Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article said that Coun. Stevenson was concerned about the group’s failure to serve her by way of affidavit. It has been updated to reflect her concern was over a failure to formally request a written response from her before the draft report was completed.
When she responded on Nov. 8, it was to highlight her concerns with the process itself and the group’s failure to serve her by way of affidavit.
London city council has voted 9-6 to accept the integrity commissioner’s recommendation to formally reprimand Coun. Susan Stevenson over a social media post that included photographs of people believed to be homeless and commentary mentioning drug use and violence.
The post to X, formerly Twitter, on Sept. 23 came as the integrity commissioner was already in the midst of an investigation into another social media post about homelessness from Stevenson in July. That case involved her sharing an article that included suggestions to arrest anyone refusing supports to get off the streets.
While the integrity commissioner found the July social media post did not breach the code of conduct, they found that the Sept. 23 posts did constitute discreditable conduct under Section 7.1 for a failure to treat members of the public appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation. They recommended a formal reprimand in their final report dated Dec. 8.
On Tuesday, the report went to full council, which saw the majority of councillors voting to accept the commissioner’s recommendation to issue a formal reprimand. The six councillors who voted against it, including Stevenson herself, largely raised concerns unrelated to her conduct but focused on the investigative process and, in the case of Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen, chalked it up to the mistake of a rookie councillor.
Get breaking National news
Many of the nine councillors who voted for the formal reprimand mentioned that Stevenson had failed to show any remorse for her post, with some noting that a formal reprimand is a minor consequence when considering that other potential repercussions include fines or removal from boards.
As of Tuesday afternoon, the post in question was still available on X. It included three separate photos that appeared to show individuals who are homeless, including some whose faces were visible. The photos were accompanied by the text “NOW let’s address the problem. The needles, the feces, the garbage, the encampments, the open drug use, the erratic and violent behaviour, the CRIME, the VANDALISM… the lack of safety.”
Repeatedly during council, Stevenson said the integrity commissioner failed to follow the proper protocol to notify her of the second batch of complaints or the names of the complainants, or send an email notifying her that a second investigation had been launched. She noted she has no issues with the process for the first round of complaints.
“That protocol is there for a reason. To ensure that the public and councillors can have a full opportunity to make their case and find a constructive resolution,” she said, adding in her remarks to her colleagues that accepting the report’s recommendations implies acceptance of the process and that “any councillor can wake up one day to find they have breached the code of conduct.”
Janice Atwood of Principles Integrity, which conducted the investigations, admitted that the protocol was not followed to the letter but also noted that the group believes London’s policy is “unworkable” in a practical sense and requires updating.
She told councillors that it is of her and her colleague Jeff Abrams’ belief that if Stevenson’s concern was a lack of notice, “she certainly was given that opportunity (to respond) before the investigation was completed.”
Principles Integrity claims Abrams spoke with Stevenson about the latter complaints in person on Sept. 28 because he was attending council for training that day anyway. In her own submissions to council, Stevenson said their conversation that day “was not material to this apparent investigation.”
However, even Stevenson’s submissions show that when the group provided her with a draft report on Oct. 27, they gave her two weeks to respond, until Nov. 10. When she responded on Nov. 8, it was to highlight her concerns with the process itself and the group’s failure to serve her with a request for a written response before completing its draft report.
On Nov. 10, Principles Integrity responded, mentioning her conversation with Abrams and the fact that she was copied on some of the complaints. They also then offered to give her until Nov. 27 to provide any additional thoughts.
On Nov. 27, Stevenson again responded outlining her objections to the process itself.
Throughout Tuesday’s council meeting, Mayor Josh Morgan had to remind councillors that their job is simply to accept the report and its recommendations or not.
“I certainly understand the difficult position that many colleagues are feeling on this particular item, given the strong temptation to try to support a colleague’s call for procedural fairness. The challenge we have is that is not our goal as a council. We have contracted an integrity commissioner to do the investigation, to produce a finding and to recommend or not a sanction,” he said.
“If the report is flawed in any way, that has to be determined through the ombudsman or superior court.”
In all, councillors Jerry Pribil, Van Meerbergen, Steven Hillier, Steve Lehman, Stevenson and Sam Trosow voted against the motion to accept the recommendation of a formal reprimand.
Comments