Confidential information leaked but integrity boss can’t say by whom
Disclosure breaches can ‘cause real damage,’ Mayor Horwath says
Mayor Andrea Horwath says she hopes an ethics probe that found a municipal committee leaked confidential information encourages city politicians to be more careful about safeguarding privacy.
“As somebody who’s been in political life for a long time, I know how breach of information can cause real damage,” Horwath told The Spectator. “It can damage the trust that people have in their city council, and for me, that’s really the top thing.”
Horwath said a pair of reports that integrity commissioner David Boghosian recently completed underscore that the duty to safeguard confidential deliberations is “perhaps … not being taken as seriously” as it should be, Horwath said.
Boghosian has looked into two allegations of leaks from a pair of municipal bodies tasked with selecting members for the committee of adjustment (COA) and police services board (PSB).
He concluded “on balance of probabilities” that someone on the selection committee disclosed information from confidential sessions relating to the future composition of the COA, but couldn’t determine who was behind the leak.
In another report dealing with the police services board selection committee, Boghosian concluded he couldn’t determine there was an ethics breach through inappropriate disclosure.
The COA is an autonomous committee supported by planning staff that hears applications for land severances and minor variances, such as for additions, decks, parking spaces, setbacks and height. Before its shuffle, it had nine members. Now it has seven.
The PSB, which has seven seats, deals with a range of policing business, including policies and budgeting.
In both reports, Boghosian points out that for some the release of confidential information is “relatively low on the pecking order” of bad councillor behaviour. But publicizing such details about citizens is a “serious breach of one’s duty as an elected official,” he writes.
“It is a form of corruption plain and simple, and should be dealt
with harshly in terms of penalties when it is established.”
‘Derisive comments’
Boghosian’s COA-related report stems from a complaint by selection committee chair Coun. Craig Cassar rooted in correspondence from lawyer Douglas Burns that included details “that could only have been learned” from closed-session talks.
In his missive, Burns raised questions about why longtime COA members weren’t considered for renewed positions.
“It seems to me that excluding applicants simply on the basis that they had possibly already served and been educated with respect to decorum, integrity, and ability simply does not seem reasonable,” wrote the lawyer, who also referred to councillor voting patterns and mentioned five incumbent COA members.
That includes now-ex member David Serwatuk, who told The Spectator he was “the one who actually set forth” to learn why he and other longtime colleagues were cast aside.
“I feel we’re the most competent people to be given an interview to tell you the truth.”
But city politicians “changed the whole script around” by pursuing the ethics probe, Serwatuk argued.
In an attempt to get to the bottom of the disclosure, Boghosian interviewed Serwatuk, councillors on the selection committee and city staff.
Legislative co-ordinator Loren Kolar noted the number of applicants who applied by initial and extended deadlines, and who was interviewed and selected was only to be discussed in closed session or shared via confidential emails. Some information in Burns’s missive was inaccurate, she said, including the claim that no existing COA members were considered or chosen for reappointment as well as remarks about voting patterns.
Boghosian’s inquiry examines Serwatuk’s connection to selection committee member Coun. Tom Jackson.
One day following hearings, some COA members chatted about reappointments and “made derisive comments” about the selection committee, and the “fact that a majority” opposed bringing incumbents back, secretary treasurer Jamila Sheffield said, according to the report.
Serwatuk was the “main speaker and discloser,” and Sheffield “thought” he said Jackson had given him that information, “or she may have inferred that because she believed” that he and the councillor “had a close relationship.”
As for Serwatuk, he “admitted to having made” his comments “but denied they were true,” wrote Boghosian, adding Serwatuk suggested he invented the insider information to rally his COA colleagues.
Further, he insisted he “was just speculating … based on his knowledge” of selection committee members when referring to a purported councillor voting pattern.
At first, Serwatuk “did not deny having a ‘close relationship’” with Jackson but later said he “only knew him casually” from attending city hall, as was the case with other councillors, the report notes.
He “repeatedly denied that anyone” from the selection committee had leaked information to him and he “specifically denied” that Jackson had done so.
Likewise, Jackson said he only knew Serwatuk “casually” and denied having “any personal, professional or business relationship with him,” Boghosian wrote.
“He has no knowledge, information or belief as to whether there was a leak of confidential information or if there was, who was responsible for it.”
Other councillors on the selection committee — Cassar, Cameron Kroetsch, Mark Tadeson, Maureen Wilson and Brad Clark — said they didn’t know who may have leaked the confidential information.
But Boghosian states the “clear inference” is that Serwatuk learned of the selection committee’s dealings from “someone on the inside who was on the side of the incumbent” members and who “disagreed with the majority who were not.”
As well, he says he doesn’t buy that Serwatuk “perhaps simply lied” to COA members to drum up support to complain about the process and suggests he was “untruthful” with him to “protect” his source of information.
Boghosian notes he’s “concerned about the minimalization” by Jackson and Serwatuk “of the nature of their relationship,” based on Sheffield’s evidence, a dim view of the COA member’s “credibility” under examination and the roughly 30 years they have each served at city hall.
“Ultimately, however, I remain without evidence to find on a balance of probabilities that Councillor Jackson disclosed the information set out in the Burns letters.”
‘Strictly his opinion’
In an interview, Serwatuk told The Spectator he disagrees with Boghosian’s findings. “This is strictly his opinion.” The outlook that incumbent COA members wouldn’t make the cut was “common sense,” he said.
That’s based on his observations that a “little clique” of councillors regularly side with each other and the fact that application deadlines were extended.
“So just assumed that we were kiboshed. We were outvoted,” Serwatuk said.
On Jackson, he’s known the east Mountain councillor a long time, but “there’s no information to be leaked from him whatsoever,” Serwatuk said. “I don’t have that kind of conversation with the fellow.”
Asked for comment, Jackson said he stands by what he told Boghosian for his report.
“And I accept the findings and conclusion of the integrity commissioner’s report. That’s all I really have to say,” he told The Spectator.
What now?
Cassar acknowledged that Boghosian’s report “wasn’t entirely conclusive” but said he’s “satisfied” that nothing more can be done.
(Boghosian noted he has the power to examine emails and cellphone records but suggested neither would necessarily shed light on the source of the leak.)
The integrity commissioner did what “he was asked to do to the best of his ability,” Horwath said.
The mayor said she hopes Boghosian’s work serves as a “heads-up” or “signal” to council to take their responsibility of confidentiality seriously.
“Everybody has an individual responsibility to show integrity, their own personal integrity. Everybody has that responsibility.”
Horwath, meanwhile, vouches for the selection committee, saying its members “did a lot of hard work” over the span of months to make appointments, which council has accepted.
Cassar, likewise, defended the selection process, saying its members did their job of reviewing applications “with a high level of integrity.”
Kroetsch said the task involves establishing a “successful committee” based on the skills and abilities of applicants, and if the pool doesn’t present “the right composition,” more applications are sought.
There are new considerations, including an emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion, that weren’t necessarily involved in past deliberations, he noted.