Coun. Clare Riepma should be reprimanded for violating city council’s code of conduct involving personal emails, and docked 15 days' pay for another set of code infractions for his attempted influence on a proposed Yonge Street development, says Barrie integrity commissioner Suzanne Craig.
Council will consider Craig’s findings and her recommendations at Wednesday night’s meeting.
Riepma could not be reached for comment Monday by BarrieToday.
The complaint involving the Yonge Street project, by an unidentified individual, made several allegations in respect of the Riepma’s use of influence, conduct respecting city staff and conduct with respect to a rezoning application involving density calculations.
It alleged the Ward 1 councillor used the influence of his office in an attempt to "coerce" staff to change their position with respect to a proposed development.
The complaint goes on to allege that Riepma, a licensed planner, used his knowledge and status as a professional planner to request that staff change the approved policy parameters in order to generate data for consideration that was favourable to his opinion.
The complaint alleges that this action constitutes Riepma’s improper use of influence of office through his attempt to interfere with the professional role of staff to advise based on objectivity and without undue influence from any individual member or faction of council.
Riepma responded in Craig’s report, noting the complaint doesn’t provide a list of the alleged inappropriate requests, so he had no way of responding to this allegation.
“Except to say in general that to my knowledge I have never asked anyone to change policy parameters,” Riepma said. “I have certainly questioned staff about their opinions. I am an engineer and a professional planner. I believe that I am entitled to use my credentials.”
But Craig found that Riepma breached the code of conduct in four areas concerning the unspecified Yonge project. All involve sections that require members of council to respect that staff must act impartially and respect the professional expertise and subject matter independence of staff.
First, council directs staff through its decisions and its members have no individual capacity to direct members of staff to carry out particular functions.
Second, only council as a whole and no single member including the mayor has the authority to direct staff, approve budget, policy, committee processes and other such matters, unless specifically authorized by council (although this clause could be affected by the so-called strong mayor powers).
Third, members shall be respectful of the role of staff to advise based on political neutrality and objectivity, and without undue influence from any individual member or faction of council. Accordingly, the code of conduct says no member shall maliciously or falsely injure the professional or ethical reputation, or the prospects or practice of staff, and all members shall show respect for the professional capacities of the staff of the city.
And fourth, no member of council shall use, or attempt to use, their authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or influencing any staff member with the intent of interfering with that person’s duties, including the duty to disclose improper conduct.
“(Riepma) either failed to appreciate or did not attend to the fact that his professional credentials, together with his official position as a member of council, supporting (an unidentified) critic of the development, was giving credibility to that position based on his official position and his professional knowledge,” Craig wrote in her report to council.
“I am by no means finding that a (council) member cannot use their unique professional expertise to bring a ‘greater insight into planning’ matters being considered by council," she added. "Rather, a member cannot use their expertise in a subject area to supplant the expertise and recommendations of staff. (Riepma’s) involvement went beyond representing constituents and what was reasonably appropriate conduct for a member of council.”
Craig’s second report involves Riepma’s alleged use of a Barrie constituent’s e-mail address for municipal election purposes.
The code of conduct says no member of council shall disclose or release by any means to any member of the public, or in any way divulge any confidential information, including personal information or any aspect of deliberations acquired by virtue of their office, in either oral or written form, except when required by law or authorized by a council resolution to do so.
This is to ensure that councillors do not use any resources or information, including confidential and personal information, obtained by virtue of being an elected Barrie official, in a way inconsistent with their duties as a councillor, including for personal campaign related activity. This is to establish a clear prohibition for the use of city resources by a council during election campaigns, in this case 2022.
Riepma says in Craig’s report that he has complied with the code and that the complaint is politically motivated.
“The use of an email list sourced from the barrie.ca (his email is [email protected]) system is not prohibited by the code,” Riepma said. “While one of the email addresses may have been mistakenly added to the wrong list, the emails that were sent out during the election period were about how to vote, not who to vote for.
“The city does not own the followers that may be accumulated as part of a councillor’s social media presence,” he added. “The purpose of the code is to ensure that city resources are not used to imply endorsement of a person’s candidacy by the city. On this basis, the complaint should be dismissed.”
Craig disagreed, however.
“I conclude that (Riepma) used email addresses of constituents which were provided to him during his official duties for the purpose of seeking re-election,” she wrote. “There is a prohibition against members of council using any distribution lists developed by the city or by the member with information received in their official capacity while in office for election activity purposes.
“I find that (Riepma) reasonably ought to have known that his use of the constituent’s emails for election campaign related purposes was prohibited," Craig added.
Craig also found that the complaint was not made in bad faith.
A reprimand is a penalty under the Municipal Act, a strongly worded condemnation of a member of council.
Remedial action would be required, that Riepma acknowledge and recognize that using the City of Barrie’s computer network, including its email network, to distribute election-related material is prohibited.
The dollar value of 15 days of pay suspension to Ripema is unknown at this point.
The code of conduct is an agreed-upon understanding by all members of Barrie city council about what standards they should meet in the individual conduct of their official duties.
This past March, Craig found Riepma had disclosed confidential general committee minutes from Oct. 20, 2020, to a member of the public. The documents dealt with confidential personal information and a solicitor-client privilege matter, a workplace investigation.
But Craig found Riepma’s actions were unintentional, the code of conduct complaint came too late and the Ward 1 councillor wasn’t penalized.
