Item - 2009.EX37.3
Tracking Status
- City Council adopted this item on December 2, 2009 with amendments.
- This item was considered by Executive Committee on November 24, 2009 and was adopted with amendments. It will be considered by City Council on December 2, 2009.
EX37.3 - Establishment of a Compliance Audit Committee for the 2010 Municipal Election - Updated Report (Bill 212)
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Amended
- Wards:
- All
City Council Decision
City Council on December 2, 2009, adopted the following:
1. City Council establish a compliance audit committee composed of three members and delegate all of Council’s powers and functions under subsections 81(3), (4), (7), (10) and (11) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 in respect of compliance audit applications.
2. City Council adopt the terms of reference for the compliance audit committee set out in Appendix “C” in the report (November 16, 2009) from the City Clerk and direct the Clerk to make any amendments necessary to reflect enactment of the provisions of Bill 212 set out in Appendix “C” in the report.
3. City Council adopt the membership selection process set out in Appendix ‘D’ in the report.
4. City Council establish a per diem of $350 for attendance at meetings by Members of the Compliance Audit Committee.
5. City Council direct that if the Compliance Audit Committee finds that a complaint against a candidate is not valid, and City Council reimburses the candidate's compliance audit costs, the City also reimburse the candidate's court costs to sue the complainant to recover legal costs, on condition that the candidate return the original reimbursement for their compliance audit costs to the City.
6. City Council establish an ad hoc Committee, composed of the Chair of the Government Management Committee and two other Members of Council, to review matters related to legal expenses resulting from a compliance audit.
7. City Council request the Province of Ontario to either:
a. amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 to permit a candidate to re-open his or her election campaign for a period of six months following the filing of a compliance audit application for the purpose of fund-raising to pay any costs associated with the compliance audit; or
b. amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to provide absolute certainty that Council can establish a policy to reimburse candidates and compliance audit applicants for the reasonable costs associated with a compliance audit proceeding on a case-by-case basis and to enable Council to make grants for this purpose.
8. If the Province of Ontario fails to make the necessary legislative amendments, City Council establish a policy to:
a. accept and review requests for reimbursement of legal expenses associated with compliance audit proceedings;
b. provide that the requests be reviewed by Council to determine if exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the reimbursement of the legal expenses; and
c. provide that reimbursements will be made to candidates only at the conclusion of the compliance audit proceedings and only if the candidate was vindicated.
9. City Council endorse the action taken by the Executive Committee, as the Provincial Standing Committee considering Bill 212 met prior to the City Council meeting, in having requested the City Clerk to:
a. Forward Recommendation 5 of the Executive Committee to the Chair of the Provincial Standing Committee considering Bill 212 and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and urgently request that the deficiencies identified by Mayor Miller in his motion to the Committee be corrected forthwith.
b. Convey to the Province of Ontario the City's significant concern respecting the proposed Section 81(17) and Section 94(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, which leads to double jeopardy; and communicate this to the relevant Standing Committee, and request that Section 81(17) of the Municipal Elections Act be struck out and the current law continue to apply.
10. City Council request the City Clerk to research whether insurance companies offer candidate insurance to cover compliance audit costs, and report to the Executive Committee.
11. City Council request the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report to the Executive Committee for its meeting on February 1, 2010, on the following proposal:
That:
a. the City establish the position of Independent Counsel to provide advice and legal support to Members of Council on matters related to compliance audits; and
b. funds for this purpose be drawn from Election Reserve Fund XR1017.
The report to also include recommendations to the Executive Committee on the amounts required for this purpose.
12. City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background Information (Committee)
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-25317.pdf
Motions (City Council)
That the City Clerk be instructed to provide a framework for vetting any compliance audit requests for their credibility prior to being recommended to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration.
Challenged by Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti
That City Council request the City Clerk to research whether insurance companies offer candidate insurance to cover compliance audit costs, and report to the Executive Committee.
City Council direct that if the Compliance Audit Committee finds that a complaint against a candidate is not valid, and City Council reimburses the candidate's compliance audit costs, the City also reimburse the candidate's court costs to sue the complainant to recover legal costs, on condition that the candidate return the original reimbursement for their compliance audit costs to the City.
