Chartrand found in breach of code of conduct due to second Facebook account
BY SHAWN LOUGHLIN
Huron East Councillor Ray Chartrand breached the municipality’s code of conduct during last fall’s election, the municipality’s integrity commissioner has found, but he will face no corrective actions or remedial measures.
The issue was up for discussion at council’s Tuesday night meeting, which included a full report and presentation from Meghan Cowan of Aird and Berlis LLP, who laid out the events that led to the complaint being filed and the firm’s eventual findings.
The complainant, who the firm and council have kept anonymous down to using “they/them” pronouns to protect the person’s identity, filed their first complaint on Nov. 27, 2022. The complaint alleged that Chartrand engaged in inappropriate behaviour and made inappropriate comments during the municipal election, citing over a dozen contraventions of sections of the code.
The complainant filed further submissions and screenshots in early January, alleging that Chartrand had created a secondary Facebook account for a fictitious individual. After a third batch of submissions, the firm reached out to the complainant on Jan. 16 and asked for all relevant information in regards to the claim by Jan. 19.
Cowan said that the firm then reviewed the submissions and issued a “Notice of Partial Summary Dismissal” on Feb. 6, finding that Chartrand had not contravened the bulk of the sections of the code being alleged. As a result, Cowan said the firm informed the complainant that it would not be conducting a formal investigation into the aforementioned allegations. However, the firm proceeded with an investigation on the one remaining allegation, which was that Chartrand had created a secondary Facebook account.
“Of importance to our findings... our Notice of Partial Summary Dismissal examined the four screenshot images submitted in relation to the councillor’s use of Facebook. We examined the content of the images and determined that the content did not contravene the code, as we found that none of the comments rose to a level of abuse, bullying, intimidation, nor did they use abusive words,” Cowan noted in her report. “In particular, we noted that the councillor was a certified candidate in the 2022 municipal election. In our view, as a candidate for local elected office, the councillor was entitled to participate in the election and could choose to run a campaign, for example, which supported a particular issue or candidate that was in line with his own vision and purpose.”
As a result, the code provisions at issue were that, “In all respects, a member shall: (4.1c) seek to advance public interest with honesty and (4.1f) refrain from making statements known to be false or with the intent to mislead council or the public.”
In her report, Cowan said Chartrand received notice of the complaint on Feb. 6 and responded to the firm on Feb. 10. “In the Responding Submissions, the councillor stressed he was concerned about misinformation being circulated in the 2022 mayoral election and that he had created the secondary Facebook account to address this concern,” Cowan noted in her report.
Cowan then included an excerpt of written correspondence from Chartrand, responding to the allegations, saying he had made a “huge, honest mistake” in creating a secondary account, thinking they were his as a resident, not as a councillor, as he had never created a “councillor” Facebook profile for himself. “I didn’t know or realize at that time I was doing something inappropriate by creating this second Facebook account or I would of never did it, [and] for that I am truly sorry.”
Chartrand then referenced his age and relative lack of familiarity with social media and said he likely should have sought further advice before creating a secondary account.
“I had absolutely no intent to be dishonest or mislead the public in any way, I was just trying to get the facts out there so people could make a well-informed decision to vote for mayor,” Chartrand wrote. “In closing, I have learned a very valuable lesson, I apologize and take full responsibility for my actions. I can assure you this will never happen again and I have deleted that Facebook account....”
After Chartrand responded, the firm reached out to the complainant on Feb. 13 on a “strictly confidential basis” and provided them with a copy of the councillor’s responding submissions. Cowan said the complainant then responded with further documents said to be further submissions and evidence. “In addition, the complainant leveled a number of bald insinuations about the councillor’s conduct and character without any documentation to support or substantiate...,” the report stated.
Cowan said that, while the firm was not obligated to review the new submissions, they were considered, “despite the fact that they essentially attempted to re-introduce allegations and proffer submissions in support of those allegations that were raised in the original complaint, which we had already dismissed in our Notice of Partial Summary Dismissal.”
Chartrand then later contacted the firm on March 27, notifying investigators that on March 23 he had completed a media training course and found it to be “very helpful in understanding communication via social media.”
The firm then completed its final report and submitted a draft to both Chartrand and the complainant on March 30. Chartrand wrote to the firm on April 11, saying he had no further comments and did not note any factual inaccuracies within the report.
The report noted that the complainant responded on April 6, raising additional materials that had already been submitted to the firm and reviewed. Furthermore, the complainant alleged another breach, saying that, by deleting the account, Chartrand was “deleting evidence”, further contravention of the code of conduct.
The firm considered the accusation, but concluded that Chartrand did not contravene the code, as it was a remedial action undertaken to comply with the code of conduct.
In the firm’s findings, Cowan stated that Chartrand did not deny creating the secondary Facebook account and that, when taken in context, did breach Sections 4.1c and 4.1f of the code.
“Section 4.1f of the code provides that members of council will seek to advance the public interest with honesty. While the councillor’s stated intention in creating the secondary Facebook account was to counter his perception of the spread of misinformation, the manner by which he chose to do so contravened Section 4.1c of the code by his use of a fictitious Facebook account,” the report reads.
The firm also found that Chartrand fell short of Section 4.1f due to the creation of a secondary Facebook account.
“Section 4.1f of the code provides that a member shall refrain from making comments known to be false or with the intent to mislead. In our opinion, as a candidate in the municipal election, the councillor was entitled to participate in the election and could choose to run a campaign, for example, in support of a particular issue or candidate. Candidates in elections have significant leeway in terms of freedom of expression in the context of this democratic process,” the report stated. “While the councillor’s Facebook communications may have contained some political embellishment, the comments were not knowingly false or made with an intention to mislead members of the public. The manner in which they were conveyed, however, by virtue of being shared or amplified by the secondary Facebook account, was misleading.”
Cowan then stated in her report that Chartrand took immediate action to delete the account and further educated himself on the use of social media. She said Chartrand’s communication was found by the firm to be “sincere and forthright”.
As a result, the firm was not recommending any remedial measures or corrective actions for Chartrand. However, Cowan also noted in her report that an integrity commissioner’s job is to act in an investigative capacity, reviewing and assessing formal complaints, making findings and providing recommendations. The integrity commissioner has no authority to impose penalties or sanctions, nor to order the rectification of wrongdoing, if any is found.
At the meeting, Mayor Bernie MacLellan noted that Chartrand was allowed to speak to council on the matter and advocate for himself after the report had been presented, if he chose to do so.
Chartrand addressed council, thanking the integrity commissioner and acknowledged his relief of being cleared of 11 of the 13 allegations made, saying his only mistake was creating the secondary account.
“I apologize to staff and council for that error and for any distraction this may have caused,” he added that any further training courses for councillors should include the “dos and don’ts of social media” in this day and age.
Councillor Bob Fisher commended Chartrand on his actions, given the circumstances, and supported a motion to impose no further penalty upon the councillor.
Council then passed a motion to take no further action as a result of the report.