After attending a public meeting critical of Greater Sudbury staff on Sept. 7, three city council members have been censured by city CAO Ed Archer.
In an email to Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc, forwarded to Sudbury.com, Archer notes that his “public comments and actions ... violate the Council Code of Conduct.”
“Today I talked with several people about the effects your choices are having on staff,” according to the email sent on Friday evening, the day after the Sept. 7 meeting.
“It is important that staff feel their workplace is a supportive, safe space for them to do their best work. Your comments and actions impair their ability to maintain such a feeling. This is unacceptable.”
Archer notes that “until further notice,” all inquiries by Leduc about Growth and Infrastructure services are to be directed only to him, and only via email.
“For absolute clarity, you should not contact Growth and Infrastructure staff for any reason,” Archer wrote. “Staff will be instructed not to engage with you directly.”
During Monday’s planning committee meeting of city council, Leduc attempted to bring up Archer’s email, but was cut off by the meeting’s chair and Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier.
Leduc asked whether he could talk to staff during the meeting, to which Cormier clarified he could. As with any committee member, questions were directed through the chair.
After the meeting, Leduc told Sudbury.com that all three members of city council who attended the Sept. 7 meeting received correspondence from Archer.
Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini and Ward 3 Coun. Gerry Montpellier were also in attendance.
“It’s not right,” Leduc said. “We as a council will have to overrule this.”
Montpellier declined to comment on the specifics of the email he received from Archer, but described it as follows: “A city employee is telling me, a councilllor elected by the people for the people, to watch which meetings I go to.”
This, he said, doesn’t sit well with him.
The Ward 3 councillor clarified that he attended the Sept. 7 meeting to learn about asphalt.
Vagnini said the letter he received from Archer was the same as the one sent to Montpellier. Unlike the letter sent to Leduc, Vagnini said theirs didn’t indicate any restrictions on their access to city staff.
The letter, Vagnini said, alleges that he engaged “in public discussion that defames staff without taking any steps to stop the defamation or correct the erroneous assertions made during the discussion,” and indicates this was in breach of the Code of Conduct.
“That’s where it’s a little bit perplexing to me, because I don’t know what we did,” Vagnini said, adding that he was a “bystander listening to a public meeting,” and did not play a role in hosting it.
The Sept. 7 meeting was hosted by Our Towns Our City Institute, which is headed by Vagnini’s political advisor, Tom Price. Much of the three-hour event consisted of Road Surface Recycling vice president technology and research Frank Crupi defending his company’s work and criticizing city staff.
Crupi agreed to speak at the meeting to counter a critical third-party report prepared for the city by WSP, which claimed the work by Road Surface Recycling on an asphalt recycling pilot project on The Kingsway was not up to snuff.
During the public meeting and without evidence, Crupi brought up the personal lives of two city staff members connected to the roads project, accused them of bribery and nepotism, and questioned at least one staff member’s qualifications. He also claimed a staff member is in a conflict of interest because a family member of theirs works for a local contractor that bids on city projects.
At no time did the three city council members who attended the meeting counter Crupi’s allegations or defend city staff, although they all spoke up numerous times.
In the questions they asked, statements they made and in their demeanour, the trio of city council members seemed to be in support of at least some of Crupi’s allegations against the city.
Vagnini, who described himself as “the guy who’s always in trouble at city council,” said that he agreed with Crupi for not paying the city what he reportedly owes them, “based on what you are showing us tonight, which is a lot of information I didn’t know what was going on.”
During the Sept. 7 meeting, Leduc spoke about staff members by name twice, including a point at which he shared the personal relationship status of two staff members. He also asked Crupi how many times one of these staff members visited the job site. Both comments prompted rounds of criticism from Crupi, which were unchallenged by the elected officials at the meeting.
Sudbury.com reached out to city communications staff for additional insight on city council members being censured, including what prompted the action, what the next steps would be and whether the city’s integrity commissioner will be launching an investigation.
They responded with the following written statement: “Communication between staff and members of council regarding employee matters are confidential.”
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.