Vote (Amend Item (Additional)) Dec-02-2009 6:27 PM
| Result: Carried | Majority Required - EX37.3 - Mammoliti - Motion 2b |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 23 | Members that voted Yes are Brian Ashton, Maria Augimeri, Sandra Bussin (Chair), Raymond Cho, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Frank Di Giorgio, Paula Fletcher, Suzan Hall, Cliff Jenkins, Norman Kelly, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Pam McConnell, Peter Milczyn, Ron Moeser, Howard Moscoe, Frances Nunziata, Case Ootes, Cesar Palacio, Anthony Perruzza, Bill Saundercook, Adam Vaughan, Michael Walker |
| Total members that voted No: 7 | Members that voted No are Shelley Carroll, John Filion, Rob Ford, Doug Holyday, Chin Lee, Gord Perks, Karen Stintz |
| Total members that were Absent: 15 | Members that were absent are Paul Ainslie, Janet Davis, Mike Del Grande, Mike Feldman, Adam Giambrone, Mark Grimes, A.A. Heaps, Joe Mihevc, David Miller, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Joe Pantalone, John Parker, Kyle Rae, David Shiner, Michael Thompson |
Challenged by Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti
That City Council establish an ad hoc Committee, composed of the Chair of the Government Management Committee and two other Members of Council, to review matters related to legal expenses resulting from a compliance audit.
Vote (Amend Item (Additional)) Dec-02-2009 6:30 PM
| Result: Carried | Majority Required - EX37.3 - Fletcher - Motion 3 |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 26 | Members that voted Yes are Brian Ashton, Maria Augimeri, Sandra Bussin (Chair), Raymond Cho, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Frank Di Giorgio, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Suzan Hall, Cliff Jenkins, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Pam McConnell, Peter Milczyn, David Miller, Ron Moeser, Howard Moscoe, Frances Nunziata, Cesar Palacio, Anthony Perruzza, Bill Saundercook, Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan, Michael Walker |
| Total members that voted No: 5 | Members that voted No are Shelley Carroll, Rob Ford, Doug Holyday, Case Ootes, Gord Perks |
| Total members that were Absent: 14 | Members that were absent are Paul Ainslie, Janet Davis, Mike Del Grande, Mike Feldman, Adam Giambrone, Mark Grimes, A.A. Heaps, Joe Mihevc, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Joe Pantalone, John Parker, Kyle Rae, David Shiner, Michael Thompson |
That City Council request the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report to the Executive Committee for its meeting on February 1, 2010, on the following proposal:
That:
a. the City establish the position of Independent Counsel to provide advice and legal support to Members of Council on matters related to compliance audits; and
b. funds for this purpose be drawn from Election Reserve Fund XR1017.
The report to also include recommendations to the Executive Committee on the amounts required for this purpose.
Vote (Amend Item (Additional)) Dec-02-2009 6:31 PM
| Result: Carried | Majority Required - EX37.3 - Moscoe - Motion 4 |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 29 | Members that voted Yes are Brian Ashton, Maria Augimeri, Sandra Bussin (Chair), Shelley Carroll, Raymond Cho, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Frank Di Giorgio, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Suzan Hall, Cliff Jenkins, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Pam McConnell, Peter Milczyn, David Miller, Ron Moeser, Howard Moscoe, Frances Nunziata, Case Ootes, Cesar Palacio, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Bill Saundercook, Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan, Michael Walker |
| Total members that voted No: 2 | Members that voted No are Rob Ford, Doug Holyday |
| Total members that were Absent: 14 | Members that were absent are Paul Ainslie, Janet Davis, Mike Del Grande, Mike Feldman, Adam Giambrone, Mark Grimes, A.A. Heaps, Joe Mihevc, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Joe Pantalone, John Parker, Kyle Rae, David Shiner, Michael Thompson |
Vote (Adopt Item as Amended) Dec-02-2009 6:32 PM
| Result: Carried | Majority Required - EX37.3 - Adopt Item, as amended |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 29 | Members that voted Yes are Brian Ashton, Maria Augimeri, Sandra Bussin (Chair), Shelley Carroll, Raymond Cho, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Frank Di Giorgio, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, Suzan Hall, Cliff Jenkins, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Pam McConnell, Peter Milczyn, David Miller, Ron Moeser, Howard Moscoe, Frances Nunziata, Case Ootes, Cesar Palacio, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Bill Saundercook, Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan, Michael Walker |
| Total members that voted No: 2 | Members that voted No are Rob Ford, Doug Holyday |
| Total members that were Absent: 14 | Members that were absent are Paul Ainslie, Janet Davis, Mike Del Grande, Mike Feldman, Adam Giambrone, Mark Grimes, A.A. Heaps, Joe Mihevc, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Joe Pantalone, John Parker, Kyle Rae, David Shiner, Michael Thompson |
EX37.3 - Establishment of a Compliance Audit Committee for the 2010 Municipal Election - Updated Report (Bill 212)
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Amended
- Wards:
- All
Committee Recommendations
The Executive Committee recommends that:
1. City Council establish a compliance audit committee composed of three members and delegate all of Council’s powers and functions under subsections 81(3), (4), (7), (10) and (11) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 in respect of compliance audit applications.
