MINTO – The Town of Minto will implement “best practice” recommendations from Ontario’s Ombudsman Paul Dube regarding procurement policies and citizen complaints after receiving a letter from the government watchdog in response to a complaint to his office.
Dube’s letter was discussed in camera and included in correspondence to council at its Oct. 3 meeting.
The letter, dated Sept. 20, indicates the Ombudsman’s office received a complaint related to the town’s procurement practices for sole-sourced contracts.
The same complaint also raised concerns about the town’s processes for responding to complaints from members of the public.
“The individual who came to my office raised concerns that the town’s purchasing bylaw does not prohibit awarding sole-sourced contracts to family members of town personnel or a specific vendor on a regular basis,” Dube states in the letter.
Minto’s purchasing bylaw permits procurement through non-competitive processes using a sole-sourced contract where the value of the goods and services is under $10,000.
Under the policy, a sole-sourced contract does not require council approval, but does require the approval of the town’s CAO, clerk, treasurer or a designate.
The town’s existing purchasing bylaw prohibits sole-sourced contracts to any town employee or member of council where it would be considered a violation of the code of conduct, or a violation of any policies regarding fiscal accountability and transparency, applicable conflict of interest legislation, or any other similar rules or requirements.
However, the prohibition does not currently extend to family members of town employees or council members.
Dube notes, “The interim CAO told my office that in 2021, the town initiated a review of its existing procurement processes after it received a complaint that multiple sole-sourced contracts were awarded to a single vendor.
“The review resulted in recommendations to improve and strengthen the town’s practices, including prohibiting procurement of goods or services from a member of council or employee of the town or any associate or family member of a member of council or employee of the town.
“We were told by the interim CAO that the town is currently preparing an update to the purchasing bylaw that will incorporate the recommendations. Staff will bring the proposed updates to council in late 2023 or early 2024.”
Deputy treasurer Mark Potter, the town’s interim acting CAO, confirmed that timeline in an Oct. 5 telephone interview with the Advertiser.
“A complaint was received, and there was an internal review done, identifying again, areas for improvement,” said Potter.
“As indicated in the letter from the Ombudsman’s office, we’re hoping to have a new bylaw in front of council, late 2023, early 2024.”
Potter said the idea of restricting the awarding of sole-source contracts to relatives of town personnel came up previously through the town’s own review.
“What … we’re looking to do is … not prohibiting that entirely, but again, there would be an approval process through council to say that, based on extenuating circumstances, the town could engage the services of a relative of an employee,” Potter explained.
While acknowledging the difficulty of entirely avoiding doing business with relatives of municipal staff or council members in a small community, Potter said it’s important to ensure the process is transparent.
“We wanted to identify that as an area for improvement within the bylaw and just make sure the proper approvals are obtained,” he explained.
Potter said the complaint directed to the Ombudsman involved contracts for both goods and services.
The Ombudsman suggested the town limit the number of sole-sourced contracts awarded to any one vendor.
“Currently, the purchasing bylaw does not include a limit, which may result a disproportionate number of contracts awarded to one vendor,” Dube stated.
“While there is a $10,000 threshold for single projects that are sole sourced, this may be far exceeded if the same vendor is awarded back-to-back contracts.”
Dube encouraged the town to address the issue when updating the purchasing bylaw.
“The town should also consider offering training sessions for staff on any updates to the purchasing bylaw,” he added.
As part of the Ombudsman’s review of the complaint, the office also reviewed the town’s procedures for complaints from members of the public.
“We were told by the interim CAO that general complaints about the town’s administrative processes can be made through the town’s Code of Conduct, Accountability and Transparency and Fiscal Accountability Policy,” which applies to all complaints made about the town, including code of conduct complaints about members of council or local boards, Dube states in the letter.
“Every municipality should have a clear process to respond to public complaints. General complaint resolution should be distinct from complaints about the conduct of council members or local board members, which should be referred to the appointed integrity commissioner,” Dube advised.
“Combining the public complaints procedure with the code of conduct complaints procedure leads to confusion about the applicable rules, the complaint processes, and the types of resolution that may be available.”
Dube noted the existing policy refers complaints about members of council and local boards to the mayor and deputy mayor, rather than the town’s integrity commissioner.
“The town’s mayor and deputy mayor do not have authority to respond to these types of complaints,” Dube pointed out.
“The town’s website does not contain information about how a member of the public can file a complaint with the town’s integrity commissioner.”
The Ombudsman added, “As a best practice, I encourage the town to update its code of conduct complaint process and website with clear information on how to make a complaint directly to the appointed integrity commissioner.”
Guy Giorno, a partner in the law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, is currently the town’s integrity commissioner.
Potter told the Advertiser that “as far as I am aware” no specific integrity complaint was filed by the individual who contacted the Ombudsman and he noted there were no findings of any misconduct by the town through the office’s investigation.
“The Town of Minto welcomes the review and the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s office and is happy to learn that there were no findings reported by the Ombudsman’s office,” said Potter, adding the municipality is “committed to continuous process improvement.”
The letter was not discussed by council during the open portion of the Oct. 3 meeting.
However, following the in-camera session, council approved a motion to receive for information the report regarding personal matters about an identifiable individual and to approve confidential direction to staff.
