Carole McGinn's remorse and regret couldn't melt the hearts of council members in favour of a lesser penalty for their peer subject of an integrity commissioner investigation.
An amended moved by Coun. Bill Gordon to reduce the penalty so McGinn would lose only one day of pay, compared to 15, was voted down by council at Wednesday's meeting.
"I would like to see our council adopt a short sharp equivalency of one day's pay," said Gordon. "I don't want this to be interpreted as any disrespect or downplaying of the report. This is in context of the person we know and work with and their situation. In my mind, a one day docking pay is as stinging as 15-day pay without the consequence to her family and her financial situation.
"She gets to bear the same shame I do of having that report linked on the town website in perpetuity," he added. "There's a lot more in her report about things that are way more private."
However, others didn't see it quite the same way.
"It's never easy as the complainant to make a complaint against a fellow colleague," said Deputy Mayor Mike Ross. "I felt it was my duty to the citizens to follow through on the code of conduct council chose to implement. This is exactly the kind of situation the code of conduct is designed to address. Unfortunately, we got to where we were today. I will stand behind the recommendation that the integrity commissioner has laid out for council today."
Mayor Stewart Strathearn echoed Ross' comments.
"At the beginning of this term of council, the integrity commissioner came to town and did a workshop and was very clear on our obligations under the code of conduct and conflict-of-interest act," said Strathearn. "We've (since) had encounters with the integrity commissioner before and had refreshers on it.
"It's been clear from councillor McGinn's speaking tonight that she's very much a stickler for words, so it strikes me as odd that with the wording provided by the integrity commissioner the councillor would not have chosen to understand some of the terminology."
One day docking of pay is not equivalent to 15 days, continued Strathearn.
"I would suggest we also take into account that again this is an experienced third-party group who have opined on this," he said. "I think we should respect the results put forward or else why bother going back if something occurs in the future."
Before her peers voted to unanimously approve the report and the penalty prescribed within that involves her losing $800 of pay, McGinn was given the opportunity to speak to the issue.
She started out by apologizing.
"I'm sorry for pain caused, in particular, to Jamie (Woolhead) because I wasn't able to respond to his comments about what was bothering me," said McGinn. "I couldn't talk to him about it. I'm sorry for the shaming others may be getting. I didn't mean to cause grief or harm but I did. I also, in retrospect, failed to give Jamie the protection he deserved from having his privacy interrupted. I will protect the corporation and stakeholders and people."
With reference to her attendance at the closed-session meeting, which led to the complaint, she said she had sincerely thought that no decision was being made at that date and further that none of the choices could be influenced by council.
As for why she was confused around determining if her relationship with a town employee would be a conflict of interest, McGinn said, "we have separate finances, but I have, through this process, come to understand that this isn't all that matters. It is perceived (in the report) that and decided that we are equivalent to spouses."
She said it wasn't carelessness, but most certainly misunderstanding.
"I can be taught and this has been a very emotional, intellectual, and procedural lesson," said McGinn, her voice breaking up. "I'm really sorry to people who suffered some short moods from me."
She also addressed the words used in the report around her lifestyle.
"I'm really uncomfortable as how the lifestyle is written and presented," said McGinn, taking a deep breath before launching into an explanation. "I'm afraid of it becoming a media buzz focus."
She said she understood that the details were included because the integrity commissioner was trying to define Woolhead and her as a "we".
"Those words: Marriage, spouse, common-law, means a lot to me," said McGinn. "I felt I was being subject to bigotry. It's not something that I'm open in public about because it's private."
She said she felt as if in the eyes of others she was being made to look as if of she was not committed to Woolhead and that she deliberately trying to devalue their relationship.
McGinn said that may come from the "horrid" misunderstanding that a polyamorous relationship always mean having multiple sexual partners.
"It's about deep love and it doesn't always equate to sex," she said.
Then McGinn said she was hurt by the use of the term "non-traditional" in paragraph 16 of the report.
"We need to update the language," she said. "No person should ever feel they're in an unconventional relationship or a non-traditional one. That implies it's not a norm. He's my partner. He's my equivalent in the relationship. How our relationship operates is nobody's business, except for when I have to declare a pecuniary interest."
McGinn said the entire experience was painful on many levels.
"I didn't mean to insult the integrity of rules and boundaries and people," she said. "The only way I can prove I'm sorry is to not do it again. I love being a councillor. I love being an advocate for people. I love my family. I love Jamie. I love learning, even if painful.
"I'm asking my peers who get to decide what punishment I get to please be compassionate. Please consider how it isn't only me, please believe the anguish I went through, please understand that I value my position."
Her remorse was noticed.
"We will note that Coun. McGinn in the media has shown some contrition in these circumstances," said Jeffrey Abrams, co-principal at Principles Integrity, the firm hired by the town as its integrity commissioner, adding they don't take the penalty recommendations lightly. "There is no reason to doubt that. Up until the point we filed the report, the contrition was absent."
Fellow council members also acknowledged the regret and commented on it.
"I think we have heard in councillor McGinn's response that there was a lot of confusion," said Coun. Cher Cunningham. "I'm hoping I heard that that is cleared up now. I believe that is the real goal from this third-party review. We don't want undue hardship from this. This needs to be a learning experience. Let's put this behind us and move forward with a new understanding."
Coun. Beth Prost said she agreed with both Cunningham and Gordon.
"I think a learning experience is what it should be," said Prost. "I try to live by restorative justice principles. I think councillor McGinn understands what happened. I believe it was a mistake. She knows that it was and she's learned from it. I would actually like to see it end right here."
Coun. Jonathan Main also said he could feel the sincerity in McGinn's statement.
"I feel there's a legitimate understanding that what you did was wrong and it's a learning experience and we're moving forward," he said."This appears to have been a mistake."
