The Best Man For The Job : Joe Fratesi and the Politics of Sault Ste. Marie [1 ed.] 9781554905928, 9781550224542

Citation preview

HARVEY SIMS

HARVEY SIMS was one of the Sault residents who fought Fratesi’s appointment through the court system. In The Best Man for the Job, he provides a sobering account of his hometown’s dysfunctional politics, greed, intimidation, lawbreaking, and contempt for basic standards in public office. ECW Press

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

What happens when the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie decides one day to become the city administrator, then breaks the law half a dozen times while getting the job? He keeps it, of course, with the full support of the majority of the community, because he is “The Best Man for the Job.” This compelling book explores the why and how of civic corruption in a Northern Ontario city. The story begins in the late 1980s, when the official languages policies of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and David Peterson collided with the Sault’s deep-rooted resistance to bilingualism. The man at the centre of the uproar over the city’s infamous English-only resolution was Mayor Joe Fratesi, whose unwavering support for the resolution made him a wildly popular local hero. Unfortunately for him, it also killed any chance of his being appointed a judge, which sent him looking in other directions for career advancement. In 1995 he spotted another job he wanted, this one under the control of the city council he had dominated for years. He went for it, breaking the law repeatedly in the process, plunging the Sault into a bitter two-and-a-half year political and legal battle over ethics in public office.

BEST MAN

FOR THE JOB

ISBN-13: 978-1-55022-454-2 ISBN-10: 1-55022-454-9

JOE FRATESI AN D TH E P OLITICS OF SAU LT STE. MAR I E

$18.95 Distributed in Canada by Jaguar Book Group

ecwpress.com

THE

ECW

HARVEY SIMS

THE

BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

THE

BEST MAN FOR THE JOB JOE FRATESI AN D TH E P OLITICS OF SAU LT STE. MAR I E HARVEY SIMS

ECW PRESS

Copyright © Harvey Sims, 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any process — electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise — without the prior written permission of the copyright owners and ecw press. national library of canada cataloguing in publication data Sims, Harvey R. The best man for the job : Joe Fratesi and the politics of Sault Ste. Marie isbn 1-55022-454-9 1. Fratesi, Joe. 2. Sault Ste. Marie (Ont.) — Politics and government. 3. Political corruption — Ontario — Sault Ste. Marie. i. Title. fc3099.s29s55 2001 971.3´132 f1059.s25s55 c00-933261-8 2001 Editied by Jennifer Hale Cover and text design by Tania Craan Front cover photos: Top: The Sault Star; Bottom: William James Warren/Magma Photos Back cover photo: Harvey Sims Layout by Mary Bowness Printed by Imprimerie Gagné / Best Book

Distributed in Canada by General Distribution Services, 325 Humber College Blvd., Toronto, ON, m9w 7c3 Published by ecw press 2120 Queen Street East, Suite 200 Toronto, ON m4e 1e2 ecwpress.com This book is set in Minion and Frutiger. printed and bound in canada The publication of The Best Man For the Job has been generously supported by the Canada Council, the Ontario Arts Council and the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program.

To Janet

Table of Contents

A New City Administrator for Sault Ste. Marie The Road to the English-Only Resolution

1

11

Whacking the French Pays Rich Dividends, But Has Its Costs Joe Fratesi Finds His New Job

63

Joe Fratesi Loses His New Job, But Gets It Back Again Convictions and Values

139

More Convictions and Values The Worst of the Affair The End of the Affair

161

185 205

Joe Fratesi’s Decade and Its Legacy Notes

233

219

101

29

Acknowledgements

I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my wife Janet Sabourin, to Dee Patterson, and to Malcolm McLeod. Janet first helped persuade me to get involved in the battle over Joe Fratesi’s new job which comprises much of the story of this book, then encouraged me to write the story down. Dee shared fully the view that ethics in city government matter; her persistence, and willingness to go to court repeatedly to try to enforce the law were crucial to the way this story unfolded. And the superb legal representation Malcolm gave us shone light into some rather dark corners of city hall in Sault Ste. Marie. My sister Diane Sims and her husband Bob Roth both fought the good fight in the Sault, and gave me much sound advice while I worked on this book. Publisher Jack David offered his support for the project at a critical time; his help, and that of my patient editor Jen Hale, have been invaluable. I am grateful to Cyril Morden for allowing me to reprint several of the editorial cartoons he drew for Sault This Week in 1995 and 1996. These are an important part of the historical record of the so-called cao affair in the Sault, and I am delighted that they appear here as a reminder of key events. My thanks as well to Brian Gable and The Globe and Mail, Alan King, and Jean-Marc

Phaneuf, for permission to reprint the caricatures which summarized their reactions to the Sault’s English-only resolution of 1990; and to the Sault Star for permission to use its photographs. Many other people have helped me along the way. Some would have no difficulty in my recognizing their assistance publicly. Others wish to remain anonymous, which is perfectly understandable in light of the circumstances I describe in the book. Rather than acknowledging some and remaining silent about others, I prefer to say one hearfelt "Thank you, friends," to all of them.

A New City Administrator for Sault Ste. Marie I have a problem with someone being special. — JOE FRATESI

A PUPPET SHOW AT CITY HALL

September 26, 1995. A pleasant early autumn afternoon in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Reporters from all the local media have been summoned to a press conference down at the Civic Centre, the city hall on the bank of the St. Mary’s river. A stiff breeze churns up the water; sunlight dances across the waves. Inside the council chamber it looks as if a rerun of the previous evening’s council meeting rather than a press conference is about to start. Evidently something important is happening. Mayor Joseph M. Fratesi and all 12 councillors are present. So are the city’s senior bureaucrats: the clerk sitting to the right of the mayor’s chair at the raised desk overlooking the council table, the chief administrative officer or cao to the left. The heads of department are sitting behind the councillors. The only difference from the usual seating arrangements is that the mayor is parked in senior councillor Mike Sanzosti’s spot at the table, while Sanzosti peers out over the chamber from the mayor’s chair. The curtain rises at 4:30 on a carefully choreographed piece of theatre. The message this show will try to convey is that there is nothing improper about the amazing new arrangements at city hall which are 1

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

about to be announced. In fact, everything is in order, and the community should be grateful for what it is about to hear. Sanzosti is centre stage. He looks serious, a little nervous as he begins to read a press release describing sudden changes at the top of the city’s bureaucratic heap. The dramatic effect of his opening line — that cao Allan Jackson will be taking early retirement after 35 years of service to the city — is undone somewhat as he struggles through a recitation of the highlights of Jackson’s career.1 Jackson listens impassively. Early this morning he has learned what is coming next, something he could hardly have imagined when he and the mayor negotiated his early retirement and the monetary incentive package which accompanies it. Sanzosti pauses, then delivers the really big news. Seconds after procuring agreement to Jackson’s retirement package at last night’s council meeting, Fratesi has asked for the job for himself under richly preferential terms and conditions, including no competition. In knee-jerk fashion, council has consented. Sanzosti doesn’t put it quite that way, though, telling the press instead that, “After meeting last evening for several hours in closed session, city council unanimously agreed to appoint Mayor Joe Fratesi to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Al Jackson. . . .”2 The appointment will be effective at the start of the new year; Jackson will remain cao and Fratesi will remain mayor until then. A close friend of the mayor, Sanzosti becomes visibly more comfortable as he reads his lines summarizing Fratesi’s accomplishments. Fratesi listens serenely as these roll out.3 A three-term alderman. Mayor for a local record of 10 consecutive years. A lawyer with a busy practice during the 20 years since being called to the bar with honours, after graduating from Osgoode Hall “with honours in the top five per cent of his class”4 and with “the award for highest standing for a Northern Ontario student.”5 Past member of this board, present member of that one. Born and raised in the Sault. A remarkable

2

A NEW CITY ADMINSTRATOR FOR SAULT STE. MARIE

undergraduate record — a three-year B.A. from Lake Superior State University in Sault Michigan across the river, completed with honours in just one year. Sanzosti reaches the end of his script. The mayor’s chair is now going to be vacant. Council can fill it either by calling an election or by appointing a councillor to serve out Fratesi’s term. It will choose between these options at its next meeting, on October 16.6 Sanzosti thanks Jackson for his years of dedicated service, and expresses regret that he is leaving but gratitude that the mayor has stepped forward and volunteered to replace him. Then, to Fratesi: I know council by this announcement has the greatest respect and faith in your ability. We know your ability. We know that you know the workings of city council, of what’s desired by the Municipal Act and whether it’s financing or the political side of it, you have it all and you’re probably the best, most strongest person to fill this position without doubt in my mind and I who has worked for you ever since you were on council never doubted your integrity, your dedication and your love for this city. . . .7 Following Jackson’s very brief remarks, the star performer takes the stage. Fratesi begins by saying that he wouldn’t have believed five weeks ago that they’d all be sitting here today discussing this. But: When Al came to us and me in particular and indicated he was serious about retirement, obviously my mind started to work and I think everyone knows that I thoroughly enjoyed the last 10 years in this building as the mayor, but I must confess that it’s becoming

3

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

more and more difficult to be involved with the municipality and to have a private practice on the outside as well. This is an opportunity that presented itself, it wasn’t created, it presented itself and I guess that doesn’t often occur.8 And what an excellent opportunity it is for all concerned. He will have a secure job with a generous employer for the next 20 years or so, which is certainly an attractive prospect for him. He hopes that the public will see this as its opportunity to harness his political experience, his legal training and experience, his small business involvement and his people skills, for the benefit of future mayors and councils.9 And just in case anyone should wonder whether his overnight transformation from mayor to chief bureaucrat meets minimum standards of civic rectitude, he repeats what he has instructed his councillors on the previous evening: John McMeeken was the mayor from 1937 to 1945, a period of nine years and after that nine-year period he went on to be the city administrator. There is a precedent in the city of Sault Ste. Marie’s history for what I am doing. . . . I guess there is a life after mayor for some people and there is a valuable service that folks who offer themselves for political service can realize after that political service.10 He does not mention that McMeeken’s metamorphosis from mayor to administrator predated Ontario’s first Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by nearly three decades. All councillors now trot on stage for the final act, to tell the audience that in spite of the suddenness of Jackson’s retirement they have

4

A NEW CITY ADMINSTRATOR FOR SAULT STE. MARIE .

found the perfect replacement for him, and have saved the taxpayers of Sault Ste. Marie oodles of money in the process. Each says nice things about Jackson, then justifies the decision to give Fratesi the job and offers him tribute. Some of this is distinctly Great Helmsmanish/ Dear Leaderish in flavour. Walter Chisholm muses that the public might be concerned about the absence of a competition, “but as a member of council of long standing, I am satisfied that [Fratesi] has done I would say a perfect job as mayor. . . .”11 Charlie Swift tells Fratesi that he “may have raised some eyebrows with this announcement today,”12 but he has “some talent, some expertise and some experience that would be very difficult to find and if we had spent a lot of money on a consultant to go out and search for somebody to replace [Jackson], it would have cost us a lot of money. . . .”13 In Jack Moore’s metaphor, council is a lucky shopper which has stumbled across a bargain and grabbed it before it disappears.14 Moore adds that, “with Mayor Joe as chief administrative officer, and a new mayor on January 1st, I think staff and council will be more united and much more stronger from a knowledge standpoint.”15 Jack Cameletti searches for different words of homage and finds them, declaring that, “When I look and think about Joe Fratesi’s 16 years as a member of council . . . I think we could say that Joe is a legend of modern times. . . .”16 Gary Trembinski likes that line and echoes it, then in all seriousness thanks Fratesi “for putting his name forward for cao.”17 He adds that he himself wouldn’t even have thought of this solution to the problem of replacing Jackson, given that Fratesi is an elected official. What remarkable foresight the mayor has.18 Sanzosti sums up. Council is wonderfully lucky to be able to make such a smooth transition at the top of city hall. He doesn’t know if people realize how much time and money it might have cost to find a candidate as qualified as Fratesi to replace Jackson. As a lawyer practising for 20 years, Fratesi will probably be losing money by taking this [six-figure] job, which just shows how much dedication to the city’s welfare he has.19

5

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Councillors and bureaucrats give Fratesi a standing ovation, and the players now file off-stage to talk to the media and put their best spin on what they have just announced. In the recent past Fratesi has been an outspoken opponent of special treatment for one group of people versus another. He now demonstrates how much his thinking about special treatment for at least one person has evolved, when he explains to the press why he has lunged for Jackson’s job secretly, in the dead of the previous night: It was awkward because obviously I could not see myself, and would not put myself, in a competition. Because you’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t in something like that.20

BREAKING THE LAW PAYS OFF

It all did turn out to be very awkward. Part of the community quickly showed that it was not grateful for the transparently outrageous deal the mayor and councillors had struck on the evening of September 25. A storm of protest blew up, which Fratesi was unable to weather despite his enormous popularity, and he was forced to give his new job back. He rebounded to get it a second time through the competition which council, in its turn, was forced to hold after the first appointment exploded. By this time, however, his actions in September 1995 had become the subject of a first court application brought under the province’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and a second application followed hard on the heels of the first. Two additional lawsuits and an Ontario Provincial Police criminal investigation kept the so-called cao affair prominently in the local news until early 1998. The judges who heard the conflict of interest applications in separate

6

A NEW CITY ADMINSTRATOR FOR SAULT STE. MARIE

hearings in 1996 found that Fratesi had broken the law at least six times in his ultimately successful attempts to get the city’s top job while he was still its mayor. The courts barred him from running for a seat on the council he now serves — he is still cao as this is being written — for a total of 10 years (the prohibition lasts until 2006), and from sitting on a local board such as the city’s Economic Development Corporation for six years.21 These appear to be by far the most violations of the Act committed by one person, and the penalties by far the heaviest that the courts have ever imposed.22 Conflict of interest rules and adherence to them are critical to the proper functioning of democratic government. As Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp wrote in their 1984 task force report on the subject, society’s concerns about conflict of interest flow from the premise “that one should be ethical in conducting public business.”23 Ethical behaviour by public officials matters, they said, because our system of government rests on consensus rather than coercion, and requires that people believe in the integrity of those who govern them.24 This is the point of Canadian conflict of interest guidelines and laws. Consider the federal code operative when Judge W.D. Parker dissected the conduct of Sinclair Stevens in the mid-1980s. That code’s stated purpose was to ensure that officials acted in ways which could “bear the closest public scrutiny,” so that “public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government” were maintained.25 The corollary is that ministers of the Crown such as Stevens, who fail to live up to the standards of behaviour expected of them as public officials, lose their jobs. So do ministers who break not just codes and guidelines, but laws. The majority of Sault Ste. Marie’s citizens take a more benign view of conflict of interest violations, however, at least those committed by Joe Fratesi. Fratesi had already engineered his move into the cao’s office by the time the conflict of interest cases were heard and the

7

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

judgements delivered. The council that appointed him could have fired him on the spot, given the record of his misconduct recorded in the court documents and the verdicts. But ignoring one of the judges who suggested that it was “against conscience” that Fratesi should keep the job he broke the law in getting,26 council reaffirmed him as cao by an overwhelming margin. It endorsed a man who demonstrably could not or would not keep his private interests separate from his public duties, as being the best person to lead the Sault’s civic administration into the new millennium. The best man for the job. In a memorable defence of illegality, newly elected mayor Steve Butland reached for inspiration back to the era of a corrupt American president and his advisors: I shall provide my support and endorsation of Mr. Fratesi. . . . My support is unequivocal. . . . The law is the law, and this is unfortunate, because this, this causes the difficulty, this is the crux of it. The law is the law. It was contravened. Henry Kissinger, and I don’t like to quote Henry Kissinger, but it was the one that suited me best: “There are times when the national interest is more important than the law.” This time, there are times when the community interest is more important.27 Now, if this speech were delivered from a podium in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or in some unreconstructed Sicilian backwater, no one would miss a stroke. But in a well-established Canadian city? Where many residents are literate, have travelled beyond the city limits, have participated in civic affairs, and at some level of consciousness understand the importance of the rule

8

A NEW CITY ADMINSTRATOR FOR SAULT STE. MARIE

of law? Why do most of the Sault’s council members and the people they represent regard notions of ethics and integrity, and the need for high office to be seen as a public trust rather than a private trough, as being inapplicable when it comes to Fratesi’s actions? What exactly is the community interest in his well-being and his continued presence at city hall, which transcends respect for the law? Here we come to the effects of the Sault’s notorious English-only resolution of 1990, and the unforeseen but powerful ways in which it interacted with Joe Fratesi’s career plans.

