Puslinch Township’s integrity commissioner has found that Kevin Johnson violated the municipality’s Code of Conduct earlier this year with a Puslinch Today blog.
The Nov. 28 report, filed by integrity commissioner Janice Atwood-Petkovski, was the result of a complaint against Johnson, who was chair of the township’s recreation committee at the time the blog was posted.
Atwood-Petkovski found the blog was “intentionally misleading and cast councillor (Matthew) Bulmer in a negative light and fell below the standards” of the Code of Conduct.
Atwood-Petkovski concluded the blog was not “in and of itself” harassment, but “it incited harassing behaviour by others.”
On Sept. 21, a complaint was filed with the township CAO/clerk about the blog, which was posted by Johnson on Aug. 21 on Puslinch Today, a News aggregating website.
The complaint alleged that Johnson’s blog about Puslinch council’s discussion on renaming Swastika Trail “intentionally mischaracterized council’s objectives … in a manner that diminishes public confidence in the township’s representatives and misleads the public.”
The complaint further alleged that Johnson “intentionally created … the impression to the reader, in an instant, that councillor Matthew Bulmer shares views held by white supremacists who justify their racism and xenophobia on the basis of defending heritage and tradition.”
Atwood-Petkovski, who did not disclose the name of the complainant, explained the blog post included a large graphic of a swastika and a photo of protestors marching in the street carrying large Nazi and Confederate flags as well as a quote from Bulmer saying he did not support renaming the road because “It’s part of my heritage.”
The complaint alleged that the innuendo associated with the graphic and photo, and the singling out of councillor Bulmer, amounted to harassment.
Though Puslinch councillors took little action other than to receive the report, Bulmer made a few comments prior to stepping aside from the discussion.
He said it was important to acknowledge that on Nov. 1 he and Johnson had “a private, very polite and respectful conversation outside the council chambers following the afternoon council meeting.”
During that conversation, Johnson “offered a very sincere apology,” Bulmer said.
“I accepted the apology and thanked him for it. We shook hands at the end of the conversation.”
In an email to the Advertiser, Johnson said he apologized to Bulmer “for the way the posting came across and was perceived.
“We talked a bit about my family history so I could explain a little about why I am hopeful that council will be able to change the name of the street at some point in the future.”
When Atwood-Petkovski provided Johnson with a copy of her preliminary findings on Oct. 26 she was informed Johnson had resigned from the recreation committee.
But she noted in her report that she was nonetheless obligated to conclude the investigation and provide a completed report.
Context and chronology
The issue stems from an Aug. 9 Puslinch council meeting, at which councillors discussed Swastika Trail.
Road safety and sign improvements were addressed, but given that Swastika Trail is privately owned, several councillors voiced their reluctance to rename it.
Atwood-Petkovski noted that an Aug. 18 article in the Wellington Advertiser provided “a fair and balanced recounting of the discussion at council.”
On on Aug. 21 Johnson posted a blog about the meeting on Puslinch Today, though he admitted to the integrity commissioner he did not attend the Aug. 9 meeting. His blog seemed to be based on the Advertiser article, and focused on one quote contained therein.
“Even as a youth, people called the area Swastika Beach,” Bulmer stated at the meeting, as noted in the Advertiser article. “It’s part of my heritage and I support keeping the name.”
Johnson’s blog included the headline “Puslinch councillor supports name Swastika Trail because: ‘It’s part of my heritage’.”
Below the headline, floating above the article, is a very large swastika, and further down the page, is a photo of white nationalist neo Nazi protesters.
Atwood-Petkovski stated Johnson “indicated his motive for posting the article was to exert pressure on [Bulmer and council] to change their minds and move forward with a renaming of the road.”
Atwood-Petkovski also notes Johnson “did not at any point attempt to reach out to Bulmer to discuss the matter with him.”
She added Johnson also took steps to “boost” the post on Facebook to increase readership and traffic to the post.
Within 24 hours, Bulmer’s email and home phone number were posted by one reader, and others were encouraged to contact him directly to express their outrage.
“If this was not (Johnson’s) intended consequence, it was certainly a reasonably foreseeable result,” stated Atwood-Petkovski.
Johnson told the integrity commissioner he removed the blog post three to four weeks later, in mid-September, after learning Bulmer was getting harassing emails.
Atwood-Petkovski stated that while Johnson may not have received formal training on the Code of Conduct, its “underlying principles … should be self-evident to public officials serving their citizens; they are mostly values we learn as children: act with integrity; tell the truth; be fair; don’t intentionally mislead; don’t harass others.
“Ignorance of these principles is no excuse for behaviour that violates them.”
Atwood-Petkovski determined Johnson’s actions “failed to adhere to the (code’s) Statement of Principles standard that encourages behaviour which enhances ‘public confidence in the town’s representatives’. The posting of the article did just the opposite.”
She also noted “this investigation raises an interesting question about journalists holding public office; and how conflicts in those roles can be reconciled.”
Council comments
Though council had little to say on the individual findings, councillor Susan Fielding said she had a few “big picture” comments based on the report.
Because of her role on the Hamilton Conservation Authority, Fielding had talked with the township CAO on the issue of personal phone numbers being public – and getting phone calls of a harassing nature.
“I know councillor Bulmer and his family suffered a lot,” said Fielding.
As to the potential of councillors getting telephone numbers, which are extensions of the township, deputy clerk Nina Lecic explained the extension lines have reached capacity.
She said if council wishes to proceed, staff can investigate the financial costs or options to expand.
Mayor Dennis Lever said he would want to know potential costs before expanding the phone extension system to include council members. He asked staff for those numbers.
Fielding added the integrity commissioner also noted an issue she has pondered for some time – the conflict of being a journalist while acting for the township (either on council or a committee).
“As some point I would like to see a wider discussion of that,” said Fielding.
She noted the issue is ongoing because there are members who post blogs and such.
“We need to have that discussion so that this type of situation does not occur in the future,” Fielding said.
CAO Karen Landry suggested any further discussion could be held early in the new year.
