The mayor of Casselman, Daniel Lafleur, is accused of having “violated the code of ethics on many occasions”, can we read in the report of the investigation carried out by a firm of lawyers in municipal law on behalf of the commissioner for the integrity of this eastern Ontario municipality.
A special meeting of the Casselman municipal council was held at 2:30 p.m. Thursday, during which elected officials decided whether or not to accept the recommendations made in the two reports of the ethics commissioner.
One targets the current mayor of Casselman and candidate for mayor, Daniel Lafleur. The other concerns the municipal councillor, Mario Laplante.
The advisers chose not to impose the firm’s recommended 90-day salary suspension, the most severe penalty for this type of violation. However, a public apology is expected from the mayor, Daniel Lafleur.
Among other things, they reproached the firm for having consulted neither the mayor nor the councilors during their independent investigation.
With the approval of city council, Casselman’s Integrity Commissioner delegated his investigation to the law firm Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLPwhose offices are at kingston.
The investigation follows a complaint filed on February 7 with the municipality of Casselman, accusing the mayor of repeatedly violating the Code of Ethics, and related policies, over several years
.
Broadly speaking, the complaint accuses the mayor of interference, harassment and abuse (sic) staff and citizens, conflict of interest, and other ethical breaches
reads the section of the report regarding the charges.
The firm states that the complaint is divided into several grounds, each supported by various examples
. In their report, the law firm examined 30 allegations or grounds contained in the complaint against Daniel Lafleur.
The mayor whitewashes on certain points
The mayor of Casselman is cleared of 22 of the 30 allegations analyzed by the law firm, either for insufficient evidence or because the actions cited in the complaint did not constitute a violation of the code of ethics of the municipality.
However, the report accuses Daniel Lafleur of having violated the code of ethics, in particular because he allegedly made remarks that damaged the reputation, overtly sexual and explicit jokes
during a council meeting, and because he allegedly abused of his power to violate the issuance of permits because of a personal matter
.
Several of the offenses involved abusive language or interference by the mayor, which violates Parts VI, VII, and VIII of the code. Each of these examples harm (sic) to the image of the Municipality and its civil servants, to the work climate, and to the reputation of the town hall
decides the report.
For these offenses cited in its report, the law firm suggests a suspension of remuneration for Mayor Lafleur for a period of 30 days and that he apologize publicly at the next regular meeting of the municipal council.
According to the calendar of the municipality of Casselman, the next regular council meeting must take place on Tuesday, August 23.
The firm continues its conclusion by stating that in our opinion, the most serious of the contraventions proven is the interference of the mayor in the permits of a company, for a personal reason
.
Such acts require a sentence that will restore popular confidence in the Municipality, and strongly deter such behavior on the part of any elected official. For this reason, we recommend the maximum penalty of 60 days pay suspension for this breach.
is it indicated.
In total, the report therefore recommends 90 days of suspension of the remuneration of the mayor of Casselman, Daniel Lafleur.
Start of the widget. Skip the widget?End of the widget. Back to top of widget?
This is not the first time that Mr. Lafleur’s behavior has drawn attention. The province had notably criticized him last fall for having held the position of interim chief executive officer and mayor for two months simultaneously, which is contrary to the Ontario Municipalities Act.
This story had forced him to resign from his post, before returning to his duties, after a unanimous vote by the municipal council.
Mr. Lafleur has already announced his intention to stand for re-election in the municipal election this fall. Suzanne Charette is also on the list of candidates registered for the position of mayor.
Municipal lawyer and former councilor Stéphane Émard Chabot considers that the report leaves far too many questions unanswered
.
” The allegations that have been proven are serious. »
Regarding the allegations of illegal meetings, Mr. Émard Chabot finds it strange that no procedure has been initiated. There is a procedure in the law on municipalities, we can file a complaint
, assures the latter. The municipality can indeed appoint an investigator, otherwise the complaint will go directly to the provincial ombudsman.
The lawyer does not know if all this will have an impact on the outcome of the electoral campaign as it is a small municipality. In a larger municipality, I think it would have a heavier weight because the connection is not as personal with the mayor,
he mentions.
A counselor will have to apologize
In addition, municipal councilor Mario Laplante was also the subject of a complaint, also filed on February 7. An investigation was also conducted by the law firm Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP on behalf of the Integrity Commissioner.
The report on him examines six allegations, but only proves one of them.
We only support the allegation that the counselor violated the code of ethics during the June 22 meeting.
when he claimed, in open session, that the civil servants made the decisions and do not listen to the elected officials
can we read in the report.
In its conclusion, the law firm states that it is of the opinion that these remarks do not seriously harm the professional reputation of the staff, and this breach is not particularly serious
.
The choice of words as well as the way of speaking were not appropriate, but do not deserve a severe penalty either. In all circumstances, we recommend that the council require the councilor to publicly apologize to staff for their actions during the meeting in question.
concludes the report.
Start of the widget. Skip the widget?End of the widget. Back to top of widget?
