Integrity Commissioner Exonerates NF Mayor Gerry Lichty
North Frontenac Township Mayor Gerry Lichty was accused of breaching the Code of Conduct that governs municipal officials, by statements that he made via email and Facebook messenger, earlier this spring.
This accusation triggered the township to refer the matter to Tony Fleming, a lawyer with Cunningham Swan, who has been retained as the Integrity Commissioner for North Frontenac.
The township has posted Fleming's findings in advance of the township's upcoming council meeting this Friday.
Fleming came to the conclusion that there was no breach of the code in this case, and no consequences for Lichty will result from the matter.
In his report to Council, Fleming characterised the complaint against Lichty in the following way:
A complaint was received that Mayor Gerry Lichty (the “Member”) had breached the Code of Conduct related to communications made by Facebook messenger and email, related to a local resident. The complaint alleged that statements made were false, that the Member had used township resources improperly in the context of election activity and that the Member had disparaged a member of the public.
Fleming opted not to name the complainant.
He did include some of what Lichty wrote to the complainant. Lichty said the complainant had made “terrible accusations about people when they have no knowledge of any details. I find this absolutely disgusting.
“In fact, maybe it is time that we got a lawyer involved!”
The complainant responded that they were not spreading rumours, but merely telling them what another person had said.
Lichty then responded: “Wrong. [the complainant] is spreading rumours. Maybe not actively but he has not remained silent.”
The complainant had advised Lichty that they were intending to run for council in the upcoming election and therefore the complaint alleged that the threat to involve a lawyer was related to the election campaign, and Lichty was therefore breaching the Code of Conduct by using township resources to “election related activity”.
As part of his investigation, Fleming asked both Lichty and township staff if Lichty had followed through and sought to engage a lawyer in the matter, and both Staff and Lichty said they hadn't. Fleming did find any evidence that there had been any discussion about getting a lawyer involved in this case, so he dismissed that part of the allegation by the complainant.
The second major aspect of the complaint, that Lichty lied in his correspondence with the complainant. In his report, Fleming the discussed the section of the Code of Conduct that relates to false statements, Section 4.1. He said the section is framed in such a way as to permit politicians the “freedom to express themselves without fear that any misstatement will be used against them and form the basis for a Code of Conduct complaint.”
In order for the section to apply, the statement must satisfy three elements.
“The statement must be untrue, and the [member of council making it] must know that the statement is false, the statement must be made with the intent to mislead Council or members of the public.”
In Fleming's view, based on interviews with Lichty and a follow up with the complainant, he concluded that these conditions were not met in either the Facebook messages noted above, or in a subsequent email exchange with the complainant.
During that exchange, Lichty wrote: “It appears, at least from my perspective, that we have a major issue between us. Basically I don’t trust you! In my opinion, you twist words, meanings, take them out of context, create facts that never existed, use words from “off the record” conversations, and on and on.”
To the claim that the tone of this email sent by Lichty to the complainant constitutes, “abuse, bullying or intimidation,” contrary to section 9.1 of the act, Fleming also found that it did not.
“The Integrity Commissioner finds that the language used was not polite, but was not a breach of the Code of Conduct ... The statement excerpted above is not abusive, does not use intemperate language or insults and expresses the [Lichty's] opinion as politely as the subject matter allows.”
Fleming therefore concluded that the complaint “is dismissed in its entirety”, and made no recommendations for actions by Council on the matter.
According to the township, the legal fee for the Integrity Commissioner to respond to this complaint came to $5,500. The township has a reserve fund for this purpose, which has been used to cover the cost.
(Editors note – The News is aware of the identity of the person who lodged the complaint that sparked the investigation and report, by the integrity commissioner. We approached them early this week for comment, and they said the following: “I don't have a statement to add today. I'll say generally that I respect the Integrity Commissioner process and the time it takes to do it properly, and I don't think it serves anyone to comment further, while parts of that process are still being worked through.”
We then asked the person if they minded being identified in this article, and they said: “Not at this time.
