Social media posts critical of city staff and a $5 landfill user fee has landed Ward 7 Coun. Natalie Labbée and Ward 5 Coun. Mike Parent in hot water with the city integrity commissioner.
In a report tabled for the Nov. 12 city council meeting, David Boghosian concludes that both elected officials breached the city’s Code of Conduct.
Pending the results of a city council vote next week, Boghosian recommends that Parent not face any financial penalties and that Labbée should receive a five-day suspension of pay.
At issue is a social media post Parent made on June 3 and Labbée’s public support for it.
Among other things, Parent’s post notes that the $5 gate fee was “slipped into a line item on page 633 of our 670-page budget binder.”
Boghosian’s report centred on this line, noting that the notion something was “slipped” into the budget has negative connotations of underhanded actions on the part of city staff.
“By stating that the landfill gate fee was slipped into the budget, Coun. Parent eroded the authority of council by implying that passing the budget, or at least that particular line item, was done in error, when in fact he had no basis for purporting to speak on behalf of all of members of council in asserting that they had been misled,” Boghosian’s report concludes.
Labbée’s response was more critical of staff, asserting the gate fee was another example of staff “forget(ting) to inform council, that she has ‘no trust’ in city staff and that she is frustrated about being ‘blindsided over and over.’”
“This is the second complaint in a row that I have investigated involving Coun. Labbée and Parent where it appears that while Coun. Parent has skirted close to the line of proper v. improper conduct, and perhaps a little over it, Coun. Labbée seems to be unaware of where that line is at all,” Boghosian reported.
This is in reference to Boghosian’s previous Code of Conduct investigation into Labbée’s response to comments regarding then-CEO Ed Archer in which she reported to have been blindsided by last year’s wage hikes afforded to certain non-union staff. Where Labbée’s public comments were considered by Boghosian to be “egregious” violations of the city’s Code of Conduct in this past case, Parent’s comments did not breach municipal rules.
In the current case regarding the $5 gate fee, Labbée’s comments are not respectful of city staff, Boghosian concluded.
“Based on these comments, employees may feel concerned about assembling future budgets or documents on which council will vote,” Boghosian notes, adding that the information in question was, in fact, shared with city council members during budget deliberations.
“It is the role of staff to prepare budgets and the role of council to review and vote on budgets. Had Coun. Labbée spent more time reviewing the question and answer documents prepared by staff, she would have been alerted to the proposed new landfill gate fee.”
Labbée’s comments “impugn the trustworthiness of city staff as a whole,” Boghosian added. “When read as a whole, Council Labbée seems to imply that staff deceived council about the gate fee and that they may have done so with respect to other matters as well.”
The Ward 7 city council member’s comments “undermine the trust and confidence in the decision-making process of council,” Boghosian added, noting that the city’s social media policy “explicitly prohibits engaging in criticism of municipal staff via social media,” which is “exactly what Coun. Labbée has done.”
“Coun. Labbée should have known that council had been informed of the gate fees via the Nov. 23, 2023, Question and Answer document,” Boghosian said. “By posting comments which she ought to have known was misleading or false,” she violated municipal policy.
Although he concluded that both Parent and Labbée breached municipal rules, Boghosian’s report also takes aim at city staff.
“I agree with both councillors that the manner in which the Landfill Gate Fee was introduced into the budget was inappropriate given the fact it had been the subject of a business case in 2022 which council had deferred,” he said, noting that “it was reasonable” for city council members to expect that any re-introduction of the user fee would be accompanied by an updated business case.
Instead, it was included in the city’s base budget with a blanket explanation that user fees were affected to bring the budget in line with city council’s expectations.
Plus, city council directed staff to suggest ways to balance the budget without introducing new user fees in a motion Archer told Sudbury.com at the time reaffirmed the work staff were already doing and would in no way affect how city administration approached the 2024-25 budget preparations, effectively rendering it redundant.
The $5 gate fee was, in fact, a new user fee.
Per Boghosian’s interpretation, city staff should not have interpreted the motion as redundant.
“I understand that under the guidance of the mayor, new procedures have since been introduced into the budget deliberation process to ensure this type of oversight does not happen again,” Boghosian reported.
That said, the integrity commissioner clarified that while there “is certainly blame to be placed on staff for not flagging the landfill gate fee more clearly,” and “perhaps even effectively going against the direction of council in introducing a new landfill gate fee into the budget,” it doesn’t excuse either city council member’s public comments.
In his response to Boghosian’s report, Parent laid out his argument that a business case should have been re-tabled for city council’s consideration during 2024-25 budget deliberations.
Labbée’s much lengthier response questioned why the complaint was being investigated to begin with, and reaffirmed her prior social media posts by saying that “forgetting to inform council” was “the most professional way I could convey that message without crossing the line.”
The anonymous complaint was “retaliatory in nature,” she wrote. “Plain and simple.”
“I believe that this complaint has come as a result of a targeted smear campaign to attempt to discredit and silence Coun. Parent and myself, unfortunately,” she said, cautioning that it will also make other members weary about commenting in the future.
“Council is just supposed to stay silent and not question why it happened that way and then be made to look incompetent or negligent in reviewing budget materials instead?” she wrote in her statement, which also argued that implementing the fee should have come down to a business case.
The complaints against Parent and Labbée were submitted anonymously, which prior direction by city council said should only be granted in extenuating circumstances.
In September, Boghosian recommended that Labbée face a 20-day suspension in pay for other Code of Conduct violations he concluded she was guilty of in a separate case.
At the time, city council voted to let her off with a reprimand rather than suspensions in pay.
Mayor Paul Lefebvre told Sudbury.com at the time that the fact it was a first-time offence factored heavily into their decision against a financial penalty.
In response, Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc filed a $29,500 lawsuit against the city claiming unfair treatment for being docked 30 days’ pay for alleged Code of Conduct breaches last year, flagging recent inconsistent city council action on levying financial penalties.
City council members are slated to vote during their Nov. 12 meeting on whether to levy a five-day pay suspension against Labbée.
The meeting can be viewed in-person at Tom Davies Square or livestreamed by clicking here. The public portion is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
