MULGRAVE — The Town of Mulgrave has spent approximately $7,000 over the past six months on code of conduct investigations related to a citizen complaint against its mayor, Ron Chisholm.
The price tag includes legal and administrative expenses incurred through the town’s process, which requires outside investigation of formal complaints, according to Chisholm.
“We weren’t expecting that it was going to be this costly,” he told The Journal last week. “At the end of the day, it’s the taxpayers who are on the hook for this.”
Chisholm said that he and other members of council and town staff are not at liberty to discuss the details of the investigations, adding that information appears in the town’s financial statements and that upcoming council meeting minutes will reflect the expense. “Our council statements and minutes from last night’s meeting (Oct. 20) will be released after the next meeting,” he said.
Chief Administrative Officer David Gray confirmed during that meeting that the total amount spent over the past six months was “about $7,000.”
In an interview with The Journal on Monday, Mulgrave resident Mike Shaw confirmed he filed a formal complaint against Chisholm in June, stating that it “related to a specific alleged violation of the official Code of Conduct, under Line 20” of the regulations.
He said he submitted the complaint to MC Advisory, a legal firm listed on the town’s website and retained under the province’s code of conduct policy, which requires complaints to be vetted by a third-party investigator before proceeding.
According to Shaw, it is the firm – not the complainant – that determines whether an investigation goes ahead, and the resulting cost to the municipality is not his responsibility.
“I didn’t decide if there was an investigation,” he said. “They [the firm] felt that what I supplied them warranted investigation.”
He added that he has not received any notice from the firm indicating the matter is closed.
Deputy Mayor Joanne Maas Latimer addressed the matter publicly during the Oct. 20 meeting, calling the situation “not an easy subject” and expressing concern over how the information was shared through social media.
“Facebook is not the place for disagreements to be aired,” she said. “I will stand up for what’s right, for any resident of Mulgrave, whether I know them or not, whether I like them or not, and whether anybody else likes them or not. Because that’s my job as a councillor for Mulgrave.”
Latimer said she was unaware of the expenses before the post appeared and questioned how the information became public.
“These costs mentioned are not common knowledge to all of council, as I was not aware of them, so how did this information come to the person posting it? People are asking questions… we need answers. Where’s the information coming from and why is it on Facebook?”
She also reflected on the strain the issue has placed on council.
“As my year of deputy mayor comes to an end, I really struggle for a reason to continue as a councillor,” she said. “This situation is not good for anyone, and I know I didn’t sign up for this. I wanted to build a community, and we need to come together.”
Chisholm confirmed during the meeting that he had provided the figure to a resident who inquired about it, saying the information was already public through the town’s financial records.
He said the municipality is required under provincial policy to engage legal counsel when a formal code of conduct complaint is filed. “We did do that,” he confirmed.
He added that he has not received any notice that the investigation is complete.
“I haven’t heard anything back saying that the investigation is over or anything like that,” he said. “We definitely don’t know. It’s a guessing game.”
Recent amendments to the Municipal Government Act now restrict who may file formal code of conduct complaints, limiting them to elected councillors. The change, which took effect earlier this month, followed the launch of the Mulgrave investigation.
