining because you’re actually voting no when you abstain."
A recorded vote was called, and city council voted 4-3 in favour of dismissing the recommendations of the integrity commissioner's report.
Then it was time to vote on Councillor Handley's Feb. 28 motion — to decide whether or not the city's code of conduct contravenes one's Charter rights — but after his victory, Handley announced that he was dropping the motion.
During last night's council meeting, Councillor Handley also shared his intent to file a complaint with the Upper Canada Law Society “about the way I was treated during the last council meeting by the Integrity Commissioner and the personal attack that he made against me.”
That matter will be discussed during the next City Council meeting.
