Kelly Should Be Reprimanded: Integrity Commissioner
Below are the conclusions of the City of Ottawa’s integrity commissioner on the conduct of West Carleton-March Councillor Clarke Kelly.
Following the conclusions which are excerpted from the report is the complete document by the integrity commissioner:
Conclusion
Section 15 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Section 223.4(5) of the
Municipal Act, 2001 authorize the Integrity Commissioner to make recommendations to
Council regarding sanctions and other remedial action when the Integrity Commissioner
is of the opinion that there has been a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Section 15 of the Code of Conduct reads as follows:
(1) Members of Council are expected to adhere to the provisions of the Code of
Conduct. The Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes Council, where it has received a
report by its Integrity Commissioner that, in his or her opinion, there has been
a violation of the Code of Conduct, to impose one of the following sanctions:
(a) A reprimand; and
(b) Suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his
or her services as a member of Council or a local board, as the case
may be, for a period of up to 90 days.
(2) The Integrity Commissioner may also recommend that Council impose one of
the following sanctions:
(a) Written or verbal public apology;
(b) Return of property or reimbursement of its value or of monies spent;
(c) Removal from membership of a committee; and
(d) Removal as chair of a committee.
(3) The Integrity Commissioner has the final authority to recommend any of the
sanctions above or other remedial action at his or her discretion.
I have given the matter of sanctions and/or remedial measures considerable thought. I
believe sanctions should correspond to the conduct in question and be applied in a
progressive manner as appropriate. I am also of the view that a public report and a
finding of a breach of the Code of Conduct is meaningful.
The progression of events that ended with Councillor Kelly’s confrontation with the
daycare owner on July 3, 2024 lasted no more than 10 minutes. That said, the impact of
those 10 minutes on those working in the Daycare as well as parents of some of the
children in attendance that day was notable.
As I determined in my analysis, Councillor Kelly acted in an aggressive manner towards
daycare staff. He failed to seize the opportunity to compose himself before confronting
the daycare owner and let his frustrations get the better of him. Councillor Kelly has
expressed regret for his actions and acknowledged that his conduct fell below the
standard expected of him. However, to my knowledge, Councillor Kelly has never
extended an apology to any individual directly involved or affected by his actions or
words that day.
In my deliberations, I gave consideration to factors that might mitigate the need for a
sanction. Councillor Kelly is a relatively new member of Council and this is the first
investigation into his conduct. Further, Councillor Kelly co-operated fully in this
investigation and was forthcoming in his responses and providing documentation.
Since his interaction with the daycare owner, Councillor Kelly has accepted
responsibility for his conduct on July 3rd and expressed his regret for the use of
profanity. Councillor Kelly proactively toook steps to engage the services of the City’s
Employee Assistance Program for assistance with managing anger and staying healthy9
and has expressed a commitment to learning from his mistake and avoiding future
similar incidents.
I believe the context within which Councillor Kelly’s conduct occurred is important.
Councillor Kelly’s concerns related to noise and the cleanliness and use of the WCCC’s
public washrooms during the Daycare’s summer camp program are well documented. I
believe Councillor Kelly has a reasonable expectation of a professional work
environment. Before the start of the 2024 summer camp program, Councillor Kelly and
his staff made efforts to address their concerns through the appropriate channels.
Though not an excuse for Councillor Kelly’s conduct that day, it does not appear that
any action was taken in response to complaints from the Councillor’s Office about the
noise and bathroom issues associated with the summer camp in 2023. It is regrettable
that the various parties could not come to an agreement or implement measures that might have mitigated the noise and disruption of the summer camp program for the
summer of 2024.
Taking all the above factors into account, I considered whether to recommend that City
Council impose a sanction. A reprimand serves as a formal acknowledgement that the
conduct in question is not acceptable. A suspension of pay is generally meant to deter
future misconduct.
As noted in this report, Councillor Kelly has expressed regret for his actions,
acknowledged that his behaviour was inappropriate and has taken proactive steps to
avoid a similar interaction in the future. This is the first report respecting
Councillor Kelly’s conduct and he fully co-operated with the inquiry. For these reasons, I
am of the view that a suspension of pay is not necessary as a measure of deterrence.
However, as the behaviour did not meet the standards expected of elected officials, I
am of the view that a reprimand is an appropriate sanction. By imposing a reprimand,
City Council demonstrates its commitment to the ethical standards set out in the Code
of Conduct.
Therefore, I recommend that City Council:
1. Receive this report, including the finding that Councillor Kelly contravened
Section 4 (General Integrity) and Section 7 (Discrimination and Harassment) of
the Code of Conduct; and
2. Reprimand Councillor Kelly for his conduct on July 3, 2024.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen E. Shepherd
Integrity Commissioner
Document 1 – Report on an Inquiry Respecting the Conduct of Councillor Kelly
For You:
Why We Are Right: City Of Ottawa
City Hall Einsteins Make Unprecedented Transit Blunder
Sutcliffe Listened To Nothing On Senior Fare Hike
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
This report and its recommendations are alright as far as they go. However, there’s a glaring area that the Integrity Commissioner seems to have slipped right over. I realise it wasn’t the subject of the complaints but it was information which was provided to her in the course of the investigation. I read the report yesterday and was astounded that this was ignored by the Commissioner. In fact, the way she presents it, it appears that she finds it acceptable.
