I hope you are all well.
Here in London, Ontario, we've been having issues with a city council where councillors don't get along, and a raft of other problems with the mayor. I won't take your time with details.
A former city council member, Gina Barber, writes a blog titled London Civic Watch and her wisdom on civic issues is always worth reading. Her post today speaks to the juridical meaning of that often-used term "innocent until proven guilty" and to the importance of integrity in elected officials and people in power generally. I hope this gets you thinking.
Best regards, as always,
Why's Woman
Watching the press
conference unfold yesterday, I was glad I had chosen to do my viewing from the
comfort of my own home. Those who crammed into the office of Gord Cudmore where
it was being held on Fullarton Street looked pretty steamed even before the mayor spoke.
And no wonder. The room was packed with reporters, some perspiring heavily. The owner of the building must have received a density bonus, so high was the concentration of the fourth estate.
And no wonder. The room was packed with reporters, some perspiring heavily. The owner of the building must have received a density bonus, so high was the concentration of the fourth estate.
It was, after all, a
momentous occasion, the mayor speaking out for the first time since retaining a
lawyer and since being charged with three criminal offences: breach of public
trust, uttering a forged document, and fraud under $5,000.
I had predicted correctly
that Fontana would hold firm and not step aside despite the
severity of the charges. But I was surprised to hear him say clearly and
several times at that, that he was innocent of all the charges.
It had been a more than a
month since the allegations had surfaced and the RCMP investigation undertaken.
Not once during that time did he make such an unequivocal statement; the best
he had been able to come up with previously was that he believed all
transactions would be found to be proper and that his records showed that a
payment had been made from his personal account to the Marconi Club during the
relevant time frame. Never once did he say “I paid the bill.”
But now, only a day after the
RCMP laid the charges, he and his lawyer were adamant that the Fontana family had paid the bill for the wedding reception
for his stepson and that Fontana
himself was innocent and accordingly would plead not guilty upon his first
court appearance in January.
So what had changed? Why
innocent now and not a month ago? Did being charged jolt his memory? And just
when did the payment for the reception occur? And to whom was the payment made?
These are all questions
awaiting answers, which may not come for some time. Noting that matters proceed
slowly through the courts, Cudmore, Fontana’s lawyer, estimated that it could take a year or so.
In other words, about in time for the next election but not much before.
Cudmore also hinted at the argument that the defence might use when the time
came.
It was his understanding, he
said, that the RCMP had documentation that the Fontana family had paid the outstanding balance of $20,000 or
so. He hadn’t seen the evidence; it was just his understanding. So all that was
in dispute was the $1,700 for the “room deposit” and it seems that there had
been a number of government-related events at the Marconi Club that year. So
maybe, he implied, it was all just a little mix up.
But he wanted these matters
dealt with in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. He wanted the
presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It sounded very noble.
Some people have taken that
mantra to defend Fontana. He should be presumed innocent until proven guilty
in a court of law.
True enough. But the presumption
of innocence is not what guides either police investigations or the holding of
public office. As someone facing criminal charges, the mayor was required to
step down from his position on the Police Services Board. But not from being
the budget chief in charge of a billion dollar budget.
Any teacher facing assault
charges would be removed from her classroom until the allegations were
resolved.
A bank employee charged with
fraud would not be left in charge of client accounts.
A city hall employee alleged
to have interfered with a government investigation found herself
unceremoniously escorted out the door.
Were these violations of the
presumption of innocence?
The presumption of innocence
is a guideline for how matters should be dealt with by the courts; it is not a
recipe for daily action in public or private life. If your daughter or son were
romantically involved with someone facing criminal charges, would you give them
your blessing because you presumed innocence?
The presumption of innocence
means there are rules for disclosure of evidence and the questioning of
witnesses. It governs what evidence is or isn’t admissible according to strict
guidelines. It requires that the finding of guilt must be based on more than just
likelihood; it should be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The concerns that Londoners
have about their mayor is not whether he is guilty of wrongdoing within a
narrow definition of criminal offences, but whether he is acting in an ethical
manner publicly and privately. Can they trust him to put the needs of the city
and its residents ahead of his own and his friends' and family’s interests?
So it’s not just the $1,700
or even $20,000. It’s the millions of dollars that have been taken from taxpayers
to give hefty receipts to “donors” to his private charity. It’s working with
and for individuals who have engaged in shady business practices. It’s being
involved in enterprises that leave investors wondering where their money went.
It’s stacking committees and interpreting rules to produce the outcome that
favours a few at the expenses of the many. It's giving tax breaks now to be
paid by our children later.
How is the public to deal
with those concerns and those questions?
The Municipal Act is ill-equipped
to deal with incompetent or unethical representatives and conflict of interest
is very narrowly defined. The one tool that municipalities have been given is
the right to retain an integrity commissioner, but only a few weeks ago a
majority of council, led by the mayor, turned down that option. Had such a
person been available to council, s/he would not have been able to force the
mayor to step aside, but there could at least have been an investigation and a
report for the public and its representatives. Citizens could have had a voice.
The one thing this council
has done repeatedly is to overturn previous decisions of council. Even its own
decisions. A new council year is about to begin.
Perhaps this next year will
be the year that a few more council members begin to appreciate the importance
of integrity. Perhaps an integrity commissioner will be welcome.
Integrity looks good on
campaign literature.