9

The Road to the English-Only Resolution Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue. — FRANÇOIS, DUC DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD

JOE FRATESI’S JUDICIAL AMBITIONS

One of the ironies in the story of Joe Fratesi and the cao affair is that until the late innings, he did not want to be a municipal administrator at all. Bureaucrats had their places in government, but they were subordinate places, and unlike elected officials, bureaucrats were not movers and shakers.1 Judges were important people, though, with prestigious and well-paying work. Fratesi wanted to be a judge in a Sault Ste. Marie courtroom, and he thought he would be a pretty good man for that job. He was born and raised in the Sault, a descendant of Italian immigrants who had arrived here at the turn of the twentieth century. After getting his B.A. in psychology in one year of studies, he took a law degree in Toronto before returning to the Sault to article and practise in the early 1970s. In 1976 he was elected to city council from a west-end ward with a high concentration of non-wasp immigrants, particularly from Italy, and their descendants. He held that seat for six years, then ran unsuccessfully for mayor a first time in 1982 against incumbent Don

11

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Macgregor. He beat Macgregor for the job in 1985; a nasty fight in 1983 over real estate reassessment had helped him expand his political base beyond its west-end core. The 1985 municipal elections in the Sault also featured the city’s third referendum in 17 years on whether fluoride should be added to the water supply. Veteran councillor Chisholm warned the town that fluoride was poison, and exposed the little-known causal link between fluoride and aids, cancer, and other deadly diseases. Voters rejected fluoridation by a margin of nearly two to one.2 Fratesi’s support for the anti-fluoride movement3 did him no harm. He became the Sault’s first mayor of Italian heritage on both mother’s and father’s sides, a matter of considerable pride and importance to the large Italian community there. Fratesi loved being mayor. He quickly turned this part-time position into a full-time, hands-on job at the same time as he was practising as a lawyer. He was coping with the two jobs by cutting back his legal work to about three hours a day, handling matters such as marriage breakdowns and real estate transactions, which did not require him to appear in court.4 This was manageable in the short term, but not indefinitely. In January 1987, less than halfway through his first term, Fratesi wrote to then Attorney General Ian Scott on city letterhead asking for an appointment to the Provincial Bench of Ontario.5 He explained that he had been thinking about a judgeship for himself back in 1985, but then had gotten caught up in the mayoralty race. He was now formally applying for an appointment, because he did not think he would be able to carry on with two full-time jobs beyond his first term as mayor.6 He believed that he was respected by both the local legal fraternity and the community at large, and that his educational background and experience made him an excellent candidate.7 He would be prepared to consider an appointment anywhere in Northern Ontario, but his

12

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

“fondest hope” was to do his judging in Sault Ste. Marie and the surrounding District of Algoma.8 At the time there were no vacancies on the three-member Provincial Bench in the Sault. But that was not an insurmountable barrier if Scott wanted to move quickly on his offer to serve. Fratesi invited Scott to create a fourth judgeship for Algoma District, attributing to senior local Judge I.A. Vannini the idea that an additional judge was needed here, and told the Attorney General that he looked forward to hearing from him at his “very earliest convenience.”9 Scott evidently declined the opportunity Fratesi offered him. No appointment for Fratesi had materialized by the time of the 1988 municipal elections, when he ran again. He was widely seen as having done a creditable job during his first term, and he beat his three opponents (two of whom were strip-club owners) with crushing ease. He explained that the city’s satisfaction with his record was reflected in the fact that “more serious candidates did not present themselves,” and suggested that he should have been acclaimed.10 This drew a retort from the editor of the Sault Star, the city’s daily newspaper: Fratesi’s comments, the editor wrote, reflected an unbecoming arrogance and an apparent belief that it was his right to go unchallenged.11 By this time Sault Judge Clifford Boyd had retired after having been ill for months. Along with the health problems of another local judge, Boyd’s retirement was creating a backlog in the court system, and growing pressure on Scott to make an appointment. There was still no appointment for Fratesi or anyone else, however, and the reason surfaced in the summer of 1989. There were thousands of citizens in the District of Algoma whose mother tongue was French, and who were being denied equal access to Ontario’s justice system because of the shortage of judges fluent in French. Scott had listened carefully to representations on this matter,

13

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

and he had decided that the next lawyer appointed to the Provincial Bench in Algoma would be bilingual.12 The problem? Joe Fratesi did not speak French. Thus, regardless of what Scott thought about his application relative to other applications in the pipeline, Fratesi was not going to get the next provincial judicial appointment in Algoma. We do not have to speculate about Fratesi’s reaction. He clearly thought that he would have had an appointment except for his lack of French. He told Jeffrey Simpson later that he resented the job market implications of bilingualism, which favoured “some at the expense of others, such as himself and his children.”13 He was frustrated, and argued that he “got gypped”14 in school because no one had told him that French might be a requirement for certain jobs. He enrolled in a conversational French course at Sault College, but he knew this was not going to give him the fluency he needed to conduct court proceedings in French, and he didn’t like it.15 Simpson reported his unhappy comment in 1993: There have been in this community and outside this community opportunities for myself and for my children where doors will be closed because of either not being Francophone or because of not being fluently bilingual. This has all happened in this province, at least in terms of its effect on my life, in the last three or four years.16 In fact, though, the ground rules in the province had not changed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They had begun to change fundamentally in the mid-1970s when the Davis government introduced and subsequently expanded the right to use French within the Ontario court system. The 1984 Courts of Justice Act made French an official language of the courts of Ontario.17 One obvious result was a growth

14

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

in the demand for judges who could speak French. Perhaps Fratesi had not noticed any of this until it suddenly affected him directly.

BILL 8 AND THE ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ENGLISH IN CANADA

At the same time as Fratesi was recognizing some implications of bilingualism in Ontario’s courts, various English-rights organizations were mounting strident attacks on the province’s French language services policy, and on federal language policies. Fratesi’s subsequent career cannot be understood except in the context of what these campaigns helped unleash in Sault Ste. Marie. With unanimous all-party support, David Peterson’s government passed the French Language Services Act (a.k.a. Bill 8) in November 1986. Bill 8 extended the range of provincial services to be provided in French, where numbers warranted.18 In several Northeastern Ontario districts the mother tongue of 20 per cent or more of the population is French. While this is not true of the District of Algoma, there are individual communities there where a large proportion of citizens are Francophone, and one — Dubreuilville, about 200 miles northwest of the Sault — which is a unilingual Francophone town. Algoma was designated as one of the 22 areas in Ontario where French language services would be provided. Bud Wildman was the mpp for Algoma at the time, and in 1990 he used a poignant example to illustrate to the Legislature the importance of Bill 8: One of the reasons I supported Bill 8 when it was introduced in this Legislature was that I had the experience of having to deal with a young man from Dubreuilville who did not speak English and who was wrongly diag-

15

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

nosed as a schizophrenic . . . because he did not speak English, and the person who was trying to treat him and deal with his problems did not speak French. That poor young man did not understand the questions that were being asked him. He did not know how to answer them. The professional who was attempting to assist that person did not understand the answers. It took us three years to have that mistake rectified for that young man.19 The Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada did not look at Bill 8’s place in the world with the same generous understanding. apec was a lobby group established in 1977 to fight the federal Official Languages Act and its associated evils. Originally based in Halifax, it eventually sank its deepest roots in Ontario as a modern-day voice for the Anglo-Saxon insecurity and defensiveness earlier represented by groups such as the Orange Order and the Ku Klux Klan.20 apec drew much of its spiritual nourishment from an anti-French conspiracy theory tract entitled Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow published just prior to its founding. Written by disaffected former naval officer Jock Andrew, this vicious little book purported to expose Pierre Trudeau’s plot to eliminate the English language in Canada and turn the entire country into a French-speaking state. Andrew was imaginative and not very subtle; in words which have often been quoted, he called French Canadians a backward “race”21 which had taken advantage of the federal baby bonus to turn Quebec into an “impregnable bastion, breeding pen, and marshalling yard for the colonization of the rest of Canada.”22 He made national headlines when he was caught on videotape saying, “We need French Canada and French Canadians about as much as we need the aids virus. And . . . they’re both being transmitted the same way, and the end result is equal.”23

16

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

Under apec president Ron Leitch, a close working relationship developed between Andrew and the organization. Andrew wrote that only apec was standing in the way of the “early and certain extinction” of English-speaking Canadians and the English language in Canada24; apec promoted Andrew’s books in its newsletter and used him as a guest speaker at membership meetings to excite the crowds and get their dander up.25 Leitch built bridges to other groups which were opposed, sometimes viscerally, to the pluralistic nature of Canadian society. In 1982 he sponsored a series of let’s-get-to-know-each-other, can-we-work-together meetings, including sessions with the Grand Orange Lodge of Canada, the anti-immigration and anti-foreign-aid Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, and the anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying Canadian League of Rights.26 However, despite cordial working relationships established among some of the principals — the clr’s Ron Gostick, for example, periodically spoke and distributed anti-Semitic literature at apec meetings27 — no grand alliance dedicated to the destruction of the official languages policy emerged from the apec overtures. apec’s growth remained slow until the late 1980s. By itself, crossdressing with other groups on the fringe right was not going to take it far in its crusade against bilingualism. It needed more proof of the French plot to strip English-speaking Canadians of their rights, if it were to rally and mobilize significant new levels of support for its Weltanschauung. Happily for apec, it got a boxcar full of new evidence beginning in late 1986 with the passage of Ontario’s Bill 8, which was to be implemented over a three-year phase-in period running to November 1989. Then came the Meech Lake Accord of mid-1987, followed in 1988 by the federal government’s renewal of the dreaded Official Languages Act, followed by the Supreme Court’s striking down of the sign law provisions of Quebec’s Bill 101 in December of that year, followed a mere week later by the Bourassa government’s use of

17

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

the notwithstanding clause to pass Bill 178, re-establishing restrictions on English signage. In the climate of unease about the Accord and anger over Quebec’s sign laws in English Canada, apec began to flourish. Its membership swelled from about 6,000 in 1987 to 34,000 by early 1990.28 Its shrill attacks on bilingualism and what one disgusted observer called the “jackboot and brownshirt mentality”29 behind them evidently had a growing appeal. So did its monthly newsletter, which among other things appealed to apec members to boycott not only Quebec-based companies, but businesses and organizations in other parts of the country which allegedly gave priority to French. No one was safe. The September 1989 newsletter suggested a boycott of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, which had sent a receipt written in French to a British Columbia donor.30 McDonald’s made the boycott list in March 1990 after one of apec’s vigilantes reported to headquarters that a Baby Kermit toy bought at a Burlington McDonald’s carried a French-only label.31 The Easter Seals campaign made this same hit list, for the generic crime of giving preference to the French language.32 And the November 1990 newsletter carried warnings about the Canadian National Institute for the Blind’s library division, and the Mouth and Foot Painting Artists, both of which had been caught sending material written in French to a Winnipeg resident.33 Part of apec’s growth during the late 1980s also resulted from a measure of success it achieved in attacking Bill 8. Its innovative tactic was to twist Bill 8, which dealt with provincial government services, into a local issue. Bill 8, with its supposedly enormous costs of providing supposedly unnecessary French language provincial services, was the thin edge of the wedge in the Frenchification of Ontario, according to apec. The Peterson government’s next step would be to force municipalities to provide municipal services in French. These

18

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

would have to be paid for with local taxes, which would skyrocket. The sky was going to fall and we were all going to die, and our funeral services would be conducted in French. In 1987 apec began to try to combine generalized concerns about taxes with the anti-French sentiments running in a number of Ontario communities, and focus the resulting mix of anger and fear on local councils. It lobbied councils to pass two kinds of resolutions, one declaring that they would offer municipal services only in English, a second demanding a referendum which would ask Ontarians directly what they thought about the provision of French language services.34 If enough councils passed such resolutions, Queen’s Park would be forced either to rescind Bill 8 or to hold a referendum which would produce the same result. By early 1990 apec had carried its message to between 40 and 50 municipal councils.35 About half of these, including those of a few rural communities in the immediate vicinity of the Sault,36 had passed apec-inspired resolutions.37 While Premier Peterson was disturbed by what was happening,38 he could at least take comfort from the fact that apec’s victories had been won only in small towns and townships, not in cities such as Sarnia, Peterborough, Niagara Falls, and Sudbury, where apec was also lobbying hard.39 No city council had taken a bite of apec’s apple. Until Sault Ste. Marie’s council under Joe Fratesi’s leadership did so in January 1990.