Both Councillor Kelly and his office staff told the investigator that swearing is not uncommon in their office (See the excerpts from the report below.). They have obviously forgotten that this is not a private office for a private business but city property provided to them to work on behalf of the City.
There are three issues here, the first two directly related to the incident. First, if Councillor Kelly had not felt comfortable using vulgar language in his City office when he was riled up, perhaps he would not have used it moments later when talking to the Daycare operator. Second, if he wasn’t using foul language in his office, knowing full well that the office walls were thin and voices travelled, then the 19-year-old college student on the other side of his office wall doing crafts with a group of children would not have heard him doing just that. That student was driven to tears by his behaviour and considered quitting her job as a result of the incident.
The third issue is the fact that the councillor considers it appropriate to behave this way in his office and his current staff appears to go along with it. This is the premises provided to them by the City to carry out City business, not their personal offices. Is this behaviour accepted at other City offices? I certainly hope not!
I don’t know the layout of the councillor’s office suite but wonder what I would encounter if I dropped in to speak to one of them about an issue I had that was City-related. As I approached the door, would I be greeted with the spectacle of an out-of-control councillor and his staff yelling and swearing at each other? Is this their idea of professional behaviour? And does the same sort of thing go on at his City Hall office?
The Commissioner says that the three of them, the councillor and two staff, have an “unspoken agreement” that swearing and bad language are acceptable in the office. This supposed agreement was not made between equals – if your boss behaves like this and tells you it’s acceptable, you may not have much option but to agree since, between you, he holds the power. I would hope that, at the very least, the City’s Human Resources people will intervene and ensure that this office is run in a way that meets normal workplace standards.
By the way, I understand that the female staff member in his office is simultaneously the mayor of Arnprior. Does she behaves the same way in the municipal offices there?
Excerpted from the Integrity Commissioner’s report:
P 13 “Councillor Kelly and members of his staff all said they felt the Councillor’s office area was a safe location where they could speak frankly to one another. They said the use of vulgarities was not uncommon in the privacy of the office environment.
One of the Councillor’s staff members said that when Councillor Kelly returned to his office from the interaction with the daycare owner, he recalled Councillor Kelly saying the daycare owner was not doing a good job. He recalled swearing happening and “quite a few “F” bombs being dropped” by Councillor Kelly, including phrases such as:
o “This is f***ing ridiculous”
o “I don’t want to f***ing deal with this” ”
P 15 “I also accept the evidence of Councillor Kelly and his staff that the office space is private and the use of profanity in the office was not uncommon. However, all three confirmed that noise from Chambers could be heard in the visitor reception area of the office suite. For this reason, Councillor Kelly ought to have known that the reverse would also be true.”
P 21 “With respect to the second interaction, I acknowledge that Councillor Kelly and his staff have an unspoken agreement that swearing is an accepted behaviour in their work environment. That said, Councillor Kelly’s use of profanities in this interaction went beyond casual use and included specific statements about individuals who work for the daycare and the daycare’s operations. Regrettably, Councillor Kelly’s comments and profanity were overheard by a daycare worker and children in Chambers. While I believe Councillor Kelly did not intend for his comments to be overheard, I believe it is reasonable that he should have known someone could easily hear him given his complaints about the lack of noise attenuation between his office and Chambers. His comments and profanity had a negative impact on the daycare worker who overheard them.”
Sorry – I missed a point.
From the report:
“As I determined in my analysis, Councillor Kelly acted in an aggressive manner towards daycare staff. He failed to seize the opportunity to compose himself before confronting the daycare owner and let his frustrations get the better of him. Councillor Kelly has expressed regret for his actions and acknowledged that his conduct fell below the standard expected of him. However, to my knowledge, Councillor Kelly has never extended an apology to any individual directly involved or affected by his actions or words that day.”
One of the remedies the Integrity Commissioner can recommend is that Kelly be ordered by Council to apologize to the other parties, either orally or in writing. Given what went on, I think it only appropriate that he provide a written apology to the child care worker outside in the yard; to the student running the craft session in the Chambers and to the daycare operator. It would probably not be a good idea for him to apologize in person to people he has intimidated.
If he is indeed being treated for whatever he’s claiming led to this behaviour, it surprises me that a therapist wouldn’t tell him to take the step of apologizing to his victims. That’s a pretty standard treatment and helps him take responsibility for his actions and their consequences to others.
If he truly regretted his actions, he would have apologized already to those involved. If he is made to apologize and does so, it will not be sincere.
I find his blow-up hard to understand in his unique circumstances. 1. He is a dad. He must know kids need to be loud at times. 2. Ward offices in rec centres are going to be noisy. It was a scheduled meeting. Work from home or in quieter city hall office or any of Ottawa’s other buildings. 3. His experience as a youth soccer coach must have included getting yelled at by a parent or seeing a fellow youth leader get chewed out. He should know how awful that feels.
Yes, any of us can have a bad day. A fast, complete mea culpa was called for. A formal investigation by the Integrity Commissioner is not first step in a Councillor Code of Conduct complaint.
Is this what we are attracting at city hall? Lord help us!!!
Kosmo, unfortunately no prior experience or references are needed for the best job you will probably ever have.
I see that Mr Kelly was born in 1987. That means he is currently 37 or 38 years old. If he wants to participate in the “big kids” club at city hall it’s time he started acting like a big kid. One potential solution to this iissue is to move his office away from the hubbub associated with a daycare centre and relocate him to a sprung structure.