Questions and Answers V

Are there any ethical Issues when the Mayor allgedly had film and TV crews at his home, received monetary benefits, preferential treatment, facilitation, or influence through City staff, economic development resources, or contacts that ordinary residents would not receive?

Here is how I view this issue: We must separate proven, documented fact from local allegation, but the underlying systemic rule remains exactly the same public office must never be a vehicle for private profit.

Let’s be entirely accurate about the record. It is a matter of public record and an Integrity Commissioner's investigation that the Mayor had his pay docked for 60 days over the misuse of a city-issued credit card. That is a proven fact.

Conversely, the claims regarding his private property being used as a paid film location through inside city tracks remain unverified allegations. I suspect the reason this question is being asked is that the public’s trust has been deeply shaken. When leaders blur ethical lines in one area, it naturally makes residents look at every other municipal interaction with intense scrutiny.

My stance on municipal ethics is firm, whether it is an unverified rumor or a documented event, we need an ironclad firewall. City staff, economic development resources, and municipal networks are funded by the taxpayers of North Bay. They exist to grow our local economy as a whole, not to serve as a private concierge service for elected officials.

As a councillor, I will advocate for strict, mandatory disclosure policies. If any member of council has private, commercial dealings with an industry that relies on city permits like the film sector it must be fully disclosed to the public. We don't restore trust by managing rumors; we restore it by locking down the system

Next

Previous