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.
One example that I just thought of is Horsfield's claim at the council meeting that: there was more harassment after all this.
Unless she provides specific evidence to the public or files yet another investigation, aren't these public statements unfounded based on her personal beliefs of what harassment is?
Her comments the other night could be construed as impacting Inch's reputation negatively based on accusations that have never been substantiated or prove (the extra harassment she refers to).
Hey Dave. Thanks for reading this and giving your thoughts. I agree with your statement that councillors should use "civility". I think the problem is the term"civility" will be interpreted in any different ways. I will admit that if I received some of those comments in email, I may find them patronizing but I wouldn't consider them lacking civility.
If we accept that a single commissioner can make a judgement on the intent of a statement like "some who may be distracted by changes in their personal lives". And unanimously decide that this must have been in relation to one single person and specifically about her pregnancy. Then we go down a slippery slope.
On your point of the Facebook post. I don't know how it could possibly be proven untrue. Inch was simply venting a frustration. Even if its proven that they emailed her 50 times, if her belief is that she is not being communicated with adequately, then whatever. Let the opposing party provide their side. But the commission ruled that Inch could not make unfounded statements about her "perceived beliefs". That brings us down another slippery slope if you cannot express your belief about something.
Beliefs still need to have a foundation of proof, otherwise it's unsubstantiated and misinformation. It's a flawed system, but I think the idea behind Integrity Commissioners is to avoid court action, which costs a lot more.
Her exact quote "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.”
You believe this could qualify as misinformation?
The integrity commissioner doesn't prevent a court case in this entire ordeal. Because none of these weak accusations would ever amount to anything in a court. We both know it. No one would spend their own money on a frivolous case like this.
It did misrepresent the situation. All her requests were answered and she was given all kinds of information. Alleging that the deputy mayor was "taking direction" is probably the most disparaging part. Yes, of course, it wouldn't amount to anything in court but do you believe it was fair play to put that into the public (when there was no real issue getting info when asked)? I'm all for being able to speak openly but you should be able to defend it with proof when questioned. On this point, Sara left herself open to scrutiny and Maggie had the receipts to disprove it. Without it, the other complaints don't amount to much.
I agree that it was likely not a fair statement. And yes Horsfield was able to prove her point.
But isn’t that the nature of politics in Canada today. How can we police that?
Both of us could find 100 similar statements made by Canadian politicians every single day (i.e. X is ignoring Canadians. X is abandoning health care workers.)
I think if you go into politics you have to expect this type of unfair statements. If you start investigating them you could literally spend millions in each city.
Unfair is not the same as criminal or even slander. Courts have set a bar for slander and I don’t think any of these statements would meet that threshold even if they were misrepresentative.
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.
I wouldn't expect anything less from a radical ideologue. Perhaps we need to fight fire with fire. Councillor Inch needs to use the same system to investigate Councillor Horsfield concerning her bullying and harassment tactics. Also, how does a month long investigation cost $36,000! ? That itself needs to be investigated.
Totally agree. It certainly is exorbitant. Rational people tend not to misuse the system this way. However we are in a culture war where it seems common sense is not common now. Exposing the hypocrisy may be Councillor Inch's only defense in the future to protect her freedom of speech.
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.
One example that I just thought of is Horsfield's claim at the council meeting that: there was more harassment after all this.
Unless she provides specific evidence to the public or files yet another investigation, aren't these public statements unfounded based on her personal beliefs of what harassment is?
Her comments the other night could be construed as impacting Inch's reputation negatively based on accusations that have never been substantiated or prove (the extra harassment she refers to).
Sara has the option of requesting an investigation, I guess, although Maggie might be able to substantiate her allegation.
Great... Two more $36,000 investigations.
Hey Dave. Thanks for reading this and giving your thoughts. I agree with your statement that councillors should use "civility". I think the problem is the term"civility" will be interpreted in any different ways. I will admit that if I received some of those comments in email, I may find them patronizing but I wouldn't consider them lacking civility.
If we accept that a single commissioner can make a judgement on the intent of a statement like "some who may be distracted by changes in their personal lives". And unanimously decide that this must have been in relation to one single person and specifically about her pregnancy. Then we go down a slippery slope.
On your point of the Facebook post. I don't know how it could possibly be proven untrue. Inch was simply venting a frustration. Even if its proven that they emailed her 50 times, if her belief is that she is not being communicated with adequately, then whatever. Let the opposing party provide their side. But the commission ruled that Inch could not make unfounded statements about her "perceived beliefs". That brings us down another slippery slope if you cannot express your belief about something.
Beliefs still need to have a foundation of proof, otherwise it's unsubstantiated and misinformation. It's a flawed system, but I think the idea behind Integrity Commissioners is to avoid court action, which costs a lot more.
Her exact quote "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.”
You believe this could qualify as misinformation?
The integrity commissioner doesn't prevent a court case in this entire ordeal. Because none of these weak accusations would ever amount to anything in a court. We both know it. No one would spend their own money on a frivolous case like this.
It did misrepresent the situation. All her requests were answered and she was given all kinds of information. Alleging that the deputy mayor was "taking direction" is probably the most disparaging part. Yes, of course, it wouldn't amount to anything in court but do you believe it was fair play to put that into the public (when there was no real issue getting info when asked)? I'm all for being able to speak openly but you should be able to defend it with proof when questioned. On this point, Sara left herself open to scrutiny and Maggie had the receipts to disprove it. Without it, the other complaints don't amount to much.
I agree that it was likely not a fair statement. And yes Horsfield was able to prove her point.
But isn’t that the nature of politics in Canada today. How can we police that?
Both of us could find 100 similar statements made by Canadian politicians every single day (i.e. X is ignoring Canadians. X is abandoning health care workers.)
I think if you go into politics you have to expect this type of unfair statements. If you start investigating them you could literally spend millions in each city.
Unfair is not the same as criminal or even slander. Courts have set a bar for slander and I don’t think any of these statements would meet that threshold even if they were misrepresentative.
I share some of your concerns on the muting impact this will have on political discourse.
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.
Thanks Dan.
Great reporting Rejean. Keep it up!
Thanks!
I wouldn't expect anything less from a radical ideologue. Perhaps we need to fight fire with fire. Councillor Inch needs to use the same system to investigate Councillor Horsfield concerning her bullying and harassment tactics. Also, how does a month long investigation cost $36,000! ? That itself needs to be investigated.
You raise good points. I tend to agree with Inch's assessment that it's not a good use of taxpayer funds. Hopefully the public will see that as well.
Totally agree. It certainly is exorbitant. Rational people tend not to misuse the system this way. However we are in a culture war where it seems common sense is not common now. Exposing the hypocrisy may be Councillor Inch's only defense in the future to protect her freedom of speech.