SAPELR VS. FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION RIGHTS

apec had no formal chapter in Sault Ste. Marie. Instead, it had a highly effective clone. This was the Sault Association for the Preservation of English Language Rights, sapelr for short, whose views on the French

19

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

menace and what to do about it both paralleled those of apec and were stimulated by them. Many of sapelr’s leaders and rank and file were also members of apec and eager readers of its newsletter,40 which served as a model for their own. sapelr owed much of its impact to the organizational skills of its founder Dick Pearman (like apec icon Jock Andrew, a naval officer who had resigned because of his unhappiness with bilingualism in the federal government41), and to a backlash triggered by a bitter local fight over French language education. The fight aroused such passion that by the time the high-water mark of sapelr’s influence was reached in 1990, it had nearly 2,500 card-carrying members, not far short of the roughly 3,000 people in the Sault whose mother tongue was French.42 In mid-1987, trustees on the French Language Education Council (flec) of the Sault’s Separate School Board had announced new admission criteria for French schools. Some Francophone parents felt that because large numbers of Anglophone parents were putting their children into the French schools for what amounted to immersion education, the quality of French language instruction which their children were receiving was suffering badly. Most children in the ostensibly French schools could not in fact speak the language,43 and in concerned parents’ eyes these schools had become de facto centres for the assimilation of Francophone kids. The revised policy which responded to these fears restricted new admissions into the French schools to children with Francophone rights as defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This meant that Anglophone children already in the system could stay there, and that any of their brothers or sisters (and their children to come) could enrol in the system in the future. But parents whose mother tongue was not French, or who had not been educated in French, or did not already have a child in the French language system, would no longer be able to enrol their children in it.44 In addition, Notre-Dame-des-Ecoles, one of

20

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

the four French elementary schools, was designated a “totally” French school, for children whose parents wanted them to receive an education completely in French. The policy quickly drew charges of discrimination and segregation from Anglophone parents with children in the French language system. Coupled with the trustees’ approval in principle of a new and potentially expensive French school and community centre complex, it also split the Francophone community between those uncomfortable with the new policy and the tensions which it brought to the surface, and those most worried about assimilation.45 In the November 1988 school board elections, the three seats on the renamed French Language Section (fls) of the Separate Board were won by new trustees who had campaigned as a group against the revised admission policy. They immediately scrapped the school/ community centre project. Three months later they announced that while the totally French character of Notre-Dame-des-Ecoles would be preserved, the other three primary schools would be opened again to children of Separate School supporters, whether they were Francophones or not. But the parents of 53 school-age children, who had strongly supported the 1987 admission policy, had already voted with their feet. In January 1989 they shifted their tax support to the Sault’s Public School Board, and then, as was their right under Ontario’s Education Act, demanded that the Public Board provide French language instruction for their children. Now there was no way that the Public Board was going to establish a French language instructional unit in its system if it could avoid it, let alone support the French school/community centre complex for which the dissident parents now began to press it. But the Board was still legally bound to provide French language teaching for the 53 children. So it exercised one of the options it had under the law,

21

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

negotiating an agreement in June 1989 with the Separate Board’s fls under which the Public Board would buy French language instruction from the Separate Board. Those 53 kids were now back in the Separate School system — in fact, they had never left. This was complicated and messy, made more complex by the fls’s initial insistence that it would provide French language teaching only to the end of 1989. Widely seen as an effort to force the dissident parents (with their taxes) back to the Separate Board, this also had the effect of forcing the Public Board to wrestle with the two very unpalatable options left open to it. One was to buy French language instruction for the 53 children starting in January 1990 from the next closest school system that offered it, which was 90 miles away in Blind River. This meant boarding the kids there. The second was to set up a French language unit within the public system. Meeting after meeting, many of them sulphurous — variously involving the dissident parents, the Public Board, the Public Board’s new French Language Advisory Committee (flac) representing the dissident parents, and the Separate Board’s fls — went round and round the issues during 1989. Three court actions launched by the parents raised the ante and the temperature. Every twist and turn in the story was well reported. The Sault Star, for example, carried more than 50 articles or editorials on the issue between November 1988 and January 1990, nearly one a week on average. Pearman formed the nucleus of sapelr in the fall of 1988,46 then went public in January 1989, telling the inaugural meeting that sapelr had been formed to fight the “continual erosion of the use of the English language” in the civil service and elsewhere.47 In truth, though, English was not in much imminent danger of erosion in Sault Ste. Marie, where it was the first official language of nearly 95 per cent of the population. The real problem in the Sault was that a minority of parents within the small Francophone community was exercising its legal rights in pursuit

22

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

of quality education for its children. This grated badly. Pearman’s wife summed it up when she said that, “When we came to Canada (as immigrants from England), we took the oath to be Canadian citizens. We don’t go along with all this nonsense about minorities.”48 As the fight over French language education in the Sault intensified against the background of the rancorous provincial and national debate on bilingualism, sapelr prospered. By early March 1989 the dissident Francophone parents were asking the Public Board to consider providing a French school/cultural centre, and sapelr’s membership had swelled to over 400 from 50 two months earlier. sapelroids and prospective sapelroids turned out in force in mid-March to cheer former mp and honorary apec member Ron Stewart as he warned that “Canadian Anglophones are no longer being ‘bilingualized’; they are being ‘Francophonized’ and soon will become second-class citizens in their own country. . . .”49 One of the nine Conservative mps who had voted against the renewal of the Official Languages Act the previous year, Stewart helped sapelr sell over 100 new memberships that night.50 Two months later, the dissident parents had sharpened their requests and were threatening the Public Board with court action. sapelr supporters — whose membership had grown to about 900 — had packed a Board meeting to boo them. In mid-May sapelr brought what it advertised as “best-selling Canadian author” Jock Andrew himself to the Sault. Andrew regaled a crowd of 600 of the faithful on the subject of “The Frenchification of Canada,” which was good for another 200 new memberships on the spot.51 And so it went through the rest of 1989: Public and Separate Board meetings, often attended by dozens of angry and noisy sapelr members; sapelr meetings; sapelr picketers heckling Premier Peterson over Bill 8 on his October visit to a local high school; a well-organized stream of over 125 anti-French letters to the opinion page of the Sault Star, two or three a week on average, many of them from sapelr members, many

23

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

of them nasty, the odd one unintentionally funny (“I am having French shoved down my throat like it or not”52); a flood of sapelr-inspired telephone calls to the local radio talk shows53; sapelr’s membership swelling to over 2,000 by the beginning of 1990.54 Anti-French sentiments have deep roots in Sault Ste. Marie, and the various ways in which the federal and provincial governments have tried to accommodate linguistic duality over the years have generated considerable fear, anger, and suspicion. The battle over French language education rights whipped these emotions to a fever pitch. The turmoil over language, and the bitterness which accompanied it, went far beyond anything experienced in any other Ontario city in the late 1980s, and sapelr’s leadership and its foot soldiers deserve much credit for what happened.55

FROM PETITION TO RESOLUTION

In June 1989 sapelr sent an anti-Bill-8 petition with over 1,000 signatures on it to Queen’s Park. Sault mpp Karl Morin-Strom did his duty and presented it to the Legislature, but disassociated himself from it, telling mpps that it was “highly inaccurate about the content and intent” of Bill 8.56 The lesson for sapelr was that it would have no impact working through Morin-Strom, who made no secret of his scorn for the organization and what it stood for. Later that month Alliance Ontario, a Barrie-based anti-Bill-8 organization, hosted a meeting aimed at forming a province-wide association of English-rights groups. (Alliance Ontario received its 15 minutes of fame a few months later, when its Brockville chapter organized the protest against Bill 8 which saw the Quebec flag stomped on.57) Representatives of apec, the General Wolfe society, and other English-rights organizations including sapelr, from about a dozen

24

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

cities and towns scattered across the province, attended the meeting.58 This session brought sapelr delegates Pearman and Al Walker together with like-minded colleagues who thought they knew how to win the battle to save the English language in Ontario. After returning to the Sault, Walker announced that sapelr would mount a door-todoor petition campaign and, apec-style, would target city council.59 The hope was that a petition endorsed by council would have more impact than one sent directly through the Sault’s unsympathetic mpp into the equally unsympathetic Legislature. In late 1989 and the first few weeks of 1990, Admiral Pearman, as he soon became known locally,60 led 125 signature collectors who carried the sapelr petition through the city’s streets and into its malls. The operation was run efficiently (organized with “military precision,” people said). Even those who deplored Pearman’s objectives recognized the skill with which he waged his campaign.61 The collectors pushed all the hot buttons as they gathered signatures, from the fundamental wickedness and the incalculable costs of bilingualism to the dreadful impact the demands of the dissident Francophone parents would have on local taxes. But the hot buttons were disguised in the hypocritical petition itself, which read: And whereas the City of Sault Ste. Marie is composed of many different ethnic groups, languages and cultures; And whereas the City of Sault Ste. Marie has always shown respect for each of these cultures by providing preferential treatment for none; And whereas the City of Sault Ste. Marie has throughout its history had one common working language

25

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

for all of its written and oral communications, which is English; And whereas the preferred common language of commerce, business, trade, science and normal everyday activities is English; Now therefore be it resolved that the Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie in the interests of maintaining good will, harmony and sound and responsible fiscal management continue as it has in the past to accept and promote the use of English as the official language of communication with its citizens and all levels of government, thereby demonstrating the concept of equality for each ethnic, cultural and language group in its jurisdiction.62 There is no sign in the words themselves of the anger running deeply in the city. Little in them to contradict Pearman’s repeated assertion that this had nothing to do with racism and bigotry — after all, he would say, sapelr’s constitution forbade racist behaviour (violent behaviour too), and he certainly didn’t think he was a racist or a bigot.63 No reference to the seminal influence on sapelr of apec and its stars such as Jock Andrew. And no reference at all to the burning issue which drove the petition forward. None was necessary — it was common knowledge in town and elsewhere. Even apec president Leitch in faraway Toronto certainly understood what the petition was about.64 As Pearman himself explained when it suited his purposes to do so, it was a direct result of the fight over French language education.65 The very last thing it was about was the maintenance of good will and harmony in Sault Ste. Marie.

26

THE ROAD TO THE ENGLISH-ONLY RESOLUTION

Nearly 25,000 people in the Sault signed it. That was nearly 30 per cent of the population, babes in arms included. It was 5,000 more people than had voted for Fratesi when he first became mayor in 1985. It was two-and-a-half times the number of people willing to sign a 1995 petition calling for a provincial government inquiry into another civic disaster in Sault Ste. Marie — the ugly case of Separate School teacher and sexual predator Ken DeLuca, who had molested dozens of his students without being apprehended for over two decades. Some signed without understanding the forces in play behind the petition, and later regretted it.66 But there were plenty of people whom the collectors missed and who would have signed if they had had the chance, and there were others who wanted to sign but were afraid to.67 Pearman himself expressed some disappointment with the result, telling a reporter that if sapelr had done more work in the west end of the city — the original core of Fratesi’s power base — it could have collected an extra 10,000 signatures.68 In short, the sapelr petition, with its underlying and generally well-understood plea to city council to whack the French, resonated deeply in Sault Ste. Marie. Fratesi watched the French language education issue explode, sapelr grow from nothing into the largest organization in the city in the space of a year, and the petition pick up a powerful head of steam in the fall of 1989. As by far the dominant member of council — the captain of the team who called the shots, the man who made most of its decisions69 — he probably could have defused the situation. He could have had council simply accept the sapelr petition when it appeared, without endorsing it, then given the petition’s opponents a chance to address council at a later meeting.70 The bitter polarization which this process would have exposed would then have provided a rationale for tucking the petition away on a shelf to gather dust and gradually be forgotten. The five former Sault mayors still living in the city at the time, alarmed at what they could see coming if sapelr got its way, tried to

27

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

put a similar proposal to him.71 He was having none of it. He ignored requests that council hear from the petition’s opponents in a structured way before it took any action,72 and he got angry when former mayor Jim McIntyre phoned him to try to suggest a damage control strategy. The former mayors were “has-beens” who had nothing useful to contribute, he told McIntyre heatedly.73 This mayor was, however, ready to meet privately with Pearman (who already knew that sapelr could count on him74) and signal that he would encourage councillors to pass a resolution based on the petition, if it called on council only to accept the use of English rather than promote its use.75 He also drafted a final clause for the proposed resolution, reading: And further resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act of Ontario, Part vii, and more specifically Section 104a of the said Act, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie declares English to be the official language of the said Corporation.76 On January 27, 1990, the Sault Star reported that council would consider the resolution two days later.77 Perhaps it was this story that alerted the national news media that something potent was brewing in the Sault; perhaps someone with a sense of a story with national implications tipped them off. In the event, out-of-town as well as local reporters were at the council meeting two days later to watch the disaster unfold.

28

Whacking the French Pays Rich Dividends, But Has Its Costs The publicity we have received from council’s resolution has been superb. We could never have afforded to pay for the publicity that Sault Ste. Marie has and is receiving. — JIM RUDDACK, PRESIDENT, SAULT STE. MARIE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FEBRUARY 1990

CARNIVAL WEEK

The videotape of the council meeting of January 29, 1990,1 makes for fascinating viewing even 10 years after the event. Particularly striking is the carefree unconcern with which Fratesi and most councillors played with linguistic matches and lit their fire. The mayor is dressed casually in a winter carnival sweatshirt. “This is carnival week in Sault Ste. Marie,” he says as he opens the meeting, smiling with pleasure at the crowd. Some 300 sapelroids are there this evening; they have filled the council chamber and spilled out into the halls and committee rooms. There is laughter when Fratesi tells Pearman to obey the carnival rules and take off his tie or have it cut off by the city clerk. He welcomes Terry Fox’s mother, coincidentally in town on a visit to the local Cancer Society. Mrs. Fox speaks of the warmth and hospitality of the Sault, and presents the mayor with a portrait of her son which will hang in city hall.2 The main event begins with Fratesi drawing another laugh when he says that the huge crowd is obviously not there to object to a rezoning application. Another little joke as he accepts the 1,800-page

29

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

petition when Pearman finishes speaking, and asks him, “Did you make copies of the petition, Mr. Pearman?” Councillors take turns saying how they will vote and why, several exposing what is under the surface. One draws a big laugh when he jokes about a customer in a grocery store trying to find a can of beans with an English label. Another explains how bothered he is by Francophones in Northern Ontario who speak broken English; he gives his colleagues a French lesson, telling them that avec means “stop.” A third is caught on the tape muttering that he is practising his French, “Vive le Québec libre, dubbadubbadubbadubba.”3 Fratesi speaks last. He says that as Pearman and others in the gallery know, he made up his mind about this issue long before sapelr became a power in town. The provincial government was wrong to include Sault Ste. Marie in with the District of Algoma for the purposes of Bill 8, he says. People are right to be afraid that the province will extend Bill 8 to cover municipal services. The French language education issue has torn the city apart. More laughter as he refers sarcastically to it: “We’ve had a couple of years of flic and flec and flac. . . .” The crowd here tonight doesn’t look like a “bunch of rednecks” to him; they are the ordinary people “who live up the street, are neighbours.” The petition represents “the feelings of the common and ordinary people of Sault Ste. Marie.” He makes his living as a lawyer, and there is nothing wrong or illegal with the resolution. It will be a “cop-out” for councillors not to support it.4 Then: No harm is done, everyone admits no harm is done in passing the resolution. So even if you believe that no good will come of it, that someone may say you don’t need the resolution, no harm will come in voting for the resolution regardless of your point of view. And I would hope that council, as near unanimous as is

30

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

possible, votes for this resolution because it indeed recognizes the way things have been, the way things are, and the way things should continue to be in the city of Sault Ste. Marie.5 Council endorsed the resolution by a lopsided 11–2 margin, and the media storm broke. This was not a tiny rural community which no one had ever heard of trying to keep the French at bay by declaring that it did business only in English. This was a city with a previously good reputation jumping enthusiastically into bed with bigotry. This was news. The reactions of political leaders, academics, and ordinary citizens became front-page or top-of-the-hour stories across the country. Reporters poured into the city looking for background. Editorial reaction was swift, loud, and overwhelmingly negative, with Sault Ste. Marie becoming overnight a symbol of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. The headers of the editorials and columns — “No harm? Sault must be kidding,”“The prejudice below the surface,”“The sad resolution of Sault Ste. Marie,” “Le langage du Sault-aux-racistes” — said it all.6 A federal government translator made her own quick editorial comment which resulted in her quick suspension. In the French version of Environment Canada’s January 30 weather report for Algoma and Manitoulin Districts, she inserted a message in English: “Forecast for Sault Ste. Marie only . . . Today . . . Mainly sunny with racists then clouding over this afternoon. Chance of flurries and of Nazis.”7 The Meech Boys wrote a devilish little song called “Bye Bye Soo,” telling their audiences to the tune of “Bye Bye Love” that, “le maire, sa femme, et ses conseillers, ont dit ‘Shuddup Frogs, and I mean it!’”8 Unless you went into deep denial, you could not mistake the message which thundered in from the outside world. Sault Star columnist Fred Loader summed it up at the end of carnival week when he wrote

