Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini is firing back at a mayoral candidate who publicly questioned Vagnini's expense claims in the last three years on council.
Bill Crumplin, a Laurentian University professor who ran for the Green Party in the recent provincial election, issued a release last week promising to file a Freedom of Information Request to find out why Vagnini's expenses for meetings, hospitality and office expenses exceeded $20,000, more than $15,000 more than any other candidate.
"What exactly are 'meeting and hospitality' expenses?” Crumplin said in his release. “Mayor (Brian) Bigger believes taxpayers don't deserve to know the details. What we do know is that under the city's expenditure bylaw, meeting and hospitality expenses can include purchasing alcohol with taxpayer money.
"I'm appalled that the mayor hasn't taken action on this matter. If elected, I will immediately revise the city’s expenditure bylaw to ensure that all councillor expenses are truly transparent to the public, and I will amend the bylaw to address politicians’ abilities to purchase alcohol on the taxpayer dime."
In his response, Vagnini wondered why Crumplin has an issue with him meeting with constituents in his geographically large but sparsely populated ward.
“Mr. Crumplin doesn’t mention that with 20 per cent of the roads in the city, I charge no mileage,” Vagnini said in his response. “The average councillor’s mileage cost in 2017 was $2,600 and even the smallest ward charged $2,000. In four years, that amounts to a minimum of $8,000 of the $20,000 Mr. Crumplin has indicated.
“There is nothing secretive or hidden in my expenses. I am very proud of my commitment to the constituents and the openness of those constituents in sharing with me their concerns and aspirations for the city. It’s called communicating. Had Mr. Crumplin contacted me, I (would have been) happy to share with him and anyone else evidence in the form of receipts with dates, subject of the meeting and attendees.”
Vagnini was particularly offended that Crumplin suggested he had done something improper, and pointed out that all expenses are audited and have to qualify under the rules set out in the bylaw. He's hosting townhall meetings next week, Vagnini said, and will bring the details Crumplin said he'd seek in the FOI.
“At these meetings I will be bringing my expenses for the past four years,” Vagnini wrote. “They will be made available to the public to review.”
Full text of Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini's response:
I would like to thank mayoral candidate Bill Crumplin for focusing attention on my commitment to the constituents, not only of Ward 2 but to the entire City of Greater Sudbury. He has brought to the public’s attention that I return 56 per cent of my expense allowance to private and corporate constituents by interfacing with them.
In comparison, he notes that other councillors only return 14 per cent of their expenses by interfacing. Why is it important to Mr. Crumplin that councillors be prevented from interfacing with constituents?
His commitment to the public to amend the bylaw governing councillor expenses is puzzling. Is he accusing me of spending $20,000 inappropriately? A competent auditor would have reviewed my expenses to determine if; the bylaw was adhered to or not, and, most importantly would discuss the audit to get his facts straight before implying, using superficial information, that there has been some wrongdoing.
By not doing due diligence in the matter he continues practices put in place following accusation of workplace harassment. Mr. Crumplin doesn’t mention that with 20 per cent of the roads in the city, I charge no mileage. The average councillor’s mileage cost in 2017 was $2,600 and even the smallest Ward charged $2,000. In four years, that amounts to a minimum of $8,000 of the $20,000 Mr. Crumplin has indicated. Instead, that expense amount is invested in meetings with constituents, a fact that any number of constituents can attest to.
As a competent auditor he should also note that there are no facilities at the Tom Davies Square where councillors can interface with constituents on matters requiring privacy. Space provided to councillors consists of three cubicles in a common room with no privacy protection.
Is it part of a secret agenda of Mr. Crumplin to cut off constituent input to councillors? He should be more open and transparent in what his intentions are in making the statements that defame others.
There is nothing secretive or hidden in my expenses. I am very proud of my commitment to the constituents and the openness of those constituents in sharing with me their concerns and aspirations for the city. It’s called communicating. Had Mr. Crumplin contacted me, I am happy to share with him and anyone else evidence in the form of receipts with dates, subject of the meeting and attendees.
He should have known that all councillor expenses are vetted by the finance office to ensure compliance. There have been no improprieties in engaging with any constituents. Did he bother to find out if I was out of compliance anywhere?
It is apparent that Mr. Crumplin has not read the Municipal Act of Ontario. The Act defines the job descriptions of councillors and mayor. The mayor does not revise bylaws.
That is the job of council and they provide direction to the mayor to have the city prepare, implement and enforce those bylaws at his direction as directed by council.
As far as filing a Freedom of Information request regarding my expenses, Mr. Crumplin should know that someone has already done so either before him or for him. Here again, Mr. Crumplin, being a former auditor would be more fiscally responsible if he simply asked me for the information. I have worked for more than 35 years in the financial world with compliance requirements beyond what most people can even imagine. All expenditures are under a microscope to protect clients.
Mr. Crumplin, as a former auditor and with my profession well known, should have known this before implying that I am doing something improper.
If elected, is he going to be equally eager to spend tax dollars chasing non-issues when simple answers are readily available and going off on tangents to satisfy his own secret agendas? Does he not understand the simple concept of talking to people?
I look forward to and would be happy to discuss with Mr. Crumplin any of my expenses to save the taxpayers any additional costs related to the issue.
Starting next week, I will be posting our townhall meetings across the ward. At these meetings I will be bringing my expenses for the past four years. They will be made available to the public to review.
I will also bring a copy of the electoral issues that we are dealing with from across the Ward. When we initially did our 28 townhall meetings across the Ward for the first election in 2014, we had 38 electoral issues. Today we have over 160 and we have dealt with more than 65. These do not include our day to day issues such as roads, pot holes, street lights, snow removal, etc. I will also be talking about the three key levers for the next four years.
- For every dollar we spend above the ground on nice projects (wants) we need to spend five dollars in the ground for our roads and infrastructure (necessities).
- I will be bringing a motion forward to have a moratorium on development charges for the next two years. We need to stimulate our economic growth and development.
- I will lobby hard to do away with our top down budget and go back to a bottom up approach from a zero cost dollar base. I will be expanding my thought process on these three key levers as we go forward before the next election.
