Ramara’s township council has decided not to reprimand Coun. David Snutch following an integrity commissioner’s recommendation to penalize him for actions it deemed in breach of the township’s code of conduct.
Integrity commissioner Cunningham Swan received a complaint on Feb. 8 alleging that Snutch “breached the code of conduct on three occasions” between Jan. 16 and 30 for sharing “confidential letters” and for confronting members of the public.
Of the three allegations, Swan found Snutch to be in violation of the code of conduct on two occasions, recommending that council “suspend Councillor Snutch’s remuneration for 15 days.”
At the July 24 council meeting, however, township politicians voted to receive the report as information and take no further action against Snutch.
“There (were probably) a lot of reasons that everybody made the decision to do that, but honestly, it just felt like there wasn't enough information in that investigation,” deputy mayor Keith Bell told OrilliaMatters.
“It was very subjective, and there wasn't enough objective information, and we felt it was just a little bit rushed, so we chose to accept it as information.”
The first allegation, from Jan. 16, argued Snutch shared confidential information regarding a proposed development. The integrity commissioner found the documents were not confidential in nature, and were shared with the general public by the township several days later.
The second, from Jan. 18, alleged Snutch breached the code of conduct by confronting the complainant in their office while “visibly agitated and angry,” and “waving his arms while pacing in the doorway” over the allegations about the Jan. 16 emails.
In the integrity commissioner’s report, the complainant alleged Snutch entered their office and, speaking in a raised voice, said, “I want to know what the hell (or heck) it is you think that you are playing at?”
The complaint alleges that Councillor Snutch was "angry and upset during the exchange and this incident had a significant negative impact on the complainant,” read the report.
Following differing accounts of the exchange during interviews with both Snutch and the complainant, and with no video evidence, the integrity commissioner ruled “on the balance of probabilities” that Snutch violated sections 5.13(e) and 20.1 of the township’s code of conduct, both of which relate to treating members of the public and staff respectfully.
“It is our finding that, on a balance of probabilities, Councillor Snutch’s demeanour during the exchange was not of a friendly nature and that he was agitated,” the report read.
“We further find on a balance of probabilities that Councillor Snutch was confrontational and that it is more likely than not that he used a phrase similar to … ‘I want to know what the heck it is you think you are playing at.’”
The integrity commissioner ruled it was more likely the complainant’s account of the incident is more accurate, and recommended council suspend Snutch’s remuneration for 15 days.
“Confronting a member of the public in their personal workspace is not appropriate and falls well below the standard of behaviour expected of a member of council,” the report read. “The nature of the confrontation requires in our opinion that council impose a penalty to demonstrate its condemnation of this type of behaviour.”
The final allegation concerned Snutch’s comments during a Jan. 30 council meeting.
While discussing a proposed development, Snutch made a comment regarding a former council member.
“We wouldn’t even be here today if it wasn’t for certain people who are in the audience, who are pushing this, who used to be members of the council that are using their contacts to try to get this MZO to go through that failed once before,” he said.
The integrity commissioner found Snutch was in violation of section 5.13(e) of the code.
“The comments were made in open session and singled out a former member of council who is now considered a member of the public who was present at the meeting,” the report read. “We find it disrespectful of the public to make a comment of this nature that identifies the member and expresses discontent with the member of the public’s actions or opinions in open session.”
The integrity commissioner stated that, normally, they would recommend Snutch issue an apology for such a statement, but noted he had already done so on March 13.
Deputy mayor Bell said that he feels there was not enough objective evidence to justify action against Snutch, with hopes to see the integrity commissioner carry out more thorough investigations on such matters in the future.
“I made it very clear that I felt that, in the future, I hope the integrity commissioner would do a much better job and make sure that they investigate a little bit more in depth and ask more questions (and) interview more people,” he said. “When you’re dealing with somebody’s reputation, for both parties … it’s unfair that this isn’t done thoroughly.”
Coun. Snutch told OrilliaMatters he thought the investigation was “just an absolute bunch of crap,” noting he spoke to someone from the integrity commissioner’s office “for like 15 minutes.”
However, he argued there was nothing substantive worth investigating, and said the allegations were “very politically motivated.”
“On the other hand, giving them the benefit of the doubt, there was nothing to investigate,” Snutch said. “I mean, this is just somebody who made something up.”
Video from the July 24 council meeting in which the decision was made, which would normally be posted to the township’s YouTube page, is not available due to “technical equipment failure," township staff said.
This is the second time Snutch has been investigated by the integrity commissioner.
In December 2021, integrity commissioner H.G. Elston found Snutch was not in violation of the code of conduct following numerous alleged violations.