31

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Alan King’s scathing take on the English-only resolution appeared in The Ottawa Citizen in early February 1990, and in the Sault Star 10 days later. The caption’s reference to English on the inside and French on the outside alludes to Quebec’s restrictions on English-language signage. Reprinted with the permission of Alan King.

that, “Whatever other claim to fame Mayor Joe Fratesi may make, he will certainly go down in history as the Sault mayor that gave this city one of the worst black eyes in its history. . . .”9 One of the harshest critics was Dan Iannuzzi, editor of the Toronto Italian-English newspaper Corriere Canadese. Iannuzzi ripped apart the lie in the resolution, that Sault Ste. Marie had always given its different ethnic and cultural groups respect and equal treatment. Arguably, no one should have recognized that lie more quickly than members of the Italian community. Iannuzzi wrote that council’s attack on the Sault’s Francophones was “especially ironic”

32

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

because of Fratesi’s Italian heritage, since the Italian immigrants who came to the Sault in the 1890s and early 1900s were themselves victims of the wasp majority’s bigotry. The local newspaper of the day called them dagoes, described them as being “dirty, criminal, immoral, and said that ‘every other [Italian] shack sold liquor.’” The municipal council kept the Italian community in the west end deprived of basic services such as water, sewage, paved streets, and schools, for years.10 Iannuzzi could also have told his readers that the Ku Klux Klan had flourished in the Sault from 1926 to 1929 as an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant movement whose main target was Italians. The Klan attacked them for taking jobs at the steel plant, which “rightfully” belonged to the town’s wasps, and it tried to enforce social exclusiveness, which in practical terms meant things like dressing up in the white sheets and hoods and going down to the ice rinks to discourage Italian boys from skating with Anglo girls.11 The Sault’s version of the Klan did not survive the onset of the Great Depression, but the anti-Italian bigotry which it expressed lingered on in the town long afterwards. Those who couldn’t see the parallel between the circumstances of Italians in the early 1900s and Francophones in 1990, Iannuzzi went on, were ignorant of their history. Fratesi either didn’t understand the basic laws of accommodation and respect which were crucial to making Canada function, or he was simply a political opportunist. (Iannuzzi would later tell the fifth estate that Fratesi wasn’t a bigot himself, but he used people with “underlying bigot traits” for his own benefit and power.12) Fratesi and his council had been ungenerous towards a part of the community they were supposed to represent, he continued; their attitude was “very dumb.”13 Had they thought about the serious consequences of their foolishness?14 What a good question, particularly as it pertained to Fratesi’s own career plans.

33

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

THE RESOLUTION AND THE JUDGESHIP

From one perspective it seems easy enough to understand why Fratesi threw his support behind sapelr, in the process shocking local political observers15 who never imagined that he — a supporter of the governing Liberals in Ontario and a descendant of immigrants who had experienced plenty of discrimination — would associate himself with such a group. He was just recognizing the possible impact of bilingualism on his own career plans, and he wasn’t happy about it. He was also offended by the ongoing French language education controversy, and made this very clear. He called it a circus, deplored its divisive effects,16 saw it as the result of the misguided efforts of “a minority within a minority” to secure special treatment for itself at the expense of the community at large.17 Special treatment was a bad thing:18 “I have a problem with someone being special,” he said.19 Beyond Fratesi’s own feelings, sapelr’s attack on the French was enormously popular with much of the Sault’s Italian community, which outnumbered the city’s Francophones by a margin of at least five to one.20 Many, including Fratesi himself,21 wondered why Italian rather than French shouldn’t be the second official language in Sault Ste. Marie. sapelr’s leadership had pandered to this view in a transparent effort to win Italian support for its petition; as it geared up to launch the campaign in mid-1989, it proposed that if any second language should get special consideration in the Sault, it should be Italian.22 Even more obviously, the petition campaign was popular with much of the rest of the city. It was even popular with part of the bynow badly fractured Francophone community. Supporting sapelr thus guaranteed Fratesi the political base which would keep him in the mayor’s office for the rest of his life, if that’s what he wanted. But he didn’t. He wanted to be a judge — he had expressed that

34

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

desire publicly prior to the 1988 election,23 he was hoping for either a provincial or a federal judgeship24 — and judicial appointments in Canada are not the result of local popularity contests. The Ontario cabinet appoints judges to the Provincial Division of the Ontario Court, while the federal cabinet appoints to the General Division. Good political connections to a government do not hurt the prospects of lawyers who want to be judges, according to conventional wisdom. But by the same token it is a bad idea to arouse the anger of a cabinet, particularly the anger of its most senior members. At the same time as Fratesi was translating sapelr’s petition into the resolution, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Peterson, and most of the other provincial premiers were trying to dampen down linguistic tensions in the country and save the Meech Lake Accord. Peterson had been the prime mover behind Bill 8, which Fratesi was now starting to attack. Peterson was proud of Bill 8; at its third reading he said, “I am told by parliamentary historians . . . that this is the largest leap in the past 120 years for the Francophones of Ontario. I am delighted to participate in that.”25 It is hard to imagine how Fratesi thought he could support sapelr and ever be considered for a judicial appointment. Given Mulroney’s commitment to linguistic duality. Given Peterson’s commitment to Bill 8. Given Attorney General Scott’s commitment to bilingualism in Algoma’s courts, of which Fratesi more than most people was fully aware. Given the commitment to bilingualism of those opposition parties with any prospects of forming governments and appointing judges within Fratesi’s lifetime. One possibility is that he thought the resolution would make Peterson sit up and listen to his complaints about the impact on the Sault of provincial government program off-loading and cuts in transfers. He said as much a few days after the resolution passed26; so did a councillor later.27 Implication: the resolution was simply an attention-

35

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

getting device which would have no adverse consequences for him personally. If that’s what it was, it worked in part. It certainly attracted Peterson’s attention — much as little Albert Ramsbottom of Marriott Edgar’s poem successfully attracted the lion’s attention by poking his stick in its ear. The lion, of course, ate little Albert.28 A second quite different possibility was that Fratesi thought the resolution would play as a purely local issue and be ignored elsewhere, including at Queen’s Park and on Parliament Hill. He also made this point a few days after council passed the resolution: “I never expected it to become a provincial issue let alone a national one.”29 A few months later, he again said that he never expected the resolution to become a national issue,30 which was tantamount to saying that he never thought it would become a provincial issue either. He said the same thing in 1993, adding that “if the prime minister had kept his nose out of ” what had happened in Sault Ste. Marie in January 1990, the national media would not have reacted the way it did, and the issue would have been “contained” in Ontario.31 Whatever the explanation, it appears that Fratesi simply made a stupendous miscalculation. He apparently did not foresee that supporting sapelr and the resolution would bring him into bitter conflict with the politicians who controlled judicial appointments,32 and he was slow to understand the consequences of that for him. The judge-makers wasted no more time than the opinion-makers in reacting. Mulroney responded immediately, calling the resolution “deplorable” and “deeply regrettable,”33 and alluding to it later as one of a number of incidents of linguistic “intolerance, stupidity.”34 He initially told reporters that there wasn’t much the federal government could do about the antics of a municipal council. But when he subsequently learned that Kitchener’s was poised to pass a resolution similar to the Sault’s (and to the one which Thunder Bay’s council passed in early February), he went to Kitchener and talked the councillors out of it.35

36

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

Peterson was furious. He phoned Fratesi on January 31 and made his unhappiness very clear, triggering hard words from the mayor in return. Peterson expressed his anger and deep disappointment36 at the council’s action publicly, calling it “destructive and gratuitous”37 and adding, “I don’t think any thoughtful person in Sault Ste. Marie would want this kind of reputation attached to the community.”38 Asked what he thought the Sault’s image was nationally in light of the media coverage the resolution had drawn, he replied, “I think my guess is you are over 21, you can figure it out. Ask yourself if you are proud of how the community is being represented across the country. If the community wanted national attention for this, they have got it.”39 Peterson asked rhetorically why the council had done what it did, when Bill 8 had nothing to do with municipalities, saying, “I have to assume that elected councillors are reasonably intelligent, that they understand reality. Is that a reasonable assumption?”40 He was amazed at how uninformed the Sault’s council members were. What they had done was beyond him; he hoped it wasn’t just ignorance.41 Fratesi evidently did not understand what this meant for him. After Mulroney and Peterson had unloaded on him, he said that he didn’t think he had jeopardized his chances of becoming a judge. Maybe he had, but he hoped not. In an apparent reference to his qualifications, he said he hoped there was “something greater in the mill that people look at.”42 Peterson wasn’t looking for something greater in the mill very hard. Only a month after the passage of the resolution, he had to visit the Sault for the opening ceremonies of the Labatt’s Brier, which coincidentally was being held there in 1990. While he refused to meet Fratesi privately to discuss the resolution, and ignored him at the ceremonies,43 he slashed at him in public, calling him “just one bit-player in a very large drama,”44 referring to “a problem with leadership locally,”45 sneering at Fratesi’s various public justifications for the resolution. “The

37

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

intellectual ground has changed about 50 different times. So don’t ask me to respond rationally to an irrational debate,” he said.46 The premier also reminded the crowd at a Liberal fundraiser that his government was just completing the process of moving the Ontario Lottery Corporation and hundreds of jobs to the Sault, at a cost of $60 million. No one had complained that this was too much money to spend to try to promote economic development and diversification in that corner of Ontario. In comparison, Bill 8 was costing provincial taxpayers $22–23 million a year, Peterson said, and “it costs money to build a decent society.”47 Fratesi hit back, telling reporters that Peterson had snubbed and insulted the Sault and should apologize to both the city and to him personally.48 Peterson continued to ignore him. Fratesi lashed out again after he met with provincial Minister of Francophone Affairs Charles Beer a month later, saying that if Peterson were as conciliatory as Beer seemed to be, “there might be some useful dialogue.”49 Shortly after this, he said publicly again that yes, he still wanted to be a judge.50 Having continued to refuse to meet Fratesi, Peterson snubbed him again that August. He had called a summer election and was to attend a Liberal rally in the Sault. He sent word through his aides that Fratesi, who had supported the party in the 1987 election and was doing so again, should stay away from the rally; the “vultures” in the national media would make mischief, should he and the mayor meet publicly.51 Fratesi did as he was told. He was given to believe that Peterson would meet privately with him before the rally. That didn’t happen. The premier chose to travel to the Sault on a tour train, which ensured that he arrived there only an hour before the rally was to start. But Fratesi was told that Peterson would call him before he left town. That didn’t happen either. But Fratesi was then promised that Peterson would meet him in Toronto after the election.52 Whether that meeting would have occurred quickly became moot,

38

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

because as of September 6, 1990, Peterson was out of the business of appointing judges and Bob Rae was in. Rae had visited the Sault the previous March for a riding association meeting and had asked for a meeting with Fratesi. The mayor agreed, then cancelled. He told Rae he was too busy to see him,53 but told the press he saw no point in creating a “media event” by talking with politicians who criticized the English-only resolution. His seeing Rae “wouldn’t have accomplished much,” he said, adding, “It would have provided an opportunity for him to say he met with me.”54 This snub aside, Rae was no more likely to reward Fratesi for the resolution by making him a judge than Peterson had been. Here is part of what Rae said at Bill 8’s third reading in 1986: I want to go on record again today as saying to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is here for this historic debate, it is our view and it is my personal view that Ontario can do an immense amount for national unity by taking that next step beyond the step we have taken today, a step that would include and recognize French as an official language in this province and one that would guarantee those rights in the Constitution. We are not jamming French down anybody’s throat. We are not suggesting that those who cannot speak French should have any fewer rights than those who can. What we are suggesting is that those for whom French is their mother tongue should feel fully at home in Ontario. They should feel that Ontario is their home, a place where they can speak their language, where they can be themselves fully, not simply inside their living rooms, not simply in

39

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

their dining rooms, but at work, in their education and in their ability to deal with their government.55 And then there was Jean Chrétien. In May 1991, the federal opposition leader visited the Sault for a fundraising brunch, and he called on city council to rescind the resolution, 16 months old by this time but far from being a dead issue. It was a useless thing, Chrétien said; rescinding it would be a costless gesture of good will, “a positive move for national unity after the harm caused by the original motion,” a step which many people would appreciate.56 As Fratesi had snubbed Rae a year earlier, he now snubbed Chrétien. To avoid talking with Chrétien about the resolution, he refused to attend the brunch. But he explained to the media that Chrétien’s request showed how “out of tune” the Liberal leader was with the feelings of Canadians, and that he evidently hadn’t understood the resolution. In fact, he suggested, Chrétien probably hadn’t even read it.57 Two-and-a-half years later, the business of appointing federal judges passed from Brian Mulroney via Kim Campbell to the “out-oftune” Jean Chrétien, where it remains at the time of writing. Fratesi’s treatment of the future prime minister in 1991 could hardly have advanced his career prospects, although there is no reason to think that Chrétien would have been any more likely than Mulroney or Peterson or Rae to give a judgeship to a hero of the English-rights movements of the country. But the possibility of Fratesi’s getting the appointment he coveted remained alive and well in his own mind. This is clear from what he periodically told journalists about his ambitions. When Larry Whalen was named a federal judge early in 1992, for example, Fratesi told radio broadcaster John Campbell that he was disappointed Whalen rather than he had gotten the job.58 For years after January 1990, he made the

40

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

same kind of comment every time a new judge was named locally.59 Fratesi apparently just didn’t understand what the resolution would do to his career plans. His ignorance of the seriousness of the situation partly explains the happy nonchalance with which he handled the sapelr petition and the resolution when it showed up at city hall. One wonders whether, had he understood from the beginning that he could have had the resolution or perhaps a judgeship, but not both, Sault Ste. Marie might have been spared a lot of trouble.

