RLGG & the 54 PAGE "DEFENSE"

Since the Rideau Lakes Grassroots Group (RLGG) delegation at the November 4th, 2024, Council meeting, there has been much speculation regarding RLGG’s spokesperson, Wendy Alford’s reference to the 54-page document that Councillors Paula and Jeff Banks provided to the Integrity Commissioner as a defense against the Code of Conduct complaint authored by RLGG.

Councillors Paula and Jeff Banks, at subsequent meetings and on social media, have asserted several theories as to how RLGG came into possession of the 54 page response. They have publicly asserted that one or more of their colleagues on Council must have “leaked” it to RLGG which was NOT the case. They, and their supporters on Councll and in the public realm, do not appear to have familiarized themselves with the Integrity Complaint process in which a copy of the response to the complaint is sent by the Integrity Commissioner (IC) to the complainant thereby giving the complainant an opportunity to provide further information to the IC.

The Banks’ are keenly aware that RLGG has three spokespersons and they were informed at the meeting on November 4th that RLGG was the complainant.  RLGG had designated spokesperson Howard French as single point of contact for the purposes of filing the complaint. It was authored by RLGG and the IC was aware of that fact. Three spokespersons reviewed and responded to the Banks’ defense document. Subsequently, when Councillor Paula Banks demanded to know if IC Bill Hunter had sent their defense to Wendy Alford, Mr. Hunter replied truthfully. In our opinion, Councillors Paula and Jeff Banks and Councillors Carr, Dunfield and Hutchings owe an apology to staff, the Mayor and three other Councillors for their inferences and allegations that one of their Township colleagues had violated the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Paula Banks has made other assertions during Council meetings about the 54 pages related to the redactions to the document and demanded that RLGG provide her with a copy of the document in our possession.  Councillor Banks wanted the copy in RLGG’s possession so that she could compare it to the copy she emailed to her Council colleagues  and then, as she has stated, later discussed in a closed session.  Councillors Dunfield, Maxwell, Pollard, Delaney, Hutchings, Carr and Mayor Hoogenboom were NOT part of the IC process except at the penalty phase, so it raises the question as to a breach of confidentiality by Councillor Paula Banks in providing all Council members with a copy in advance of the penalty phase.  Councillor Paula Banks has also been vocal at public Council meetings that she, in fact, redacted her copy before giving it to the rest of Council.

Indeed very little was redacted from the document sent to RLGG by the IC.  Councillor Paula Banks has said a great deal about the defense the Banks’ provided to the IC and expressed concern, both at Council meetings and on social media, about the information provided by the Banks to the IC.  In IC Hunter’s final report on the complaint he noted that he would not state the allegations and remarks contained in that 54 page reply as they did not assist Councillor Paula or Jeff Banks in defending the complaint.

That being said, there are certain facts in the document that serve no purpose in RLGG’s pursuit of accountability by Paula and Jeff Banks.  For that reason RLGG has redacted certain personal information about the Banks out of respect for their children and grandchildren.

The rest of the Bank’s document, with the exception of IC Hunter’s redactions and the subsequent RLGG’s redaction, is as sent to RLGG on July 12th, 2024. Statements made by the Banks throughout the 54 pages are their own and give insight as to the lack of respect for public voices, the staff and their colleagues on Council.  The document demonstrates contempt for anyone who opposes, criticizes or corrects them and the lengths to which they will go to discredit those same people.  The IC system was designed to correct the bad behaviour of Councillors and yet that has not yet happened.

The negative reaction by the public to the party of 5 turning their backs on the RLGG delegation was a physical demonstration of their lack of respect for the public.  Their attempt to excuse or change the intent of their turned backs after the fact is laughable. When the public reacted, the story changed to one where they were supposedly looking to the Mayor to stop the delegation. They further berated him by saying he should have also stopped the two previous delegations on Oct 7th and Oct 15th speaking about the Maxwell and Carr IC complaints.  The videos of both delegations are available on the Township website and speak for themselves. Councillor Dunfield even praising one delegation and in the other, the party of 5  went as far as to make an exemption to the procedural bylaw to enable additional “witnesses” to speak, despite the Mayor’s protest over not following the procedural bylaw.

Past behaviour predicts future behaviour.  Even since the November 4th RLGG delegation, many people have been blocked from participating in discussions on line and there has been a call by the Banks’ and their enablers on Council to deny any future delegation to Council that they do not like. Councillor Dunfield, in response to a concern that this would stifle public input, tellingly and enthusiastically answered “good”. This is a pattern of behaviour evident in dismissing all public input, including budget surveys, correspondence to Council, strategic planning issues, feedback from public meetings or any public engagement results that the party of 5 do not like. This in direct contradiction to their hypocritical calls for transparency and public engagement.

There was additional correspondence between IC Hunter and the three RLGG spokespersons (Wendy Alford, Howard French and Dan Berty). Specific questions were asked and answered rebutting the accusations and allegations contained in the Banks’ 54 pages but they, again, were not relevant to the complaint itself.  Nevertheless, RLGG has no objection to publishing those questions and answers if we deem it is necessary.

Our intent in publishing the information regarding the complaint is to speak to members of the public who are interested, invested and concerned for Rideau Lakes Township and its current government.