Questions remain over Hodgson censure
Recent revelations regarding the censure and resignation of Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority board member Bill Hodgson have created more questions than answers. Earlier this week, our sister paper Niagara This Week obtained a copy of a redacted version of a confidential report done by legal firm Gowling WLG which led to Hodgson’s departure from the NPCA in 2017.
Hodgson, a regional councillor for Lincoln, had been accused of undermining the process involved in hiring a company to conduct an operational review of the authority. The NPCA ordered the review after months of criticism.
Someone at a firm known to Hodgson ( the name was redacted in the leaked report) emailed him to express an interest in bidding on the contract. Hodgson replied in an email that said: “Thanks for your interest in the process to undertake an operational review at the NPCA.” He said he would be “pleased” to forward the email to then- acting NPCA CAO Peter Graham who was in charge of the process
Hodgson’s email apparently set off alarm bells and the Gowling firm was hired. The resulting report said the NPCA board could “reasonably conclude” a breach of their code of conduct had been committed. On April 27, 2017 the board censured Hodgson and scrapped the hiring process. Hodgson resigned.
Hodgson, who got his first look at a redacted version of the report this week, said he’s mystified as to what could have led to a finding of misconduct. “From what I have seen so far, it is a legal opinion that draws conclusions on inaccurate and incomplete information,” said Hodgson. In voting to conduct the operational review NPCA board members had promised to stay clear of all parts of the process. But did Hodgson’s decision to politely reply to an email violate that promise and undermine the process? Mark Brickell, then a senior staffer who later succeeded Graham as CAO, seems to have thought.
Hodgson said his action was “spun into something that it is not … Others can explain the motivations that lay behind the failure to look at this from a best- practices perspective.”
Were there other motives as Hodgson hints? It’s hard to say without more information, including explanations from NPCA and release of the Gowling report. But NPCA spokespersons remain tight- lipped and, as usual of late, have not responded to requests for comment.
As to the full report, The Standard put in a Freedom of Information request which the NPCA received on Dec. 7 last year. On Jan. 5, the conservation authority denied our request for the report because “the report would be published online and made available to the public at- large within 90 days.”
On Friday, the NPCA changed its mind, revising its decision and denying The Standard’s request entirely. Its reasoning was the report provides legal advice to NPCA board chair Sandy Annunziata and is subject to solicitor/ client privilege. Why the change from Jan. 5 to Feb. 2? Who knows, but all that’s changed over the past month is a redacted version of the report was obtained and reported upon by the media.
What this all comes down to is the public still has not been provided with a satisfactory explanation of the Hodgson censure and the NPCA apparently wants to keep it that way.
From what we’ve seen so far, Hodgson did nothing to warrant censure. What was he supposed to have done with the email?
The NPCA has an obligation to release the unredacted report to shed light on this murky situation and prove its action taken against a long- serving politician and public servant was justified.