Councillor pushes back on integrity commissioner’s report

Roger Varley, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

In a tension-filled council meeting Monday morning, members of council spent over two hours discussing the integrity commissioner's recently released report on councillor Todd Snooks and his alleged behaviour towards female members of township staff.

The integrity commissioner's (IC) report claims that Snooks had, on three separate occasions, made some female staff uncomfortable with unwelcome touching, such as hugging staff, tracing a staffer's arm tattoo with his finger, and, on one occasion, using a pickleball paddle to touch women's posteriors. The report said: "We find that the councillor’s conduct constitutes harassment, shows a lack of respect for the Township staff (and) his alleged conduct amounted to harassment and disrespect."

Councillor Todd Snooks, centre, during Monday’s lengthy council meeting. Also seen: right, councillor Zed Pickering; township staff member Laura Rupprecht.

At the start of the discussion, Snooks said he wanted to apologize and said he would do his best never to make anyone feel uncomfortable.

"I was devastated (by the report)," Snooks said. "I have always shown the utmost respect."

Snooks then moved that his lawyer, William McDaniel, who was present, be allowed to take part to "educate council on what the report entails."

"I have been in this process in isolation," he said. "'IC told me not to discuss this with anyone. This has not been a fair process."

Janet Atwood-Petkovski, a co-principal at Principles Integrity, which is the company hired by the Township to act as integrity commissioner, appearing via a video hookup, said Snooks had no right to legal counsel during the course of the presentation she was making to council. Snooks, saying the IC has had other cases where legal counsel was allowed during a presentation similar to this, emphasized that he was not asking for a re-investigation of the complaints. He said his lawyer would address the IC process that was used by Principles Integrity. When asked by councillor Willie Popp what benefit would be derived from allowing the lawyer to take part, Snooks said it was to ensure "no one else has to go through the process I went through."

In a recorded vote, with Snooks not allowed to take part due to conflict of interest, council voted to reject Snooks' motion. Only councillor Gord Shreeve supported Snooks' motion.

After the vote, Snooks said: "It is clear that council has made a decision prior to coming into chambers."

Regional councillor Bruce Garrod said during the discussion that he would not want his daughter or wife working at the township offices.

"We need to make sure staff has a safe environment," he said.

Councillor Pam Beach during an emotional appeal to council during Monday’s meeting.

When Uxbridge CAO Kristi Honey said a survey done in September showed 98 per cent of staff felt safe, Garrod responded: "That was before the report came out." Honey explained the two per cent minority represented in the survey were bylaw officers, animal control personnel and library staff, all of whom must deal with potentially dangerous situations at times during their work.

Garrod, noting there are two codes of conduct within the Township, one for council members and one for staff, asked Honey if an employee who faced the same complaint would be fired. Honey replied "yes."

At one point, Garrod pointedly asked Snooks if he felt people had not “spoken the truth” when speaking to the IC. Snooks said people recalling past events might not be lying but remembering things differently. At another point, councillor Pam Beach broke down in tears as she offered that some of the female staffers who had complained about Snooks' behaviour might have had past traumatic issues triggered.

During the discussion, Garrod suggested the IC investigation and report could cost the township around $20,000 and wondered if Snooks could be requested to cover part of that cost.

When the discussion ended, council agreed that Honey should work with the integrity commissioner to determine appropriate training for Snooks and allow council to determine if all members of council should participate in the training or alternate training. Council also ruled that any one-on-one meetings between Snooks and staff should be also be attended by the CAO or her delegate, and that any correspondence to staff from Snooks be in writing and directly copied to the CAO.