First off, let us agree that none of us is perfect. To err is human, to forgive divine. But, there is also a double standard when it comes to our elected representatives. We expect our politicians to act on our behalf and understand our concerns but we also expect them to be just a bit better than us. We hold them to a higher standard. When politicians err, the mases are not always ready to forgive, even when the offenders utter “mea culpa.”
Two recent cases of area politicians behaving badly are still top of mind. The matters are very different, but in the court of public opinion, the juries, i.e. the citizens, are still out on whether the penalties were appropriate.
Both Cornwall Councillor Carilyne Hébert and North Stormont Councillor Adrian Bugelli apologized for breaking their respective municipal codes of conduct.
In August, Cornwall members voted 10-1 to reject Integrity Commissioner Tony Fleming’s recommendation that Hébert’s pay be suspended for 90 days after he found that she had breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) related to her role as Executive Director of the Social Development Council (SDC). The councillor used her position to try to influence council’s approval of public money for the SDC. “If we don’t get the funding, I’m out of a job.” Hébert allegedly said that to a colleague at a January 29 meeting where council would ultimately agree to a funding request. She had earlier contacted approximately 20 organizations, asking them to express support for her employer.
Meanwhile, Bugelli received a 30-day salary suspension after North Stormont council accepted the township’s integrity commissioner’s finding that he breached its code of conduct by being intoxicated and becoming involved in two fights at the official opening of the Moose Creek recreational hall September 30, 2023. He did not start the altercations, which were captured by security cameras, but conceded he ought to have tried to stop the skirmishes.
In accepting his punishment, Bugelli was contrite.
“My actions that evening were not acceptable. I specifically want to apologize to Moose Creek Rec volunteers for putting myself in a situation that distracted from the evening’s celebrations of their hard work. I’ve learned from this mistake. For those who know me best, my family, friends, my colleagues, this was a mistake on my part but it was an isolated event and I will make sure this is not repeated in the future.”
The Ontario Provincial Police agreed that he had not instigated the incidents. Yet, he said, “I accept my failure in not de-escalating. I should have never put myself in that situation. I hope my colleagues in the community will accept my apologies from last September’s events and can see the work that I’ve done and will continue to do to regain your trust and respect. It starts now, by accepting responsibility, accepting the consequences, and doing better.“His colleagues quickly accepted the commissioner’s recommendation and agreed to dock his pay.
Meanwhile, Hébert enjoyed the support of almost all of her colleagues. This was an isolated case. She had declared a conflict of interest when the SDC was discussed at the council table in the past. “It was never my intention to undermine the trust that my colleagues or the people of Cornwall have placed in me. I now understand how my actions might be perceived as an attempt to influence the vote, and I apologize for any misunderstanding,” Hébert said.
A respected member of council and of the community, Hébert said she is sorry. Case closed.
But many people worry about the precedent, agreeing with Councillor Dean Hollingsworth who observed: “If we just say an apology is good enough, it sends the wrong message to the public.”
Both Hébert and Bugelli demonstrated bad judgement, in very public fashion. Hébert obviously had a pecuniary interest in the funding request that was before council. And she made no attempt to conceal her efforts to get the money, which would save her job.
On the other hand, Bugelli’s judgement was impaired by alcohol.
Cut him some slack, you might say. He is not the first person to get tanked and engage in fisticuffs in public. But he is not just any other person.
The township’s code of conduct states no member can be impaired while performing municipal duties. Since he made a speech at the event, Bugelli was there as a councillor, not as a private citizen.
Public organizations have guidelines on how representatives are supposed to behave. The mere existence of such rules reflects the reality that imperfect humans cannot be expected to do the right thing all the time.
These codes are occasionally tweaked. For example, Ontario school boards were required to update their rules.
The Upper Canada District School Board says its refreshed code “now explicitly outlines the professional expectations of Board members when acting in the role of trustee.” Says chair Jamie Schoular, “I believe that trustees have already been acting in the spirit of this updated Code of Conduct. However, our Code of Conduct is now more clearly defined. These enhancements are welcomed by trustees and the process served as a great review as we head into this new school year.” The board’s code contains the usual clauses on comportment and responsibility. But there is a curious phrase: “A Trustee should be able to explain the rationale for a resolution passed by the Board.” Really? Is this necessary? Surely, it can be automatically assumed that trustees make informed decisions and not have to be reminded in writing that they should do their homework.
But, when it comes to our governments, we can take nothing for granted, because like the people they represent, politicians are only human after all.