WINNING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF SAULT STE. MARIE

Fratesi became the lightning rod for much of the anger and scorn directed at the resolution from away. He fought back vigorously, defending the resolution in the national media, saying that, “We’re not going to back off because certain heavy-duty politicians don’t like what we’ve done. . . . We know what’s best for us”60; rejecting MorinStrom’s demand that he resign because of the damage the resolution had done to the Sault’s reputation61 (“I’ve been called an ass and an idiot, but I know what my duty is”62); giving interview after interview to the reporters who besieged him with calls. “I was raised to believe you would never get into trouble by telling the truth,” he said as he repeated three basic arguments.63 First, the resolution was not racist, not “anti-French” or “anti-anything.”64 Critics such as Mulroney and Peterson had jumped on the council’s action probably without even reading the resolution or its preamble,65 but if they did they would see that there was nothing bigoted in it; it was a very carefully worded document about respect for and pride in all the different ethnic, linguistic, and cultural groups in the city.66

41

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Well, yes, the resolution did reflect the frustration of council and many in the community over the French language school battle,67 and other minorities such as the handicapped were willing to wait patiently for services during these harsh times of fiscal restraint, but the French weren’t,68 and what was happening in Quebec had “very much to do with the feeling people in Sault Ste. Marie have.”69 And yes, local residents were afraid that Ontario’s language policies would deprive them of job opportunities in provincial ministries and agencies — “Just look at the want ads calling for fluency in two languages. . . . Maybe it’s the wrong impression but that’s what people think.”70 But the resolution wasn’t anti-French, according to Fratesi. It was in fact “a celebration of multiculturalism,”71 and Sault Ste. Marie was a friendly hospitable city which “not only tolerates [his emphasis] every racial background and minority but which welcomes and makes feel equal and at home all such peoples.”72 This played well with resolution supporters who did not like being called racists and bigots. So did Fratesi’s second argument, that the resolution was a pre-emptive strike against the secret agenda lurking behind Bill 8. On January 31 he said that, “We do believe that there would be a move, if there is not already, to have municipalities provide the service in two languages.”73 He hardened that line a few weeks later, saying that, “There is no question in my mind that the intention of the provincial government was to extend [Bill 8] to include municipal services.”74 Well, yes, he admitted, it was true that the province didn’t actually have any plan to force municipalities to provide services in French as well as English, but nobody had told city council that until after it had passed the resolution.75 This was after-the-fact rationalization.76 Fratesi prided himself on his ability to talk directly to cabinet ministers in both Toronto and Ottawa about matters affecting Sault Ste. Marie. In 1988 he had boasted about the “close personal and working relationship” he had with most

42

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

of Peterson’s cabinet77 (later referring to Peterson himself as “a friend of mine for the last four or five years”78), and said that when he wanted something done he bypassed bureaucrats and went straight to the political decision-makers because “it’s just easier to go to the top.”79 Had Fratesi and the rest of the Sault’s council had any real concerns about Bill 880 — passed in 1986 and implemented fully in late 1989 — before sapelr showed up at city hall in January 1990, then according to his own description of his modus operandi he would have taken those concerns directly to Peterson and the relevant ministers. Had he done this, it could have formed the centrepiece of his defence of the resolution. He would have been on wonderfully firm ground had he been able to say something such as, “Look, we tried for two years to find out from Peterson what Bill 8 and the thinking behind it really meant for this city, but we couldn’t get any clarification, and we felt we had to do something to get the attention of those people at Queen’s Park.” But he never made any such claim.81 In March 1990, one of the two councillors who had voted against the resolution proposed that if the province were to guarantee that municipalities would not have to provide services in French, council could then surely rescind it. Fratesi replied that even if the government were to give such a guarantee, this would still not be reason enough “to change a resolution which only states the reality of Sault Ste. Marie.”82 Evidently, there were two realities in play — the reality of Bill 8, and the important one, the reality of the city. A third very basic argument: Weren’t politicians supposed to represent the views of the people who elected them, he asked rhetorically? Well, here was a petition signed by nearly 25,000 citizens which obviously reflected the views of the majority of voters in the Sault. By passing the resolution, he and councillors had listened to the voters and had served democracy well.83 This was what democracy was all about. apec loved this. By endorsing sapelr, Fratesi and council had

43

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

simultaneously endorsed apec and had brought it the national attention, which up to that point it had not been able to capture on its own. The grateful apec ran a large ad locally, congratulating the people of the Sault and the council, praising their courage in fighting “the conspiracy of silence on the language issue . . . special status for Francophones [and] the ludicrous language laws of Ontario,” telling them they were the largest municipality in Ontario thus far to do the right thing, and to “stand firm” because their cause was just.84 Almost all of Fratesi’s colleagues on city council loved it. At its meeting the week after it passed the resolution, council listened silently as distraught representatives of the Francophone community urged rescission. Councillors’ response was to wait until Fratesi declared a conflict of interest on a re-zoning matter and left the chamber, then pass a new resolution expressing its “complete confidence” in the mayor’s defence of the English-only resolution and commending him for his “exceptional leadership” in a situation of “immense and trying pressure.”85 The one councillor who voted against this display of homage said after the meeting that with their action councillors had sent a clear and mean-spirited message back to the Francophones who had just addressed them: “We heard you and we don’t give a damn.”86 The city loved it, too. Well, not everyone. Not the Francophone associations which continued to plead in vain with Fratesi and the council to rescind the resolution. Not the relative handful of concerned Sault residents who organized groups (Citizens for a Progressive City, Alliance Sault Canada, Citizens Addressing the Language Motion) to fight it.87 Not the hundreds of people who periodically marched in protest at city hall, including the picketers with the signs “Joe Fratesi for judge in Libya,” and “Herr Hitler and Il Duce claimed they had the support of the people.”88 Not the Francophones whom the bigots now felt free to insult

44

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

How much of Quebec saw the English-only resolution. This caricature appeared in Le Devoir February 1, 1990. “Sots” translates as idiots, fools, dummies. Reprinted with the permission of Jean-Mcrc Phaneuf.

and harass openly in the streets, malls, and restaurants of the city.89 “Speak white,” they were told.90 Not the Francophones who received threatening letters and phone calls.91 Not the Francophone families saddened and disgusted enough to pull up stakes and leave the city.92 But the overwhelmingly majority in Sault Ste. Marie revelled in what the city under Fratesi’s leadership had achieved. Calls to the radio talk shows ran four to one in favour of the resolution during the first week after council passed it.93 Calls to Sault mp Steve Butland’s

45

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

office in support of the resolution also outnumbered critical ones by four to one.94 This was the same margin by which Fratesi won reelection in 1991, in a campaign widely interpreted as a referendum on the resolution.95 The Labatt’s Brier opening ceremonies in early March were illuminating too. The crowd of over 4,000 people in the Sault’s Memorial Gardens gave Peterson perfunctory applause, and some boos, after his brief remarks and his closing “Bonne chance!” to the curlers. But when Fratesi walked to the podium, it let out an atavistic roar that few there that day are ever likely to forget, and it did the same thing when he finished speaking. There could be no possible doubt as to who now owned the hearts and minds of Sault Ste. Marie.96 Much more evidence on the support for Fratesi and the resolution is still kept in the city clerk’s office in the Sault. It consists of a dozen fat binders of letters, cards, and petitions, addressed mainly to Fratesi but also in some cases to council. These flooded into city hall immediately after January 29, and continued pouring in for weeks afterwards. Most of this mail came from outside the Sault. Fratesi’s defence of the resolution triggered responses from those fed up with the French fact from coast to coast. But a disproportionately heavy volume originated in the Sault and surrounding area. The vast bulk of this stuff supported Fratesi and council. This was true as well of the hundreds of calls which jammed the switchboard at city hall. In the three days from January 31 to February 2, Fratesi’s secretary and her assistants handled an astonishing 900 calls of support, nearly 575 of them from Sault residents. Nearly 1,400 calls in favour of the mayor and the resolution (900 of them local) were logged before the deluge ended; fewer than 60 critical calls came in.97 Fratesi’s fan mail reflected in the first instance a dreary combination of visceral dislike of things French, conspiracy-theory paranoia à

46

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

la Jock Andrew, and lament for the downtrodden English of Ontario and Canada,98 plus in the case of local letters the fury over the French language education fight.99 All that enlivens these cris de coeur is the occasional piece of unintended humour. One of Fratesi’s Ottawa supporters, for example, explained to him that Peterson was paying Quebecers to migrate to Ontario. This would force the Ontario government to provide more French language services, which would enhance Peterson’s appeal to Francophone voters when he made his bid to become prime minister.100 (Whether Peterson was enticing the new settlers into the province with his own money, or government funds, was not clear.) Another of the mayor’s out-of-town fans sent his letter to Fratesi through an unspecified “circuitous route” to Mrs. Fratesi for her to give to the mayor, to prevent its being “ensnared by French postal clerks in North Bay and Sudbury.”101 Alienation from Canadian political processes and gratitude for Fratesi’s and the council’s populist action scream out of many letters. People wrote that party discipline had put mps and mpps beyond their reach, and that they could not influence them on matters they cared about — not only bilingualism, but abortion, capital punishment, family allowances and old-age pension clawbacks, the Free Trade Agreement, high gasoline prices, the gst, the Lord’s Prayer in the schools, Sunday store hours in Ontario. The politicians had become unaccountable, had lost touch with what the majority — not the all too vocal minority — wanted done about the issues of the day.102 When Fratesi threw his full support behind the resolution, he touched thousands of people in the Sault and elsewhere who saw themselves as part of the quiet and dispossessed majority. Finally, a politician who listened to what his voters wanted and gave it to them, and tant pis if Mulroney or Peterson or the opinion leaders didn’t like it, this was what the people wanted. This was democracy in action.103

47

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Three further messages flowed from this. First, Fratesi himself was a hero, a true patriot of this country, a statesman, the first politician with guts, Sault Ste. Marie’s bright star, Good Old Mayor Joe, the Great Perfect Chief.104 His local supporters were ecstatic that he had triggered what they saw as a much-needed national debate on bilingualism, and told him things such as: “I’m tremendously proud, just tremendously proud of you”105; “As Canada watches, they see a mayor from Small Town Canada showing greater leadership than anything in Ottawa or Queen’s Park”106; “I hope you really have a sense of how much you have done for the human spirit; it is like emancipation”107; “We are convinced you are the man we have been waiting for . . . attractive and powerful and unafraid . . .”108; “Bravo! . . . At long last we can hold up our heads. Like Gorbachev you have opened the flood gates and it will never be the same again.”109 Evoking Dirty Harry, one Southern Ontario fan told him, “You made our day.”110 Next, concerning Fratesi’s future. If he wanted to keep on running for mayor he could count on their votes, local residents assured him.111 The national media had reported that he wanted to be a judge, and his supporters told him he would make a fine one.112 But he would also make a superb mp or mpp; he had all the right stuff.113 Finally, the implicit warning accompanying the praise in letter after letter. Don’t back down! Don’t bow to the pressure from the prime minister and the premier, the media and the local protestors, to rescind the resolution! Stick to your guns! So what if mpp Morin-Strom had called for Fratesi’s resignation, charging that the Sault had become “the laughing stock of the nation” because of the resolution?114 MorinStrom should resign! Fratesi and the resolution had put the Sault on the political map; he had acted and spoken for the silent majority; he absolutely must not betray them by reversing what he had done.115 Had the thought of rescinding the resolution ever entered Fratesi’s

48

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

mind, the unmistakable message from his supporters — Hang tough and we’ll stick by you, but don’t dare let us down! — would have pushed it back out in a hurry. Not many people ever get the kind of tribute he received in early 1990. Those binders full of lovingly preserved correspondence, and the accompanying telephone logs, are eloquent testimony to the expansion of his power base which had just occurred.

TOWN BOSS

Few local politicians or members of the business community fought Fratesi openly over the resolution. What happened to those who did was instructive to people with ambitions to sit on city council, or in the Legislature or Parliament, or simply to run a quiet little business in town. One politician who did fight was Morin-Strom. From his vantage point at Queen’s Park, he watched the city’s reputation self-destruct overnight. He felt that an immediate expression of dismay had to come from a public figure in the Sault, to show the country that not everyone there subscribed to apec or sapelr views.116 (This was in sharp contrast to mp Butland’s politically much safer first reactions, which were that he was not going to criticize Fratesi and the council, and that people in the Sault should stop talking about the resolution, because “angry displays are tearing our community apart.”117) The day after council passed the resolution, Morin-Strom called it “a symbol of intolerance and bigotry.”118 He told Fratesi what the perception of the Sault had now become, that he and council were burning the bridges between themselves and the senior levels of government, and that he should do the right thing and resign. He then called publicly for the mayor’s resignation, saying that Fratesi had to take

49

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

responsibility for his role in the disaster the resolution represented.119 The reaction to his call for Fratesi to walk the plank was quick, and so overwhelmingly negative that he admitted within days that his political career in the Sault was probably over.120 For his remaining months as an opposition backbencher, MorinStrom had the satisfaction of receiving the best treatment from the governing party he had ever had. Peterson congratulated him on his stand against the resolution and offered encouragement. He got quick answers to issues he raised with cabinet ministers, and responses at question period.121 He told the Legislature in late March that he hoped other communities would learn the appropriate lessons from the Sault’s experience. When he stressed that provincial French-language services must be protected, he was applauded by Liberal, ndp, and Conservative members alike.122 But a lot of people in the Sault, including union members, were now angry with him. One of the smaller unions at Algoma Steel, the city’s largest and soon-to-be-bankrupt employer, voted to cut off its financial contributions to the ndp123; the largest union there seriously considered it. Morin-Strom believed that the traditional leaders in the community agreed with his position but were afraid to say so publicly. In addition to supportive phone calls, he and his Francophone wife got plenty which were mean, threatening, and anonymous.124 Politics after the resolution was no longer the fun and the joy it had been, and Morin-Strom decided not to run in the summer election of 1990. Soon afterwards, he and his family left the Sault.125 Then there was what happened to Jim Hilsinger. Hilsinger was a businessman and volunteer activist deeply committed to Sault Ste. Marie. He was originally attracted there by the beauty of the area and the hospitality of the people he met on early visits as a salesman. He owned the Water Tower Inn, which he had just finished

50

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

expanding in late 1989, and he ran a ski resort 25 miles north of the Sault. Between the hotel and the resort, he employed nearly 400 people, which made him one of the largest employers in the city. He thought that the growth potential of the tourism and hospitality industry in the area was enormous, and he had staked everything on it.126 He was dismayed by the emotions which the sapelr petition unleashed, and by the resolution and its attack on what he saw as the fundamental nature of the country. He had further reason for dismay as the fallout from the resolution began to drop on his business. The Sault’s Chamber of Commerce began receiving letters from people saying that they would never visit the city now, people started cancelling hotel reservations,127 and organizations which intended to hold their conventions there started rethinking. In February the provincial arm of the Canadian Union of Public Employees dropped its plans to hold its upcoming convention in the Sault.128 This hurt, as did the cancellation of three smaller conventions of Francophone educators; together, they meant the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of business for the hospitality sector, a large amount in local terms and one which looked like it would grow.129 In response in part to the concerns of tourist operators,130 council passed a “clarifying” resolution three weeks after the English-only resolution. This new document said in effect that there had been some misinterpretation of the original resolution out there beyond the city limits. We were not anti-French in Sault Ste. Marie; we were very proud of our French Canadians, who should be encouraged to celebrate their history and culture just like everyone else, and so on.131 Since Fratesi and councillors were continuing to refuse to rescind the original resolution, the new resolution fooled only those people who wanted to be fooled. Hilsinger deplored the fact that community leaders were not speaking out about the harm the resolution was doing to the city.132 He

