Skip to content

Leduc calls for city’s integrity commissioner to be fired

City of Greater Sudbury integrity commissioner David Boghosian tabled a report in response to a complaint regarding Leduc’s cellphone use, prompting Leduc to call for his firing
300424_tc_arena_referendum
Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc, pictured during a recent city council meeting, is calling for his colleagues to terminate the city’s agreement with integrity commissioner David Boghosian, with the 180 days’ notice required.

For investigating his cellphone expenses, Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc is calling for the firing of city integrity commissioner David Boghosian.

In a motion tabled for the May 28 city council meeting, Leduc alleges Boghosian “is using his power to harass members of council during his investigations and when presenting his reports.”

The investigation into Leduc’s cellphone use was prompted by a complaint from a member of the public who requested anonymity. Boghosian’s investigation, also tabled for the May 28 meeting, ended up concluding that Leduc had not breached the city’s Code of Conduct.

Boghosian pursued the complaint long after it should have been shot down, Leduc alleges in his motion’s preamble, which notes Boghosian “chose to pursue further questions and bring forward the report to council, which is not required when a complaint is dismissed, incurring additional costs.”

Wrong on both accounts, Boghosian told Sudbury.com.

The integrity commissioner denied pursuing further questions after deciding to dismiss the complaint (“I do not understand where the councillor got that from,” he said), and clarified that he was required to bring the report forward to city council.

The city’s Code of Conduct stipulates that the integrity commissioner “shall” issue a report to city council at the conclusion of a complaint investigation (Section 21 [10]).

“The only circumstances where I am not to report to Council is if I do not conduct an investigation because I find the Complaint is not within my jurisdiction,” Boghosian said. “Even in the case of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, it is within my discretion whether to do a report to Council advising of this

Boghosian’s office received the complaint on April 22, according to the report, alleging Leduc had breached the code of conduct.

At question were Leduc’s cellular phone charges, which totalled $2,188 in 2022, which made up approximately 22 per cent of the $9,913 for all 12 members, far exceeding the average of $702.

In 2023, Leduc incurred a cellular phone charge of $1,613, which was 30 per cent of city council’s total expenditure that year of $5,440.

Bolstering Leduc’s cellular phone charges were roaming charges due to his spending the winters in the United States.

“While Coun. Leduc’s cellphone expenses are quite high relative to all other members of Council, driven by roaming charges owing to the fact that Coun. Leduc resides out of the country for a portion of the year, his overall expenses are only fourth highest amongst the 12 councillors,” according to Boghosian’s report. 

“I also note that there is no limit on how much councillors can incur in cellphone expenses on their City-issued cellphones, unlike other expense items in respect of which there are limits.”

Council might consider placing a limit on cellphone expenses, but as it stands, Boghosian concluded, there is no misconduct.

Leduc has butted heads with the integrity commissioner in the past. 

In October 2023, Boghosian censured Leduc for “objectionable and impertinent” comments against residents, and for erroneously claiming they filed “tampered evidence” against him in relation to a 2022 election finances complaint which has yet to reach its conclusion through the Election Compliance Audit Committee.

The following month, a unanimous city council agreed with Boghosian to suspend Leduc’s pay for 30 days following his conduct at a public meeting, at which he shared personal information about a city staff member. Boghosian summarized Leduc’s comments as aiming to “maliciously, reckless or negligently injured the professional reputations of the two City employees he ‘outed.’”

Leduc lashed out against Boghosian at the time for mistakenly indicating in earlier emailed correspondence that he was facing a 10-day suspension, which Boghosian later clarified should have read 30. “He’s supposed to be a professional,” Leduc said at the time.

Terminating the city’s agreement with Boghosian would include 180 days’ notice.

The May 28 city council meeting begins at 6 p.m. and can be viewed in-person at Tom Davies Square or livestreamed by clicking here

Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Tyler Clarke

About the Author: Tyler Clarke

Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
Read more