6 He blamed the system for his actions, but Reg. Coun. Chris Leahy was well within his rights to vote at a special council meeting last week on a reprimand against him. Leahy voted not to reprimand himself, and though that may appear to be a conflict of interest, according to the letter of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) law, it's not. The MCIA is meant to deal with votes strictly surrounding financial interests. And it only involves close family members, not just the individual, but spouses, parents and children. A reprimand doesn't represent a financial matter, so Leahy was free to vote on it. That doesn't mean he could have chosen to abstain if he wished, just that he had the right under the law to vote. The issue had come to a head on Jan. 17 after Leahy had complained to the Integrity Commissioner about a comment he made at a committee meeting back in October, when he said: "Let's hear what Big Rhonda has to say." The reference was to fellow Reg. Coun. Rhonda Mulcahy. She also complained to the Integrity Commissioner about Leahy's comment as did two other Whitby residents. The comment was a clear violation of the Whitby Code of Conduct, which Leahy did not dispute. He publicly apologized later in October, but the Integrity Commissioner felt that was not enough. The resulting four IC reports came with a recommended reprimand for Leahy, but it was defeated on a 5-4 vote, with Leahy voting against reprimanding himself. Let's look at what conflict of interest is and what it isn't. A matter before council that would represent a conflict of interest under the municipal conflict of interest act: A councillor voting on an issue that has a direct financial impact on that person or that person's spouse, parent or child A matter before council that would NOT represent a conflict of interest under the municipal conflict of interest act: A councillor voting on any issue that involves a family matter, including themselves, that has NO apparent direct financial interest Let's look at some recent examples in Whitby where councillors declared a pecuniary interest and whether they represented a conflict of interest (under the act) or not. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest: At a committee of the whole meeting Nov. 22, 2021, Coun. Deidre Newman declared a conflict of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding Item 9.1, Community Services Report, CMS 19-21, West Whitby Unnamed District Park -- Park Name Survey Results specifically related to naming the West Whitby District Park as a family member is referenced as part of the proposed name for the District Park. Councillor Newman did not take part in the discussion or voting on any matters related to the naming of the park. This is a very iffy one. It could easily be argued this was not a conflict of interest since the naming of the West Whitby Unnamed District Park (it would be named Des Newman Whit-BEE District Park) after Coun. Deidre Newman's father, has no apparent financial interest to Coun. Newman or to her father. But Coun. Newman decided to declare a conflict of interest in any event. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest: Reg. Coun. Rhonda Mulcahy declared a pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act at a Special Council Meeting on Dec. 6, 2021 regarding Item 2.1, Confidential Legal and Enforcement Services Department Report, LS 20-21, Ontario Land Tribunal Appeal -- Atlantic Packaging Holdings Ltd. And Products Ltd. and Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation Ontario as her husband's company is engaged in business with Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation Ontario. Coun. Mulcahy left the meeting and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this matter. This is an easy one. It would be a clear conflict of interest if Reg. Coun. Mulcahy took part in a discussion or voted on an issue that could have a perceived financial benefit to her husband, whose company who is dealing with an applicant before council. So declaring a conflict is the proper course of action. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest: At a Sept. 27, 2021, Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Don Mitchell declared a pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding Item 4.1, Financial Services Department Report, FS 37-21, Town- Owned Land Strategy as the property identified as 14 Church St. is located directly across the street from his residence. Mayor Mitchell did not take part in the discussion and voting on this matter. This one is 50-50 as the Town-owned land is not actually Mayor Mitchell's own land, but very close to it so any decision made by council could have a positive (or negative) financial impact on his property -- or possibly not. However, just to be safe and out of an abundance of caution, he declared a conflict. Leahy, in the wake of his vote, called for a change to the Municipal Act, to have third parties investigate members of council and take the power away from councils to decide their own punishment. However, when repeatedly asked to explain why he chose to vote instead of abstaining on Monday night -- as he could have -- he chose not to answer saying he stuck by his statement that the act needed to be changed instead. LEAHY NOT IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN HE VOTED NEWS MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT EXPLAINED: IT IS ONLY FOR FINANCIAL MATTERS AND FOR CLOSE FAMILY TIM KELLY tkelly@durhamregion.com A reprimand doesn't represent a financial matter, so Leahy was free to vote on it. Giorno's reports on the complaints outlined his reasoning for coming to a reprimand as a suitable punishment, arguing he didn't believe an unpaid suspension was justified, but that an apology -- which Leahy had made publicly at council on Oct. 18 -- was insufficient. Giorno called the comment addressed at Mulcahy "hurtful, nasty, mock- ing and mean," and believed a reprimand was the appropriate punishment. But a sufficient number of Whitby council members did not seem to agree with Giorno's assessment. Instead the meeting became more about a defence of Leahy's character and background and his attempts at apology rather than what the impact of the comment may have been. Two delegates on Leahy's behalf, Fred Shady and Theresa Corless, spoke about his character. Shady, who said he's known Leahy for 30 years, talked about his "numerous charitable works and exceptional assistance," and then asked dramatically, "Do we crucify the man or do we say, don't do it again?" Corless, a former chair of the Durham Catholic District School Board, where Leahy was a trustee for four years before becoming a Whitby councillor, spoke about "his compassion and character, helping those in need, serving residents." On the other hand, Niki Lundquist, a Durham District School Board trustee, argued for a reprimand for Leahy saying: "a verbal censure (reprimand) is appropriate. His character isn't relevant here at all. All that is relevant are his actions and his behaviour and the impact of that behaviour. It is about the use of misogynistic language." Voting not to reprimand Leahy were Mitchell, regional Coun. Steve Yamada, Leahy himself, who did not speak during the meeting, and female councillors Joanne Drumm and Deidre Newman. Voting for the reprimand were regional Coun. Elizabeth Roy, Mulcahy, Coun. Maleeha Shahid and Coun. Steve Lee. COUNCIL Continued from page 4 INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER CALLED FOR REPRIMAND