51

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

spoke out himself at a press conference on March 9 on behalf of two anti-resolution groups, Citizens for a Progressive City and Alliance Sault Canada. Taking care not to impugn the motives of the mayor and councillors, he appealed to Sault residents to try to convince council to rescind the resolution. Whatever its intentions, council had acted in support of a “reputedly anti-French” organization. It didn’t matter how many clarifying resolutions were passed; the city now lived “under a heavy, dark cloud,” and people in the Sault would be regarded as “prejudiced, racist, bigoted, small-minded, anti-Canadian, and regressive” until the resolution was taken off the books.133 And if you didn’t like the argument against the resolution on the basis of principle and morality, he continued, think of the economics of the city. It had a declining steel industry. It was the service sector in general and the hospitality industry in particular which were expanding and providing a partial offset to the loss of heavy industrial jobs. The hospitality industry was now threatened by the resolution; people didn’t want to visit the Sault in the climate it had created. “These are jobs,” he said. “I’m fighting for my employees.”134 When would people speak up? he asked. “Where are the legal minds with conscience? Where are the clergy with morality? Where are the business people with common sense? Where are the social leaders with principles?”135 Hilsinger thought he was living in a country where a tradition of civil discourse plus the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave him the right to talk freely about the issues of the day without fear of reprisal. He was in fact living in what had just become the People’s (Englishonly) Democratic Republic of Sault Ste. Marie. Over the next few days he and his employees and others in the community learned how postresolution populist democracy worked there. On Monday, March 12, an angry Fratesi ripped into Hilsinger for criticizing the resolution while the Labatt’s Brier was still being

52

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

played in the Sault and the city was getting a different kind of national publicity than it had drawn since late January. Never mind that Fratesi himself had complained at great length to the media the previous week — immediately after the Brier had opened — about how Peterson had snubbed him. Never mind that the same issue of the Sault Star which reported Hilsinger’s plea to the city also carried a 30-page supplement entitled “Bilingualism on a Tightrope,” which focussed almost entirely on the resolution and its consequences. None of this mattered; it was apparently Hilsinger who had served the city poorly by not keeping his mouth shut while the national media was still in town. If Hilsinger had been “thoughtful and caring,” Fratesi said, he would have waited until the Brier was over to start his anti-resolution campaign.136 “He’s insulted the community, he’s insulted me, and he’s insulted council.”137 Coincidentally sapelr held its regular monthly meeting the next night. To wild applause from members still high on their recent victory, retired businessman Jim Wedderburn called for a boycott of the Water Tower Inn “until Hilsinger changes his mind.”138 Within days, three local organizations cancelled reservations for meeting rooms at the hotel, one representative storming into the hotel and throwing a tantrum in the process; two other groups were threatening cancellations.139 Individuals acted, too. Fratesi’s fan mail at city hall includes a letter to Hilsinger, copied to the mayor, from a dozen people who had decided to join the hotel’s health club but would not do so now. They told Hilsinger to come to his senses and “quit the B. S.”140 Hilsinger was getting it from both sides — from those angry with the resolution who were withdrawing tourist and convention business from the Sault, and now from sapelr supporters. However, it looked as though he could take some comfort at the end of the week the boycott began, when Fratesi said that he didn’t want to see the Water

53

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Tower Inn or any other business boycotted because of the resolution.141 This turned out not to be the case. One of Fratesi’s daughters was a grade eight student at Holy Family separate school. Holy Family had held its graduation banquets at the Water Tower Inn for years; the party for the school’s graduating class scheduled for June 1990 had been booked long in advance. At the same time as he was publicly disavowing boycotts, Fratesi called Holy Family’s principal Sister Catherine Paul and told her that he and his wife would not feel comfortable attending the party at the Water Tower Inn, because of his fight with Hilsinger.142 Sister had earlier phoned Fratesi to express her support for the resolution;143 nothing more needed to be said now. She had vice-principal John Gray phone Water Tower Inn manager Mike Quinn and cancel the graduation banquet. Quinn wanted to know why. Gray told him, admitting that if it had been a parent other than the mayor who had made the same request, the school would have done nothing about it.144 The local media quickly got hold of the story. Quinn said he had thought that the mayor was above turning his fight with Hilsinger into an attack on the hotel and its employees. Fratesi, apparently flustered at having been caught saying one thing and doing quite the other, said that he had called the school because he was concerned about the high price of the meal, and the fact that the school had not been able to book the hotel for its preferred night.145 Sister supported this (“We got a better price and a better night”146); vice-principal Gray did not.147 But Fratesi also admitted that he had personally boycotted the Water Tower Inn since 1982, when Hilsinger had supported Don Macgregor rather than him for mayor (telling the fifth estate some years later that Hilsinger had actually spent money in an election campaign against him,148 presumably another of those rights which Hilsinger mistakenly thought he enjoyed). He asked a reporter indignantly why the school

54

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

should hold the party at “a location that has been vocal against the people of this city, against me, against those who agree with me.”149 That was the relevant question, and Fratesi didn’t know the right answer to it. Judging by the deafening silence of business, professional, and other community leaders and associations which followed the breaking of the story, neither did many others in town. A few did, though. The day Fratesi’s phone call to the school became public knowledge, a couple who had supported the resolution wrote to him: You should have insisted that the school hold their function there, even if you would have been uncomfortable. You have just added fuel to [Hilsinger’s] argument. We should not try to ruin this man’s business. He has done a lot for this city. . . . He has a right to campaign for Don Macgregor. After all this is not a dictatorship. Maybe we are headed in this direction?150 Wedderburn apologized to the hotel a week after he had called for the boycott.151 Fratesi never did. The hotel lost over half a million dollars by the time the effects of the two boycotts — the one launched by the opponents of the resolution, the other by sapelr supporters — had run their courses. Hilsinger had wondered why the community’s leaders had not demanded that the resolution be rescinded. Part of the answer was that many of them had signed the petition and supported the resolution openly or quietly. One lawyer, for example, phoned Fratesi to tell him that the rest of the lawyers in town were nearly 100 per cent behind council’s action.152 Others were probably simply frightened of possible reprisals; Hilsinger’s experience reinforced their fear. The mere thought of drawing a similar boycott, in a city sliding into desperate

55

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

economic trouble in the early 1990s, encouraged silence.153 Another of the few to take Fratesi on was Harry Hurdon, one of the two councillors who had voted against the resolution in January 1990. Hurdon ran against Fratesi in the November 1991 election, the first of the post-resolution era. By that time the “rumblings in the community” were that people were afraid of Fratesi and would not criticize him openly for “fear of reprisal”; Fratesi assured the reporter who told him this that he was not a vindictive kind of person who went out of his way to ensure that his critics were “taken care of.”154 But a local political activist trying to arouse interest in the important issues facing the city during the election remarked that, “I’m starting to think I’m in Russia, that people are muttering things under their breath for fear something may happen to them.”155 Hurdon’s campaign literature played to this theme, telling voters that they could say what they really felt about Fratesi in the polling booth, even if they were afraid to speak openly: SHHH! Some people won’t speak out In support of Harry for fear Of reprisal from Joe. Join the Harry Hurdon Quiet Campaign. Remember your vote is a secret vote For leadership in tough times.156 But after January 29, 1990, secret ballots in Sault Ste. Marie were the last thing Fratesi had to worry about. Following a campaign in which he lashed out at critics157 and advertised himself as “the mayor for all people,” he received 30,346 votes to Hurdon’s 7,786. This was the four to one margin by which the Sault had endorsed the resolution infor-

56

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

mally immediately after its passage. Fratesi won all of the city’s 288 polls in rolling to this victory.158 This was a remarkable change from the results of the 1985 election, in which Fratesi had beaten Macgregor by only 20,130 votes to 16,803, and had carried only three of the city’s six wards.159 No one who opposed the resolution won a seat on the new council. Each of the nine incumbent councillors who ran again had supported the resolution; they were all re-elected. The three new councillors had made it clear during the campaign that they were not in favour of rescission.160 The Sault Star’s editor wrote that, “Mr. Fratesi is at the height of his popularity, riding on the language resolution which the residents of this city obviously fully support, the rest of the country be damned.”161 During the next two years, Fratesi continued to turn down requests to have council rescind the resolution162 despite the hurt it had caused locally and the damage it had done with the outside world. The president of a Toronto-based mining services company, for example, wrote to the mayor to tell him that his company would not be buying goods or services in Sault Ste. Marie any more, “at least so long as such bigoted legislation is in effect.”163 A Pacific Rim manufacturer took the Sault off his list of possible locations because, “if they don’t like French people they won’t like us.”164 Convention business continued to be lost.165 In the harsh economic climate of early 1991, Fratesi called for support from Queen’s Park and Ottawa, arguing that it was “our turn to get something major, something like the [Revenue Canada] tax centre in Sudbury,”166 or the headquarters of the public auto-insurance company the Rae government was considering.167 But this was preposterously unrealistic. The Sault’s new mpp Tony Martin told the press that once council had passed the resolution, both the provincial and the federal governments had banished “any thoughts of more government projects for the Sault.”168

57

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

When criticism of the resolution and calls for its rescission resurfaced, as they periodically did, Fratesi and its supporters responded that the critics were the ones doing the city harm by talking about it, and they should let the matter rest.169 Their defensiveness suggests that they did understand at some level that the resolution had hurt, notwithstanding Fratesi’s repeated statements to the contrary.170 But damage aside, whacking the French had been enormously satisfying, and the continued existence of the resolution was an ongoing reminder of the happy days of early 1990. Rescission was unthinkable. Finally tiring of their efforts to persuade council to do the right thing, opponents of the resolution brought two separate applications — one in English, one in French — before the courts in November 1993. The applications argued that the resolution was illegal because it dealt with an issue outside the jurisdictional competence of municipalities, and asked that it be struck down. Fratesi called the applications frivolous, saying that his opponents were “picking at a scab and reopening the wound”171 and that people upset with the resolution could always move out of town.172 He and council ordered city solicitor Lorie Bottos to defend it vigorously.173 This led to a striking exchange between Fratesi and former mayor McIntyre, of which the public saw only half. In a letter to the Sault Star, McIntyre fumed that the city was making another mistake by defending the resolution in court, and added: There is only one reason why city council will not save the taxpayers the expense of going to court to defend the resolution, and it is spelled EGO, especially one of monumental dimensions. Observers do not call him the Ayatolla and Il Duce for nothing.174

58

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

Fratesi’s response appeared in a card delivered to McIntyre’s home the day after his letter was published:

In June 1994, lawyers Malcolm McLeod (representing applicants Francis Guth and Robert d’Amato) and Yvon Renaud (on behalf of Julien Chaperon and Max Iland), and Bottos for the city, argued the legal merits of the resolution before Judge Spyros Loukidelis.176 To the consternation of the resolution supporters in the courtroom, Renaud pleaded his case in French.177 After the hearing, Dick Pearman asked Bottos why he had not

59

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

told Loukidelis that nearly 25,000 people had signed the petition which led to the resolution, apparently thinking this was relevant. Bottos had to tell him that the judge didn’t care about that.178 Two weeks later Loukidelis ruled that council had indeed acted beyond its competence in passing the resolution and struck it down.179 The reaction from the mayor who still hoped to be a judge was as startling as his response to McIntyre several months earlier. He called Loukidelis’ decision “hollow, meaningless,” “really empty.”180 Having thus insulted the court (the Law Society of Upper Canada, of which he was a member, frowns on this181), he then made the case for a judiciary subservient to government: The resolution is a vote taken on an issue by council and a consensus reached. And no court can change that. . . . At no place in our system should a court ever replace the job of the legislator or of the elected officials. This judge and other judges cannot place themselves into making political decisions.182 In Fratesi’s view, apparently, a judicial system which constrained governments such as Sault Ste. Marie’s council to act within the law — a system which among other things stood ready to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority — was dysfunctional. These comments would have made surprising additions to his judicial application files, if those files had remained active. The striking down of the resolution and Fratesi’s condemnation of judicial safeguards did not in any way damage his political attractiveness in Sault Ste. Marie. Still not having received a call to the bench, he ran for re-election in November 1994, beating challenger John Rowswell by the customary four to one margin, in the process expressing disappointment that Rowswell had entered the race and suggesting

60

WHACKING THE FRENCH PAYS RICH DIVIDENDS, BUT HAS ITS COSTS

again that he should have been acclaimed.183 Some people who helped fund Rowswell’s campaign implored him not to tell anyone about it; they felt they couldn’t afford to have their support for him become public knowledge.184 By mid-1995 Fratesi was well into a record tenth consecutive year as mayor, and had two more years plus remaining in his term. He was enormously popular, the undisputed boss of both his council and of city hall. Despite these achievements, however, his career goals remained unfulfilled. And when Frank Caputo was appointed a federal judge in July 1995185 and Fratesi was passed over again, he found this “hard to bear.”186 This appears to have been when the penny dropped and he realized that a judgeship was permanently beyond his reach, and that he was looking at the prospect of spending the rest of his working life handling divorces and real estate deals, and drawing a part-time salary as a full-time mayor. In any case, very shortly after Caputo’s appointment was announced he launched himself on a revised career trajectory. His gaze had fallen on another pretty good job. It wasn’t as prestigious as a judgeship, but it carried a six-figure salary and substantial benefits which could be enriched for the right man. It was located just around the corner from his own office at city hall. Best of all, its disposition was under the control not of unsympathetic federal and provincial cabinets, but of the city council which he had now dominated for years.

61

Joe Fratesi Finds A New Job Public money is like holy water, everyone helps himself to it. — ITALIAN PROVERB

ONTARIO’S MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Conflicts of interest arise all the time; they are an inescapable part of the lives of busy people who take on public duties. Whether or not they become abuses of office depends on how the people involved manage the conflicts between their private interests and their public responsibilities, including whether or not they follow the relevant guidelines or laws. Concern about conflict of interest at the municipal level is profound, according to the 1984 report of Mitchell Sharp and Michael Starr cited in Chapter 1. This stems from the number of local situations which can generate conflicts. Issues such as zoning and development approvals can result in very focussed pressure on members of council; in most communities council jobs are only part-time, and councillors often have their own business interests to reconcile with their municipal decision-making roles; and through inexperience, some councillors “may be unaware of the pitfalls to be avoided in dealing with subjectively interested parties.”1 Thus, several provinces have enacted specific legislation governing municipal conflict of interest, while the others deal with it in their Municipal Acts or other statutes. 63

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Ontario has made various legislative efforts “to protect the public trust from private interests of local politicians” since the mid-nineteenth century when it passed its first broad statute governing municipal affairs.2 The province’s first Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was proclaimed in 1972; it was replaced with a substantially revised Act in 1983, which was in force when Joe Fratesi set out to fulfil his revised career goals in 1995 and which remains the law today. A 1991 decision rendered under the Act said that, “The obvious purpose of the legislation is to safeguard the public purse, not only from greed-inspired conflict, but from carelessly occasioned conflict as well.”3 Section 5 of the Act spells out how the safeguard is to operate. It outlines the duty of a member of a municipal council or local board finding himself or herself with a conflict of interest (only the first two of its three subsections are relevant here): (1) Where a member, either on his or her own behalf or while acting for, by, with or through another, has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any matter and is present at a meeting of the council or local board at which the matter is the subject of consideration, the member, (a) shall, prior to any consideration of the matter at the meeting, disclose the interest and the general nature thereof; (b) shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter; and (c) shall not attempt in any way whether before, during or after the meeting to influence the voting on any such question. (2) Where the meeting referred to in subsection (1) is 64

