Mayor Responds To Tierney Controversy

Councillor behaviour has been an active topic these past weeks triggered by Beacon Hill-Cyrville Councillor Tim Tierney’s traffic cone tossing photo in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this month (and discussed in a Citizen opinion piece here, and on The Bulldog website).

Since the Citizen story first appeared on July 17, there have been several calls (here and via comments online) for Tierney to face some disciplinary measure for the cone toss (and his comments, including: “If I can open up a lane of traffic seven or eight hours in advance of the next crew coming to move those cones, I’m just going to do it.”), and especially as he serves as chairman of the city’s public works and transportation committee.

How the city’s complaint process works, however, has confused people and remains unclear for many.

—

This post is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours. It is published with permission.

—

Here is some information about how it might work (or not), be it on this specific issue or related to any Councillor behaviour when someone believes it warrants attention.

Based on the “staged” cone toss photo, as Tierney later described it (and which included Orleans East Councillor Matthew Luloff standing by watching), and information in the article, it was determined the councillors were standing near an offramp of Highway 174 that had undergone recent construction work. This led to some early assumptions that any complaint would need to be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, which is responsible for Ontario highways.

We contacted the MTO the day after the Citizen article appeared to ask if cone tossing violated any Highway Act rules, and this is the response we got several days later:

“The Ministry of Transportation is only responsible for provincially maintained highways. The issue you have raised falls under the responsibility of your local municipality. We suggest you contact your local police service directly for assistance with this inquiry.

Thank you for writing.

CCT-MTO (CN)”

Since then we have learned that while the province announced in March 2024 that they had signed a funding deal with Ottawa that included taking over Hwy. 174, the transfer hasn’t happened yet, so the city is still in charge of the highway.

To date, we have not heard of anyone issuing a police complaint, but do know that the mayor’s office was contacted and asked if his office would look into Tierney’s actions, and if the cone toss violated anything under the city’s Code of Conduct of Councillors.

Part of the response from the mayor’s office:

“As you can appreciate, by virtue of the Mayor’s position as an elected official, he cannot directly intervene in the day-to-day operations of Councillors and their offices. Each Councillor is accountable to their constituents, who have elected them to represent their specific ward. In short, the separation of roles within the municipal government ensures that the Mayor’s influence remains focused on city-wide issues, while the relationship between Councillors and their constituents is handled independently.
“That said, all complaints regarding the behavior of a City Councillor should be addressed to the Municipal Integrity Commissioner, Ms. Karen Shepherd, for further investigation. The Integrity Commissioner can be reached at integrity@ottawa.ca. More information on the Integrity Commissioner and how to request a formal investigation can be found here: www.ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/open-transparent-and-accountable-government/integrity-commissioner.“

Now, anyone who has filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner knows it is not an easy process.

Here is some basic information you will get when sending the Commissioner’s office questions about filing a complaint:

“The Integrity Commissioner is responsible for the application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council, the Code of Conduct for Members of Local Board, and various other codes and policies related to ethical behaviour. This responsibility includes addressing complaints about Members of Council and members local boards related to a potential breach of a code of conduct or the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

“The Integrity Commissioner does not have authority to receive or investigate complaints related to City services or staff.”

Note that the identity of anyone filing a complaint is kept private through the process. You can find more details on the Integrity Commissioner process here.

And the Councillor Code of Conduct rules can be found here.

When submitting a complaint, determining which rules might have been violated to support the complaint is not simple. In a case like Tierney’s, for example (and including comments he made), a possible connection might be with Section 9: Use of Municipal Properties and Resources:

“No member of Council shall use, or permit the use of City land, facilities, equipment, supplies, services, staff or other resources (for example, City-owned materials, websites, or a Member of Council Constituency Services Budget) for activities other than purposes connected with the discharge of Council duties or City business.”

Could an argument be made that Tierney was carrying out his duties by acting on behalf of his constituents who were frustrated with construction issues?

And here are some specific City bylaws that might be applicable to support complaints involving removal of devices placed on roadways that guide or direct traffic. Traffic and Parking By-law No. 2017-301

Under those City bylaws rules, “traffic control device” means any sign, signal or other roadway, curb, or sidewalk marking, or any other device erected or placed under the authority of this by-law for the purpose of warning, regulating, guiding or directing traffic;

REGULATIONS 4. (1) The General Manager of Transportation Services is hereby authorized and directed to erect, install and maintain official signs, authorized signs, traffic control signals, markings, barricades, traffic control devices and other structures, plants and equipment as are required to give effect to this bylaw and as are required to regulate, direct, warn or guide pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking for the safety and convenience of the public.
DEFACING SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS
83. No person shall move, remove, deface or in any manner interfere with any authorized or official sign, traffic control signal, marking or other traffic control device placed, erected or maintained under this by-law.
OFFENCES AND FINES

85. (1) Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of Part “A” of this by-law is guilty of an offence.

(2) Every person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 as amended.
You can find more City details here on regulations applicable to road signs.
Again, this is all offered simply to show the complexity of raising questions/filing complaints about the behaviour of elected City players and finding avenues that might succeed.

We continue to try and get more insights, so if you have ever filed a complaint (or plan to), and/or have any related information that can help explain more about this issue, please share.

For You:

Parliament LRT Station Under Repair

King Estimates LRT Cost At $7 Billion

Where Are Those Flat Roads, Mark Sutcliffe?

Plan Backs Kettle Island Bridge: PATTON

Ironman Race To Cripple Ottawa Traffic

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here