City Integrity Commissioners are a waste of money
Ontario's "Manners Monitors" cost millions, add no value, prevent no corruption
Every city and town council in Ontario is required by law to have a Code of Conduct and an integrity commissioner – whose sole purpose it is to ensure elected members of council act with integrity. This is such a big problem in Toronto that it has a full-time integrity commissioner with an office and staff, to watch over Toronto’s elected officials. Most smaller cities and towns have part-time commissioners – usually local lawyers on retainer to deal with occasional integrity matters. Often, these lawyers provide the same service to multiple towns and cities.
All of this costs taxpayers millions of dollars every year. None of that money is well-spent.
Since Toronto’s council was cut in half in 2018 – reducing by 50% the number of council members who need “watchdogging” – the Toronto Integrity Commissioner’s budget has actually increased by 50% from $506,700 in 2017 to $761,000 for 2022. The number of annual investigation reports has, as you would expect, decreased in the same period.
At its June 15-16 meeting, Toronto Council updated its Code of Conduct as recommended by its integrity commissioner. But, the update was not an improvement. In fact, the best way to improve Toronto Council’s Code of Conduct would be to eliminate much of it. It doesn’t serve its purpose. It does nothing to ensure or encourage the “integrity” of council.
Integrity Commissioners created to prevent corruption
To understand why councils are required to have integrity commissioners and codes of conduct, you have to go back in time to the 1990’s. The City of Toronto wanted to replace its computers before. They chose to lease new PCs instead of buying them, then to expand this leasing deal into a multi-million dollar long term contract. The company that won the contract was alleged to have “greased the wheels” by treating councillors and other city officials to free meals, free trips and even the occasional manilla envelope stuffed with cash. It was a mess. Not only was it corrupt, it was incompetent. People quickly found out. A judicial inquiry was ordered. The budget recommended codes of conduct be established for elected officials – thou shalt not steal, apparently, being insufficient guidance. Ditto for the Criminal Code of Canada.
So, the province required Toronto and other Ontario cities and towns to develop codes of conduct and create integrity commissioners to oversee them. The point, remember, was to deter corruption: the selling of favours and the torquing of contracts.
Fast forward to today
Most of the complaints made to Toronto’s integrity commissioner – those that result in investigations reported to Council – have little or nothing to do with corruption. They are mostly complaints by one councillor against another alleging poor manners. Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner has become little more than an over-paid “Miss Manners” arbitrating between elected officials who are rude to each other – or who complain about city staff.
During the June meeting, Councillor Josh Matlow tweeted out an explanation of his public complaints about the quality of work being done by city staff. He’s right to complain. It’s often atrocious. I’ve seen it myself. But, complaining about city staff work is a violation of Article 12 of Toronto Council’s Code of Conduct (Respecting City Staff) which says “a member (of council) must not maliciously or falsely injure the professional or ethical reputation, or the prospects or practice of staff, and all members must show respect for the professional capacities of staff.” (Italics added) But, what if their professional capacity is lacking? I expect one of Councillor Matlow’s adversaries on council – and there are 25 of them – will complain about his criticism to the Integrity Commissioner. They frequently do.
Matlow is the subject of more Integrity Commissioner reports since 2018 than any other member of council. Almost all of them because he was “mean” to city staff. Usually, he’s exonerated. Once, he apologized. Another time he was reprimanded. Matlow has become Toronto new Rob Ford – the rude boy of council manners.
Article 12 is one of the Code of Conduct sections that should be deleted. It’s prone to abuse and there are already libel and slander laws in place to prevent defamation. Other Articles in the code banning “meanness” to other councillors or members of the public should also be deleted. Rudeness has its own punishment. There is no need to spend millions of dollars trying in vain to make people behave nicely toward one another.
The Article banning “Discreditable Conduct” is also pointless. Survey after survey proves few, if any, members of the public consider any of our elected officials to be in any way “creditable” to begin with.
Codes of Conduct are now nothing more than Etiquette Guides for councillors. Integrity Commissioners have been reduced to Manners Monitors. A quick review of investigations undertaken by Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner shows that almost all investigations result from complaints about councillors behaviour – from other councillors. Occasionally, partisan community activists get in on the action and complain too. In every case, these complaints are politically motivated. The Code of Conduct is nothing more than a cudgel politicians can use to beat up on their adversaries.
It’s not an effective tool to fight corruption – because most Integrity Commissioners never even look for corruption. Even if they personally witnessed bags of cash being handed to a councillor, they cannot investigate it without a complaint. Most integrity commissioners interpret their mandates as dictating they can only act on complaints and cannot initiate their own investigations.
And, councillors – the people most likely to see corruption involving their elected colleagues – are the least likely to report it because they are also most likely to benefit from it.
In 2020, there was actually one complaint to Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner alleging real corruption – a suggestion one councillor was too cozy with a developer and that both parties were profiting from the relationship. The Integrity Commissioner handed the file over to police and closed her investigation. So, why do we need integrity commissioners?
Ontario’s municipal integrity system is broken. It’s expensive. It needs to be completely overhauled – or eliminated. Doug Ford’s new minister of Municipal Affairs should fix it.
Can you live without an integrity commissioner in your city?