Ioannoni asked to resign
Integrity commissioner’s report suggests reprimand or pay suspension; councillor says she will not step down
Carolynn Ioannoni has been asked to resign her seat on Niagara Falls city council.
The request is part of a motion by Coun. Vince Kerrio, approved by his colleagues during Tuesday night’s meeting, following Integrity Commissioner Brian Duxbury’s conclusion Ioannoni, “on a balance of probabilities,” improperly disclosed sensitive and confidential information discussed during a closed-door meeting to a third party who was not entitled to such information.
Duxbury concluded Ioannoni breached the city’s Code of Ethics/ Conduct related to a Jan. 24 incamera session.
Ioannoni denies she breached the code, said she plans to file a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate Duxbury’s probe, and will not resign. Kerrio’s motion also requests Ioannoni apologize to her peers on council, to staff and to the public.
It directs staff to decline to answer any further questions Ioannoni has with respect to the investigation, and asks for Ioannoni to be removed from all council boards and committees, effective immediately.
It calls for a 90-day remuneration penalty to Ioannoni, and for the actions of the unnamed third party to be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and response, including a review of any possible benefits or financial gain they may have received for having learned of leaked information.
I deny that I ever broke that code at all, and I certainly didn’t receive any private gain ...’ Carolynn Ioannoni
A resolution by Kerrio that council provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs with a copy of Duxbury’s report, and to ask for consideration to be given to making changes to the Municipal Act imposing more severe penalties, including removal from office, was also approved.
“Coun. Ioannoni betrayed the trust of the people who put her here. She betrayed the trust of her peers on council. She betrayed the staff,” said Kerrio.
“How does a council function effectively in the future on issues of a confidential nature when staff is obviously reluctant, justifiably so after reading (Duxbury’s) report, to share details with us when they suspect or they know it will hurt the city if they’re leaked? We’re responsible collectively for keeping confidential, privileged information. It is our duty when we’re told or become aware of a breach of trust given to us by the residents, it’s our obligation to investigate the accusation, if it’s proven, punish the perpetrator, and then do everything in our power to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Kerrio said in addition to the breach, he was “disturbed” by Duxbury’s comments in his report that Ioannoni was a “hindrance” to his investigation.
Duxbury, of Duxbury Law Professional Corporation, was hired as an integrity commissioner by the city to investigate an alleged breach of in-camera matters.
At the Feb. 28 meeting, council passed a motion by Coun. Wayne Thomson that the city proceed with an integrity commissioner.
At the Feb. 14 meeting, council passed another motion by Thomson that the matter of a breach of in-camera matters be referred to staff.
City solicitor Ken Beaman said it cost the municipality $7,500 to hire Duxbury to conduct the investigation. In his report, Duxbury said he interviewed six people, including staff members, the mayor and councillors.
“While the councillor may have had, in her mind, good intentions to ensure that someone who was affected by the in-camera discussion was given a ‘heads up,’ it remains an improper disclosure of the content of an in-camera meeting,” Duxbury wrote in his report that went before city council Tuesday.
“Councillors have no ability to, and are not entitled to, disclose, hint or imply some or all of the content of an in-camera meeting to individuals who are not entitled to it.”
Duxbury said the city’s Code of Ethics/Conduct requires employees, including elected officials, to protect confidential and privileged information.
He said the municipality may impose either a reprimand or a suspension of the remuneration paid to Ioannoni for up to 90 days.
Under the Municipal Act, Duxbury said he is obliged to preserve secrecy when it comes to matters that come to his knowledge during an investigation.
He did not identify in his report the people he met with, or those who provided him with information.
Duxbury said a portion of the Jan. 24 in-camera meeting dealt with a “very sensitive personnel matter,” as well as a matter relating to certain bargaining negotiations.
He said Ioannoni declined to meet with him during his investigation, but the two corresponded through email.
Duxbury said Ioannoni advised him in writing she took notes during the Jan. 24 meeting.
He said Ioannoni advised him “I did not share my notes or any information in regard to that meeting.”
Duxbury said Ioannoni indicated she would be happy to answer any questions “in writing so that they can’t be misconstrued.”
He concluded Ioannoni was “endeavouring to either deflect the issue or imply another theory of events” related to the Jan. 24 matter.
Ioannoni said there are parts of Duxbury’s report she agrees with, but “I don’t agree with his conclusion whatsoever.”
“I deny that I ever broke that code at all, and I certainly didn’t receive any private gain and there’s no evidence that this alleged breach caused any harm to this municipality in any way,” she said.
Ioannoni said she will file a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office to investigate how Duxbury conducted his investigation.
Ioannoni said she believes “key evidence” she provided to Duxbury was not included in his report.
“I provided information to Mr. Duxbury that proves that the in camera on Jan. 24 was breached, but it wasn’t by me,” she said.
“Not only by another member of this council, but by another staff member in city hall. I breached nothing.”
Ioannoni said she was “honest” and “forthright” in her correspondence with Duxbury.
Duxbury attended Tuesday’s meeting, but said he was “not here to engage in a debate or a dialogue. I’ve made findings and given you my conclusions.”
Ioannoni said she wants to ensure council will reprimand “the person who actually leaked the information” when she proves “it wasn’t me.”
Ioannoni said she will want an apology “in this council chamber, and that person will be reprimanded with the same reprimand you believe that I deserve for something I didn’t do.”
“Fair is fair across the board. You set the standard now, the standard is (also) for when the Ombudsman’s report comes back.”
On Wednesday, Ioannoni told the Niagara Falls Review she was “blindsided with a lot last night by people I looked up to.”
“I am in a bit of shock, to be honest. I need some time to process their orchestrated attack on me, my reputation and my career. I am not resigning, and I expect to respond fully to their request soon. But for the time being, I plan to stay on and represent the people of Niagara Falls just as I have done for nearly 20 years.”
Acting city clerk Bill Matson said senior staff will meet to discuss what measures in Kerrio’s motion they could impose on Ioannoni.
“When I look at the phrase reprimand, I suppose that opens itself up to interpretation,” he said.
“What defines a reprimand? Would all of those that Coun. Kerrio described, would they all fall under the definition of yes, that’s a form of reprimand? I’m not sure. This is probably something we’ll have to discuss at a senior staff level, and whether or not all of those things can be carried out that council had asked for, and we just haven’t got to that point yet.” The integrity commissioner’s report and council discussion has been attached to the online version of story.