North Bay's $36,000 Witch Hunt
LGBT dispute leads to costly Integrity Commissioner investigation.
Last week residents of North Bay found out that they were on the hook for a $36,000 investigation to settle a minor dispute between two councillors. North Bay’s Integrity Commissioner released a 38-page report outlining why Councillor Inch was guilty for two sentences she sent by email and one sentence she posted on Facebook.
I read the media articles on this topic and I assumed there must be more to the story. We are told that this is just a simple case of bullying and inappropriate comments. We are told that only one party is to blame.
But that is far from the reality. This was a $36,000 taxpayer-funded witch hunt against another elected official who dared to share opinions contrary to the forced consensus on social justice causes.
As per the report, this whole fiasco started when a council email thread began in January 2023 discussing the need for LGBT training. According to Councillor Sara Inch, the LGBT conversation began after a disagreement that she and Deputy Mayor Maggie Horsfield had over Inch’s social media post.
In an online post, Inch expressed her feelings about Kayla Lemieux whom she described as “a trans women teacher who has since been revealed to be a fake”.
Kayla Lemieux who identifies as a trans women, made international headlines earlier this year for insisting on wearing overly large prosthetic breasts as a high school teacher. After telling the Toronto Sun that her breasts were real it was revealed that in fact she did not appear to wear these other than in the classroom. Her case prompted widespread protests from parents who didn’t think that her prosthetics were appropriate in the presence of their children.
Inch noted that Horsfield posted a comment on the her social media post (about Lemieux) “calling her out” and reprimanding her on the platform by saying, “your platform matters, transgender people are already marginalized.”
Then in an email to Horsfield, Councillor Inch stated the following:
“Please know I am not transphobic. I am trying to create dialogue which is important in a democracy. I don't agree with marketing and capitalist ideals of what a woman is. I make issue with overly sexualized representations. I've given birth, nursed children, buried my parents. To me being a woman is much much more than appearances. You must have some personal experience for my post to have triggered you and you are welcome to share, maybe [sic] you don't. We have to get along. I think it's a good thing so many different strong women are on Council. Sometimes we do things for a result. The means justifies the ends. I doubt you'll agree with me. You are young and starting life. Give yourself 15—20 years and maybe you'll understand.”
Horsfield is a strong partner of the LGBT and pride community. She customizes her social media profile photo with the LGBT ideology colours year-round and frequently posts about local pride events.
Hosefield’s response to Inch back in January was:
“I do not to sit idly by when statements are made about marginalized groups.”
Inch hasn’t shied away from sharing her views on the controversial trans debates. In a March 24th, 2023 post she stated:
It matters that Kayla Lemieux mocked the female form in a classroom with real girls going through puberty, girls who were only beginning to become comfortable with their bodies, who may be bullied and mocked for their real curves.
Gender politics and trans rights are complicated. Even gay rights are involved. Because are we saying its wrong to be a boy, who's slightly effeminate according to stereotypes, who starts to like boys? That they should transition?
I hope science can catch up. Until then I will embrace people as people, and continue to look to protect womens spaces.
Witch Hunt Begins
After the apparent deviation from the LGBT orthodoxy by Inch, Horsfield began filing complaints to the integrity commissioner.
Inch’s first crime: Ageism…
Horsfield claimed that Inch’s specific comment of “Give yourself 15—20 years and maybe you'll understand” was ageist towards her. Inch refuted this claim and when she defended herself with the commissioner she stated that the context was around her personal beliefs that “the experience of being a woman solidifies and changes as we age.”
This battle didn’t let up though.
A few weeks later, Horsfield would submit another accusation to be investigated by the commissioner. In February, Inch emailed council about her concerns about the formation of a new CAO hiring committee. In her email Inch made this seemingly innocuous statement:
“leaving the selection of the new CAO to a new member of the community, someone else with long standing business ties in the community, and some who may be distracted by changes in their personal lives, all of whom may be unknowingly and unfairly influenced by the amount of time they are required to spend with staff, is something that needs correction.”
This new committee was formed of four members so Inch’s comments could vaguely be interpreted to apply to anyone of them. But Horsfield claimed that this sentence was “discriminatory on the basis of family status and pregnancy”
This sentence was not made publicly and Inch did not make any mention of pregnancy or Horsfield whatsoever but the Deputy Mayor viewed her remarks as “highly offensive and insulting”.
Then the same week, Horsfield submitted a third accusation to be investigated by the taxpayer-funded commissioner. This time she had issues with a post on Facebook where Councillor Inch stated:
“When I accepted the role of vice chair for general governance I assumed I would be included in the process. Instead I had to make multiple requests of the mayor and chair (who I feel was taking direction here) and senior staff to get any kind of information.”
Horsfield claimed that Inch’s post included “false and unfounded statements about Inch’s perceived beliefs”. Again, Inch did not slander anyone or mention someone’s inabilities. She simply expressed her frustration with other politicians whom she believed were not being upfront with her and the public.