2. City Council adopt the terms of reference for the compliance audit committee set out in Appendix “C” in the report (November 16, 2009) from the City Clerk and direct the Clerk to make any amendments necessary to reflect enactment of the provisions of Bill 212 set out in Appendix “C” in the report.
3. City Council adopt the membership selection process set out in Appendix ‘D’ in the report.
4. City Council establish a per diem of $350 for attendance at meetings by Members of the Compliance Audit Committee.
5. City Council request the Province of Ontario to either:
a. amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 to permit a candidate to re-open his or her election campaign for a period of six months following the filing of a compliance audit application for the purpose of fund-raising to pay any costs associated with the compliance audit; or
b. amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to provide absolute certainty that Council can establish a policy to reimburse candidates and compliance audit applicants for the reasonable costs associated with a compliance audit proceeding on a case-by-case basis and to enable Council to make grants for this purpose.
6. If the Province of Ontario fails to make the necessary legislative amendments, City Council establish a policy to:
a. accept and review requests for reimbursement of legal expenses associated with compliance audit proceedings;
b. provide that the requests be reviewed by Council to determine if exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the reimbursement of the legal expenses; and
c. provide that reimbursements will be made to candidates only at the conclusion of the compliance audit proceedings and only if the candidate was vindicated.
7. City Council endorse the action taken by the Executive Committee, as the Provincial Standing Committee considering Bill 212 met prior to the City Council meeting, in having requested the City Clerk to:
a. Forward Recommendation 5 of the Executive Committee to the Chair of the Provincial Standing Committee considering Bill 212 and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and urgently request that the deficiencies identified by Mayor Miller in his motion to the Committee be corrected forthwith.
b. Convey to the Province of Ontario the City's significant concern respecting the proposed Section 81(17) and Section 94(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, which leads to double jeopardy; and communicate this to the relevant Standing Committee, and request that Section 81(17) of the Municipal Elections Act be struck out and the current law continue to apply.
8. City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Decision Advice and Other Information
The Executive Committee, given that the Provincial Standing Committee considering Bill 212 is meeting prior to the City Council meeting on December 2, 2009, requested the City Clerk to:
a. Forward Recommendation 5 of the Executive Committee to the Chair of the Provincial Standing Committee considering Bill 212 and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and urgently request that the deficiencies identified by Mayor Miller in his motion to the Committee be corrected forthwith.
b . Convey to the Province of Ontario the City's significant concern respecting the proposed Section 81(17) and Section 94(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, which leads to double jeopardy; and communicate this to the relevant Standing Committee, and request that Section 81(17) of the Municipal Elections Act be struck out and the current law continue to apply.
Origin
Summary
This report recommends the establishment of a compliance audit committee composed of three members for the 2010 municipal election.
Under the existing section 81 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, Council may choose to either consider compliance audit applications itself or establish a committee for this purpose. For both the 2003 and 2006 elections, Council established a compliance audit committee to consider applications for a compliance audit of candidate financial statements. All of Council’s powers and functions under section 81 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 were delegated to the committee. (A copy of section 81 of the Act is attached as Appendix ‘A’)
The proposed amendments to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 contained in Bill 212 (Good Government Act, 2009) make changes to section 81 and introduce a new section 81.1 to make a compliance audit committee mandatory for all municipalities and local boards if the Bill is passed in its current form. (A copy of the proposed sections is attached as Appendix ‘B’.)
A targeted search strategy will be undertaken to attract qualified individuals. A listing of recommended individuals will be submitted for Council’s consideration through the Executive Committee in early 2010. Each appointee to the compliance audit committee will receive the per diem established by Council for attendance at meetings (currently $350).
Financial Impact
Factors involved in determining compliance audit committee costs include the number of compliance audit applications that might be received, the number of meetings that are required to be held and the complexity of the audits that may need to be conducted. Based on past experience and in anticipation of a further increase in the number of applications, given the increase in applications following the 2006 election (see Table 1), it is estimated that it may cost approximately $75,000 for the targeted search advertising costs, remuneration costs for committee members, auditor costs to conduct five to seven non-complex audits and administration costs to support the committee.
Funding for this purpose is available in the Election Reserve and, if required, would be paid during 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Should more compliance audit applications be received than are anticipated or if the audits are complex, it will be necessary to seek Council’s authorization for additional funds.
The Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial implications.
Background Information
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-25317.pdf