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

not open to the public, in addition to complying with the requirements of that subsection, the member shall forthwith leave the meeting or the part of the meeting during which the matter is under consideration.4 This is not hard to decipher. Where your private financial interest is related to a matter coming before council in open session, you as a council member have to disclose that; you can’t participate in the discussion or vote on the matter; and you can’t at any time try to influence the voting on the issue. In the case of a meeting closed to the public, you must as well leave the meeting immediately after you have declared your conflict. The law was intended to be taken seriously. The Declaration of Municipal Office which council members in Ontario sign when they take office, and in which they promise to “disclose any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect as required by and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act,”5 has the force of an oath.6 Oaths are serious matters. Further evidence that the Legislature meant business lies in the penalty provisions set out in Section 10, which reads in part: (1) Subject to subsection (2), where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5(1), (2) or (3), the judge, (a) shall, in the case of a member, declare the seat of the member vacant; and (b) may disqualify the member or former member from being a member during a period thereafter of not more than seven years; and

65

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

(c) may, where the contravention has resulted in personal financial gain, require the member or former member to make restitution to the party suffering the loss, or, where such party is not readily ascertainable, to the municipality or local board of which he or she is a member or former member. (2) Where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5(1), (2) or (3), if the judge finds that the contravention was committed through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgement, the member is not subject to having his or her seat declared vacant and the member or former member is not subject to being disqualified as a member, as provided by subsection (1).7 This is a little trickier. In the case of a sitting member of council (the relevant case here), Section 10’s subsection (1)(a) orders a judge who finds that the member has not followed the rules set out in Section 5 to remove the member from office (“declare the seat of the member vacant”) unless the provisions of subsection (2) apply. The judge has no discretion. Subsection (1)(b) allows the judge to go further, and disqualify the miscreant from sitting on council for a period of up to seven years, while subsection (1)(c) provides the remedy of forced restitution. But if the judge finds that the contravention in question was a little white one — that it occurred, in the words of subsection (2), “through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgement” — the penalties of subsections (1)(a) and (b) do not apply. The consultation committee which reviewed Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act a decade ago reported that these penalties were

66

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

thought by some practitioners, including judges, to be too severe. The penalty of disqualification from running for municipal office was seen as particularly harsh.8 The judge who imposes it says, in effect, that the individual’s behaviour in the proximity of the local public purse has been such that the public must be protected against the possibility of a recurrence of that behaviour for a period of up to seven years. Imposing it involves taking away one of the basic democratic rights of a citizen. Because of the severity of the conflict of interest penalties, the courts were apparently reluctant to impose them, according to the committee, and relied on the so-called “saving” provisions of inadvertence and error in judgement. Such a verdict says, in effect, that while a breach of the Act has occurred, it is not significant enough to warrant punishing with the stern remedies the law provides. The committee reported that in 28 cases heard in Ontario from 1972 until 1991, the courts found that the Act had been contravened in 25, but in most of them the courts applied the saving provisions.9 I reviewed the judgements in a sample of 35 cases other than those involving Joe Fratesi, heard between 1973 and 1999; over two-thirds of these cases were adjudicated under the 1983 Act.10 There is substantial overlap between these cases and the 28 cases examined by the committee, so I expected to find the same general pattern as it found, and I did. But it is the details which are the most interesting. Thirteen of these 35 conflict of interest applications were dismissed, and in 15 of the remaining 22 cases the courts ruled that the contraventions occurred through inadvertence or error in judgement. Thus, in 80 per cent of the 35 cases, the judges either dismissed the applications or imposed no penalties. In the remaining seven, the courts found that the saving provisions did not apply and declared the culprits’ seats vacant, but in four of them added no disqualification penalty. One of these latter cases went to appeal. The appellate judge found that the breach

67

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

of the Act which had been committed was one “bound to shake public confidence in the administration of the affairs of this municipality,”11 but the judge who heard the case initially had still not reached for the remedy of disqualification. In only three of the cases in which seats were declared vacant were bans on running for office imposed — for two weeks in one case, for one and two months respectively in a second involving two persons, and for two years in the third.12 Sixteen of the 35 cases were heard since 1990, when the consultation committee had substantially finished its work. Seven of them were dismissed; the saving provisions were found to apply in eight others. In only one case was a seat declared vacant; no further penalties were imposed.13 People argued before the consultation committee that judges’ “rulings on penalties have undermined the effectiveness of the Act because they are contrary to the very intent of the legislation.”14 Whether or not this is true is an important matter. It arises because the Legislature viewed municipal conflict of interest seriously; it meant local politicians to take it seriously; and it backed up its concerns with what it thought were appropriately severe sanctions. As of September 1995, the members of Sault Ste. Marie’s city council were all aware of the provisions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the conduct they demanded. Fratesi — a 16-year veteran of council and a practising lawyer for 20 years by this time — was obviously no exception. He had said in 1989 that despite his law degree, there were still circumstances in which he was not sure whether or how the Act applied. He was sure of one thing, though: “When in doubt, get out, that’s the adage all politicians follow.”15 Err on the side of caution, in other words. An example of how he could follow his own advice scrupulously occurred in September 1989, during council consideration of the nimby question of where to locate a new juvenile detention centre.

68

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Fratesi declared a conflict of interest and absented himself from the discussion on the grounds that his law practice had 15 clients who lived within a few hundred feet of the proposed site. The Sault Star’s Loader suggested that the mayor had invoked conflict of interest as a convenient way to avoid participating in this particularly difficult debate.16 But the renowned Ontario authority on conflict of interest Michael Smither agreed with Fratesi’s decision. It was prudent, according to Smither; Fratesi did what he should have done.17 The Act’s high purpose, its strict guidelines, and its penalties, are all one thing. Enforcement is quite another. There are no conflict of interest police in Ontario; enforcement depends purely on citizen action. Under Section 9 of the Act, an elector who believes that a council member has contravened the Act may apply to the courts for a ruling, and must do so within six weeks of learning of the possible violation.18 The elector bears the legal costs of the action, which may be large or small depending on the circumstances. The consultation committee wrote that these enforcement provisions had been criticized as being “inappropriate, ineffective, onerous and expensive.”19 Since one of the Act’s primary purposes was “to enhance the public’s confidence in the decision-making practices of our local government bodies,”20 its enforcement mechanism didn’t make a lot of sense. Sticking electors with the responsibility of enforcement certainly deterred frivolous complaints, but the potentially heavy legal costs deterred applications based on legitimate concerns as well,21 and thus worked to defeat the point of the legislation. The committee also observed that once an application had been filed, the backlog of issues before the courts resulted in long delays in getting a decision.22 Enforcement is thus one of the Act’s most obvious weaknesses. A second, which became glaringly evident in the course of the Fratesi cases, lies in its Section 12. The section reads in part:

69

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

The failure of any person to comply with subsection 5(1), (2) or (3) does not of itself invalidate any proceedings in respect of any such matter but the proceedings in respect of such matter are voidable at the instance of the municipality or of the local board, as the case may be, before the expiration of two years from the date of the passing of the by-law or resolution authorizing such matter. . . .23 This means that when a judge finds that a council member has contravened the Act — in securing a contract with the council of which he or she is a sitting member, for example — the judge does not have the power to invalidate that contract. Only the council itself has that power, and must use it within two years of entering into the contract with the member who broke the law. This must have seemed at the time to provide strong enough protection for the public. After all, who could have conceived of circumstances in which a city council would enter into a contract with one of its sitting members, find out subsequently that the member had broken the law in the course of getting the contract, and not promptly invalidate it? Before the events which occurred in Sault Ste. Marie in 1995 and 1996, this would have been hard to imagine. It no longer is.

THE EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PLAN OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE

Sault Ste. Marie’s early retirement incentive plan was of central importance in the process through which Fratesi’s revised ambitions were translated into reality. In 1987 and 1988 the city had run an eri program for its employees that was similar in its basic structure to the way most

70

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

such plans operate.24 These drive off some target reductions in the work force that organizations want to achieve, and offer retirement incentives to all employees who meet whatever age, length of service, and other eligibility criteria are established. They typically assume that some, though not all, of the employees who take early retirement will be replaced. The eri program was restructured as part of a downsizing exercise in 1990. Fratesi and then cao Allan Jackson had strongly different views about how the downsizing should be done, and Fratesi recommended to council that a committee of four department heads — Bill Lindsay, Don Redmond, Reg Avery, and Fred Konkin — should produce a downsizing plan and a revised eri policy. This they did, in the process bypassing both the cao and the city’s commissioner of personnel, according to Jackson; according to Fratesi, Jackson was unwilling to work with the committee the mayor had put to work on the project.25 The new eri plan that the committee crafted went into effect in 1991 on a two-year trial basis, and was still running in 1995. The new plan did not apply generally. It was “targeted,” which in operational terms was supposed to mean that an eri could be paid only if the retirement of an employee would permit or facilitate a workplace reorganization and reduction in staff positions, generating guaranteed and ongoing labour cost savings for the city.26 Thus, for example, an employee who wanted to retire early and could make a convincing case that he or she did not need to be replaced (in effect, that he or she and/or his or her job were useless) would be eligible for an eri. The potential for abuse in this program was obvious. The policy and its specifics were unwritten. Nothing on paper defined how the savings necessary to trigger the payment of an eri were to be calculated, and nothing defined what portion of those savings could be used to fund the eri.27 Everything was discretionary and secret. Each eri was negotiated between the retiring employee and a department

71

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

head and the personnel commissioner, and was then subject to the approval of the mayor and council meeting in closed session. The details of these eri deals were never made public. Charlie Swift, the program’s harshest and almost its only critic on council, worried about the “opportunities for creative justification” inherent in the city’s very “nebulous” policy28 (which he once called “the charade euphemistically referred to as the city policy on this matter”29). Alluding to the scope for favouritism in the application of the policy, Swift said that apparently “your standing with the establishment has more to do with the amount of your early retirement incentive than your service record.”30 Nothing prevented a retiring manager from proposing the elimination of a subordinate’s position in order to get an eri for himself.31 And as if this were not bad enough, the program also provided a perverse incentive for a manager to delay reorganization and downsizing until that manager was ready to retire and try to tap into an eri. By the late spring of 1995, and after some 15–20 eris had been negotiated under the arrangements in effect since 1991, both council and senior staff were feeling that it was time to review the program. Testifying about this later, Jackson said that he sensed “a bit more opposition” from two councillors (Swift and Mike Sanzosti) to the incentive packages council was ratifying behind closed doors, “and . . . there was a need to sort of prove the worth of the program.”32 He added: . . . our program is targeted and if you had a situation where somebody left and retired and the job was being filled, that person wouldn’t get an incentive. Whereas somebody else in the same department might retire, that job doesn’t get filled, that person gets an incentive. So . . . it was seen to be unfair.33

72

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Thus, part of the objective of the staff review of the program during the summer of 1995 was to assess whether the city should replace it with one of more general applicability, along the lines of the program it had run in the late 1980s.34 While Fratesi and most councillors endorsed the eri program enthusiastically, Swift was a constant critic of its lack of structure and definition and its capacity for abuse. He had voted against every eri — he saw no consistency and no logical basis for the amounts awarded from eri to eri, and the program’s basic unfairness bothered him.35 He was also frustrated at his inability to bring his concerns to the public’s attention: raising questions about a specific eri in open council session and thus disclosing personal information about an employee could violate the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.36 Swift asked repeatedly for a chance to debate the program in open session, in the absence of which he would consider publicizing the thus far secret details of individual eris. He was particularly disturbed about the eri for retiring city clerk Lindsay, which council ratified in the spring of 1995.37 He later said that the reduction in staff in Lindsay’s office that provided the justification for his eri payment resulted from the elimination of a subordinate’s position, which could have been done whether or not Lindsay retired.38 In August 1995 he again demanded the opportunity to air his concerns. To let Swift blow off some steam, Fratesi agreed that a report based on the eri review done by city staff could be placed on the agenda of council’s September 25 meeting.39

A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE ERI PROGRAM

Prior to that meeting, however, Fratesi and cao Jackson had several conversations about some more personal implications of the eri program for each of them.

73

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Let’s start with Jackson’s testimony given in November 1995, prior to Fratesi’s first conflict of interest hearing. He and the mayor were talking in Fratesi’s office on either the 16th or 17th of the previous August, Jackson said. He was quite sure when this conversation occurred, because following the meeting he had to speak to public works and traffic commissioner Mel Brechin. Brechin took holidays during the last two weeks of August, and Jackson was sure that he spoke to him before he left.40 Jackson testified that he and the mayor had finished their discussion, . . . and I was about to leave and he — as I recall, he was sitting and he stood up and closed the two doors to his office and said words to the effect that there was an opening, a vacancy occurring up at the public works and traffic department and asked about whether or not Paul Kates, my assistant, might move into that job. And he then went on to say that that would then — that would fill that vacancy. It would leave a vacancy in my office, the cao’s office, and that might be combined with an early retirement incentive for me if I was interested in retiring. And he made it very clear that he was — and he made statements to the effect that he made it very clear that he was not trying to suggest that I would retire or anything of that nature, strictly if I wanted to, but these opportunities did not arise all that often and that they had to be utilized when they did arise [my italics]. And he also made a comment about not knowing how long my assistant’s job, Paul Kates’ job, could in fact be protected or remain.41

74

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Jackson was not surprised at Fratesi’s raising the issue of his possible early retirement. Fratesi had already done so once before. After he was re-elected in 1991, he sent Jackson a memo saying that he wanted to discuss early retirement for every senior manager at city hall, including Jackson.42 Their working relationship had been tense and difficult for years.43 Fratesi’s commanding style and his habit of dealing directly with Jackson’s subordinates had drastically reduced Jackson’s scope for independent action. The mayor had “virtually destroyed” the cao position, in the words of one veteran city-hall watcher.44 He had seen Jackson as a rival and “had spent years making his life miserable,”45 according to the fifth estate. Jackson had secretly taped conversations between him and the mayor,46 because as he explained later “he felt threatened in his role as cao by Fratesi.”47 Jackson had never felt that Fratesi had wanted him as the city’s cao, and thought that he would be happy to replace him with someone “more to his own liking.”48 Jackson was not surprised either that Fratesi wanted to see his assistant’s position disappear. Fratesi had questioned for years whether the cao really needed an assistant, and Jackson was worried whether Kates was going to have much of a future in his office.49 Right after this initial discussion, Jackson spoke with Brechin about Kates’ possible move to public works and traffic. Brechin was agreeable, so Jackson then spoke with Kates, who was also agreeable, then got the city’s personnel staff to evaluate Kates’ proposed new job.50 Fratesi had told Jackson that Kates’ move “could be of some enhancement”51 (a promotion), which it turned out to be. Jackson and the mayor subsequently spoke four to six times about Jackson’s eri,52 Jackson testified: We got down to talking about how we might arrive at a figure, because the early retirement incentive that

75

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

we have is based on some proportions of the savings that might result through reorganizing or through downsizing or whatever. And I subsequently put together a couple of pages of calculations that dealt with, you know, how we could identify savings, and there were two or three ways in which we could approach it to look at the savings. And I gave him that information. In the end he — he arrived at a figure himself that was based on a proportion of my salary, and . . . he had sort of his own way of calculating it and that was the one we agreed to that went to council. . . .53 Fratesi’s version of events differs in two important respects from Jackson’s. First, he testified that his first conversation with the cao about early retirement occurred in mid-September rather than midAugust.54 This hardly seems possible.55 It would have meant negotiating Jackson’s eri and doing everything necessary to move Kates within one week, given that all these arrangements were completed by Friday, September 22, for presentation to council at its next regular meeting on Monday, September 25. Even world-class bureaucracies don’t move that fast. The second key difference concerns who initiated the discussion about Jackson’s early retirement. Fratesi told city councillors in private on September 25 that Jackson had made the first overtures.56 When Jackson told a reporter shortly afterwards that Fratesi had approached him first, and the reporter then questioned Fratesi, the mayor quickly said that Jackson was wrong.57 But there is a curious footnote to Fratesi’s version of these events. In January 1996, Fratesi swore an affidavit in advance of his pending conflict of interest hearing. He recalled that the first time Jackson’s

76

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

retirement was discussed, he had asked the cao whether any of the upcoming vacancies in public works and traffic might be suitable for Kates. He wanted Jackson to “consider voluntarily downsizing his office as a cost saving measure,”58 he said, and continued, “The discussion then led to Mr. Jackson’s possible retirement and he being eligible to receive due credit in his retirement incentive if his office was downsized.”59 But who led the discussion in that direction, and set Jackson’s early retirement in motion? The affidavit is silent on this point. There is, however, no disagreement between Jackson and Fratesi that they rolled up their sleeves and negotiated, in the process demonstrating the elasticity of the eri program. The movement of Kates to public works and traffic and the elimination of his position in the cao’s office in no way depended on Jackson’s early retirement, but could provide a justification for an eri (just as the elimination of a position in the clerk’s department had provided the rationale for Lindsay’s eri a few months earlier). As for the actual amount of Jackson’s eri, which was supposed to be related to “guaranteed” savings resulting from reorganization, Fratesi and Jackson reviewed three options: basing it on the “savings” resulting from Kates’ move; calculating the present value of the net salary Jackson would lose by retiring early; and taking a proportion of Jackson’s annual salary. These last two had nothing to do with “savings” as defined in the eri program, but it was the second of them which Fratesi decided to use.60 At some point during the negotiations, Fratesi agreed to draft a proposal recommending Kates’ transfer and Jackson’s eri (Jackson felt uncomfortable doing this himself), and present it to council61 on September 25.