Even though Inch apologized by email, Horsfield claimed that this did not repair the “reputational damage” she suffered. She also told the commissioner that these words “caused her mental distress and affected her personal dignity”.
After a lengthy investigation with the full cooperation of Horsfield and interviews with Mayor Peter Chirico*, the commissioner ruled that Inch was guilty on all three counts.
*The amount of time the deputy mayor and the mayor spent on this case is not included in the $36,000 tab.
At a special council meeting held last Thursday, councillors decided that this democratically elected councillor should lose her pay for three months. The meeting itself is very disturbing and sheds a light on the free speech problem at city hall.
At the meeting Inch apologizes for any perceived insults but then gets cut off repeatedly and muted for simply stating that she has also experienced similar comments (I bet every elected official in Canada has). Mayor Chirico is very strict with Inch and appears to treat her unfairly. She is not allowed any opinion or statements to defend herself while other councillors are given free reign on sympathizing with Horsfield or condemning Inch. She even tries to suggest that her lost pay be donated to the homeless, a cause she has advocated for as councillor, but Chirico states it is not up for discussion.
In social media posts ahead of the meeting last week, Sara Inch confirmed that she has been subject to insults and inappropriate comments from councillors but did not believe it was an effective use of taxpayer dollars to spend $36,000 to address personal disagreements.
During my first months on City Council I was insulted, yelled at, harassed, singled-out, and snubbed. Negative and unwelcome comments around my marital status, my past relationship, my chosen profession, and my appearance were made by others at council. This behavior was witnessed by others and they sat and did nothing.
As stewards of municipal tax dollars, it is our responsibility to ensure their judicious use. The expenses incurred in this process highlight the need for open communication and understanding among council members.
I firmly believe that a simple conversation could have reconciled this matter, avoiding unnecessary financial burden on the citizens of North Bay.
“Déja Vu” for North Bay, West Nipssing & Canada
Prominent North Bay city hall critic Don Rennick claimed that this Inch-Horsfield issue is “Déja Vu” in North Bay. In his recent Letter to the BayToday he insinuated that North Bay has a history of attempting to silence dissenting voices:
This week, we witnessed another council member recognizing issues within City Hall and attempting to instigate change. Regrettably, much like Mr. Lawlor's (a former councillor) experience, Councillor Inch's efforts are encountering resistance from the establishment. - Don Rennick
Former Deputy Mayor Sheldon Forgette expressed similar frustrations with the use of the integrity commissioner as a tool to penalize opponents.
We're elected to serve the public, to have difficult conversations to advance the business of our people. If we can't have difficult conversations, if members are fearful to have frank conversations out of fear of the integrity commissioner, how do they do their job to the best of all their abilities? - Former Deputy Mayor of North Bay, Sheldon Forgette
In Canada, codes of conduct are increasingly being used to silence dissenting voices. In West Nipissing earlier this year, Councillor Fern Pellerin was found guilty for simply signing a petition along with hundreds of his constituents that wanted council to reexamine the board of a local nursing home.
In Oshawa, an elected School Board trustee was prevented from attending meetings and penalized by it’s code of conduct because she questioned gender ideology in schools in a Facebook post.
There’s no way to describe these latest investigations other than as witch hunts.
In this Inch-Horsfield case, some of the dialogue could be perceived as offensive however it is far from criminal. And we have never historically penalized elected officials for simply saying mean things in emails or on Facebook.
North Bay taxpayers, if this is the standard expected of your elected officials, then the Integrity Commissioner tab will skyrocket very quickly and your tax dollars will pay for it. This latest months-long investigation into three sentences cost $36,000. How much will the next one cost?
The West Nip Voice is a regular newsletter covering issues in West Nipissing and the surrounding area. Please consider becoming a subscriber.
I agree with some of your points but there is one thing that needs correcting, the complaint to the Integrity Commissioner was filed in one document March 15, not a sequential series as you represented. Elected officials should be allowed to state their opinions in public and in emails to other councillors, civilly of course. You didn't address the part about the Facebook post being proven untrue, there were a number of email receipts that showed Inch was in fact getting information and had access to staff when requested. Of course, it shouldn't take a $36K investigation to figure out there are boundaries and accuracy when making allegations is important. The other complaints would hold even less water without that post being offside. My opinion. Otherwise, nice to see you doing this blog and I liked the piece about the West Nip integrity decision. I agree, councillors should have the right to continue to disagree after a decision is made. That expectation in a code of conduct is wrong and one of the chief reasons why I didn't run for council myself.
Terrific Rejean, I would not have been aware of this had you not covered it. This is a very useful frame to understand not only this incident but the kind of tactics/politics that will color all municipal business. If our politicians fold on speech, debate and keeping an open forum for working through problems there is simply democratic process.