Council votes to reprimand Coun. Stevenson over social media posts | CBC News

London city council voted on Tuesday in favour of reprimanding Ward 4 Coun. Susan Stevenson over social media posts she made in September on X.

Council made the decision after a lengthy, and at times confused, debate. They voted nine to six in favour of the recommended reprimand outlined in an Integrity Commissioner report that found Stevenson in breach of council’s code of conduct.

“Councillors do need to be able to express differences of opinion,” said Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis during council’s meeting. “But, I think it’s important that we do so in a way that’s careful and thoughtful.”

The ruling from lawyer Jeffrey A. Abrams of the firm Principles Integrity, which was obtained by CBC News in early December, found Stevenson’s posts showing a group of people on a sidewalk in Old East Village were “unnecessary and insensitive” because they also included complaints about criminal activity. The report recommended that Stevenson be reprimanded.

The formal reprimand amounts to a vote of censure and will have no effect on Stevenson’s ability to act as a councillor. It will also not affect her pay or committee appointments.

Even though the commissioner recommended Stevenson not vote on her own reprimand, the city clerk listed Stevenson as having voted against it.

“I haven’t heard anything here from any of my colleagues that would support not having a reprimand,” said Ward 9 Coun. Anna Hopkins. “I’ve heard the councillor was new. I’ve heard the process was not followed, but I think what is more important is that as elected officials that we we hold ourselves to a higher level of accountability.”

Stevenson’s stance throughout the council meeting was that the complaint protocol for council code of conduct breaches was not followed by the Integrity Commissioner.

“I, too, believe in a higher standard. I believe in the integrity commissioner process. I believe in this. There needs to be integrity in this process as well,” Stevenson said following Hopkins’s comments. “I’m entitled to procedural fairness. I did not receive an e-mail from the integrity commissioner informing me that they were investigating a complaint. I was not provided with a copy of the complaint. I was not provided the names of the complainants and I was not asked to provide a response.”

Prior to council’s debate, Janice Atwood, co-principal at Principles Integrity, acknowledged that a “less rigid” approach was taken by her firm in handling complaints levied against Stevenson in response to her social media posts, citing the “prescriptive and legalistic” and “unworkable” nature of London’s investigation protocol.

On Sept. 26, Atwood says, 10 complaints, several of which had also been sent directly to Stevenson, were sent to the Integrity Commissioner. 

“As Jeff Abrams was attending council for training on September 28th, two days later, he took the opportunity of speaking with Councillor Stevenson in person while in London, providing the training for the councillors,” Atwood said of her firm’s attempts to inform Stevenson of the complaints.

“Councillor Stevenson was aware and acknowledged that she had attempted unsuccessfully to blur the faces, but had gone ahead and posted the photos anyways,” Atwood went on to say. “She also suggested that the complainants would not have any knowledge of whether she had first obtained permission from the homeless persons to post these photos.”

Stevenson maintained that accepting an Integrity Commissioner report that did not follow protocol would set a dangerous precedent.

Some councillors who voted against reprimanding Stevenson cited her lack of experience in government as a reason to show some leniency.

Council voted as follows:

Yeas:

• A. Hopkins
• C. Rahman.
• D. Ferreira.
• E. Peloza.
• H. McAlister.
• Mayor J. Morgan.
• P. Cuddy.
• S. Franke.
• S. Lewis.

Nays:

• J. Pribil.
• P. Van Meerbergen.
• S. Hillier.
• S. Lehman.
• S. Stevenson.
• S. Trosow.