77

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

THE FIRST BIG SURPRISE FOR CITY COUNCIL

The city staff report on the eri program went to council in the form of a memo from Jackson which reviewed the highlights of the program and made several recommendations. This was discussed during the portion of the September 25 meeting open to the public. According to the memo, staff had looked at the eri programs of various organizations, including those of other municipal governments in Northern Ontario, and had not identified any which were similar to the Sault’s.62 Rather than setting off alarm bells, this seemed to be interpreted by staff as well as almost all members of council as evidence that city government there knew something about effective retirement incentive program design which no other personnel experts in the land did. Fratesi spoke strongly in favour of the eri program. Swift was predictably critical, and complained that he couldn’t reveal information about individual eris he objected to because of the province’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He felt that he was being gagged. This drew a testy intervention from Fratesi: Just in response to that, because I see the media buzzing, thinking there’s something clandestine in the questions that have been asked, let me assure anyone who is listening that we have an incentive program that is not unlike the one at the Sault Star, not unlike the one at the tv station, not unlike the one at the radio station, not unlike the federal government, the provincial government, not unlike any other private business, and . . . the school boards, whereby if we can realize savings by eliminating positions, a chunk of money is put on the table. . . . And the suggestions that some people have had gag orders put on them so they cannot discuss personal circumstances 78

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

and situations in a context that something clandestine is going on, we’re doing the same thing here that everybody does in the real world. Public sector, private sector, we’re realizing savings. And that’s the long and the short of what’s happening. . . . You know, with the greatest respect, don’t read into questions and suggestions about being gagged that something clandestine is going on, because it certainly is not.63 With Swift as the only dissenting voter, council endorsed Jackson’s memo and its recommendations, including the critical one that the city continue the eri program in its current form. It worked its way through the rest of the public portion of the agenda, then retreated into closed session — “caucus,” as it is called in the Sault — to deal with several personnel issues. In Canada we don’t often find out what our governments say and do out of the public’s eye. This particular closed-door meeting of the city council of Sault Ste. Marie represents a remarkable exception, but only because what happened during it became the subject of the first conflict of interest application against Fratesi. All members of council were called to testify under oath about what had gone on, and, as well, key papers were demanded as part of the court proceedings. The mass of sworn testimony and related documents provides a far more comprehensive picture of a night to remember in the council chamber than otherwise would have seen the light of day. It took until after 9:30 in the evening to deal with the personnelrelated business on the formal agenda of the closed meeting. Councillors were packing up their bags to go home when Fratesi told them that he had two other items for them. He asked senior staff still present to leave, then announced a first surprise — Jackson, whose report recommending the continuation of the eri program council had accepted just a few hours earlier, would be its next beneficiary. 79

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Most councillors were startled to hear that Jackson wanted to retire early. Fratesi distributed a short memo recommending Jackson’s eri and Kates’ transfer and promotion, which began with the assertion that Jackson had approached him “with respect to his possible early retirement from our organization.”64 If council agreed, the cao would retire at the end of 1995 with the full Ontario municipal employees (omers) pension his years of service entitled him to, plus the lumpsum eri which the mayor had negotiated with him. The rationale for the eri payment was the Kates transfer, which according to Fratesi would allow Kates’ old job to be combined with that of the cao’s secretary to create one all-round administrative assistant position. Council could review this position, Fratesi wrote, as part of the process of appointing a new cao. Savings would flow from the downsizing of the cao’s office, and he went into detail as to how these would materialize. Given these savings, and Jackson’s salary, and the eri packages given to other employees in recent years, he recommended that council approve an eri of $52,381 for Jackson.65 Fratesi did not tell councillors how he had computed this number, and none of them asked. Perhaps its precision impressed them, gave them confidence that there really was some formula through which eris were calculated with which the mayor was obviously comfortable, but which might be beyond their own capacities to understand. He did tell them that Jackson’s payment was consistent with city policy,66 and told the press the next day that “it’s exactly in keeping with what has been offered to others.”67 This suggests that the potential for abuse in the eri program described earlier had already been richly exploited. Fratesi had calculated Jackson’s incentive payment simply by dividing the cao’s annual salary by two. There was only a cursory discussion of the Jackson package. At least half of the councillors asked no questions; no one asked why Kates’ transfer justified Jackson’s eri. Some councillors were interested in why

80

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Jackson was retiring, but there was more interest in how council would replace him, or who would replace him,68 or, in Councillor Mary Borowicz’s words, “who did the mayor have in mind, perhaps, to fall into place.”69

WHO THE MAYOR HAD IN MIND TO FALL INTO PLACE

Borowicz did not have to wait long for the answer. The mayor asked council to approve Jackson’s eri and the other recommendations in his memo, and called for the vote.70 Swift alone voted against. Then, with words to the effect that he would now drop the bombshell, or the other shoe,71 Fratesi announced his preferred candidate to replace Jackson. Himself. Dumbfounded councillors tried to comprehend what they were hearing, turned to each other in amazement. Meanwhile, Fratesi was passing out copies of a three-page memo on city letterhead, a resume cum application for Jackson’s job cum terms and conditions under which he wanted it, which concluded with the instruction: “please return this memo to me after caucus discussion.”72 No wonder he wanted it back. It is an astounding document. Fratesi starts by assuring council that Jackson had approached him about retiring early and that he had “in no way encouraged him to consider such a move on his part,” although certainly Jackson would be foolish to continue working when he could draw a full omers pension. Moving right along, Fratesi tells his colleagues, “I am proposing that council appoint me” to replace Jackson. Then, “At the risk of blowing my own horn too much, I am not sure that council could find a better replacement,” in light of his professional and political record, “the respect that I enjoy both from the general community and from the vast majority of city staff,” his academic and legal background, his

81

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

knowledge of the city and its problems, and his desire to serve the Sault “in an ongoing way.” True, his taking the job would mean giving up the mayor’s job and his private law practice, “and [taking] a significant cut in income to boot!” He would make that sacrifice, however, because it was getting harder to handle his two jobs, and as cao he would get a “reasonable income” and “the security of a pension down the road,” and would be able “to continue to work with capable individuals that I know and respect,” and of course keep on serving the city. Because of their long working relationship together, councillors “hopefully” would be able to make up their minds about his offer “very quickly.” He then turns to what will be necessary to induce him to serve. “The following, which I am sure you will find to be reasonable, are the conditions under which I would take the position.” There are eight of these: • No competition, please; just give me the job. “It would be awkward for all concerned if I were to be part of any competition, regardless of the outcome.” • Announce the fact of the appointment immediately, with its taking effect January 1, 1996, giving me time to wind down my law practice and the council time to figure out how to replace me as mayor effective the beginning of the new year. • Pay me what Jackson (cao for 15 years by this time) is earning, $104,762, the top rate within the salary range for the job. • Give me credit “for the time that I have served as councillor and mayor [16 years] for purposes of holidays and sick leave and other benefits,” and put me into the omers pension plan with credit for those same 16 years, with the city paying half of the cost of

82

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Joe Fratesi Captain of the starship “Self-Enterprise” Cyril Morden drew this cartoon when he auditioned for the job as Sault This Week’s artist in November 1995, while Fratesi was making his second attempt to secure the CAO job. The caricature got Morden his job. Printed here for the first time, with Cyril Morden’s permission.

this pension buy-back. (The cost to the city of its share of the pension buy-back would be $31,200; the buyback would make Fratesi eligible for a reduced pension in 11 years at age 55, or an unreduced pension in 14 years at age 58.73) • Cover the cost of my memberships in professional associations (as the city was currently doing for Jackson). • Oh yes, hiring me also means putting my law firm’s secretary into the new combined position in the cao’s office that I just finished recommending council should create as part of the process of hiring the city’s

83

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

new cao (council had accepted this recommendation with no idea of what was coming next): It is my intention to bring my Law Assistant into [the cao’s office]. All of you have dealt with her and you will know that she has not only the clerical skills required, but the people skills and the organizational skills required for the position. She has been a loyal employee and one of the reasons that I have enjoyed considerable success. She would be an asset to the organization and a person capable of fulfilling all of the duties of a downsized office. As for Jackson’s own secretary (who under this part of Fratesi’s proposal would be getting the old heaveho), well, “I . . . would work with Personnel in finding a position” for her. • Put in place arrangements to cover off the cao’s office’s responsibilities during vacation periods. • Consider leasing me a car instead of continuing to pay a cao car allowance. His markers laid down, Fratesi winds up. He has enjoyed working with these people from whom he is now asking for two jobs — the soon-to-be-vacant cao job and the yet-to-be-created new job in that office for his legal secretary — and he hopes to continue that working relationship in a different way. There is after all the Jack McMeeken precedent for this (see Chapter 1). Fratesi wants to continue to serve the city in a new capacity just as McMeeken did in bygone days. This is a good deal, councillors: “I believe that this proposal is an excellent opportunity for both sides in that it would have significant mutual benefits.” Everyone would be a winner. But speed is of the

84

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

essence: “The rumour mill being what it is, I would appreciate council coming to a quick decision on this matter. A decision tonight would be appreciated.”74

THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN JOE FRATESI’S COUNCIL

It took Fratesi a few minutes to bring the stunned council back to order.75 Borowicz recalled that, “The chamber was totally in disarray. No one was listening to what was going on. We were all in a state of shock and in our own little worlds, I guess, wondering what was happening.”76 As councillors tried to read Fratesi’s memo and make sense of a confusing situation, he made several comments, then started to leave the room but was called back and told by his colleagues that they needed more information and that he couldn’t leave yet. Jack Moore asked him, “What are we supposed to do, pass messages outside underneath the door type of thing, or through the door back and forth?”77 So Fratesi stayed and answered questions for another 15 or 20 minutes, expanding substantially on his proposal to serve the city in a new capacity. He reiterated that he wanted the job because the workload associated with running a law office and being mayor was heavy, and as cao would have a secure position with a stable income and an attractive benefits package which he did not have at that time.78 An important part of that benefits package was a pension plan which would let him retire at a reasonable age, and the buy-back of 16 years’ worth of pension credits of which he was asking council to pay half was a perfectly legitimate request. Councillor Udo Rauk later recalled Fratesi’s saying in this context that if councillors wanted legal or personnel advice from city staff with respect to his proposal, he could arrange to get the

85

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

relevant people there on the spot. Rauk also remembered Fratesi’s stating that he was a lawyer and had been around for some time, and he thought that council could trust his judgement.79 His eight-point package could not be split apart; if council wanted him as the city’s new cao, it had to accept all his terms and conditions.80 Borowicz and Councillor Rick Niro recalled this coming up in the context of questions about why the city should hire his legal secretary.81 He wanted to bring her with him to the cao’s office, he said, because she had worked for him for several years and would keep him organized. Borowicz recalled as well his making the obvious point that once he had shut down his law office she would be out of a job.82 He would certainly be able to make the transition from being the city’s top politician to being its top bureaucrat, and “would have no difficulty in becoming the servant . . . of the council.”83 He had been around city hall a long time and was familiar with most staff and how the city operated.84 Councillors were well aware of his strengths and weaknesses.85 Assuming that they agreed to appoint him, he would stay on as mayor until he started work as cao on January 1, 1996.86 But council had to accept his proposal unanimously; otherwise, he would withdraw it.87 In making this pitch, he said that he felt “vulnerable” or “exposed”88 (Councillor Wayne DeLuca recollected that he said he had exposed himself 89). This vulnerability was why he would not compete for the job, and was also why he wanted an answer from council that night.90 These particular remarks were interpreted in more different ways than anything else the mayor told councillors. Sanzosti remembered his explaining that “it could be very damaging to him if he had to go into competition, and he thought it would be damaging to . . . himself or his practice.”91 DeLuca, Moore, and Rauk understood Fratesi to be worried that his practice would suffer if clients or potential clients knew that he wanted a job which would mean closing his firm.92

86

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Borowicz too recalled the mayor’s relating his concern about his vulnerability to his practice.93 She also thought that Fratesi meant in part that Frank Caputo’s recent appointment had foreclosed the possibility of his getting a judgeship himself in the foreseeable future.94 But there was more to vulnerability than the practice. DeLuca thought that the mayor was unwilling to enter a competition partly because “he felt his credentials based on the amount of time he had put in as the mayor of the community . . . should merit some type of an understanding from council that he would be extremely qualified to fulfil the duties.”95 Councillor Gary Trembinski thought vulnerability referred to the possibility that people might think there was something wrong in the mayor’s seeking the city’s top job.96 Through a tortured chain of reasoning, Councillor Ed Szczepanik convinced himself that in refusing to participate in a competition, the mayor was really asking for a level playing field.97 But he also inferred that Fratesi was unwilling to compete “because it would be so cumbersome to be the mayor and to enter a competition and make sure the competition was fair.”98 Ten or 15 minutes into the question-and-answer session, DeLuca felt that his colleagues had asked enough questions, that councillors “were kind of beating a dead horse . . . by going over the same questions. There were people asking the same questions.”99 DeLuca thought that the mayor should leave and let council talk things over; Fratesi left the room about five minutes later.100 Next to Fratesi, the member of council most directly affected by the mayor’s proposal was lawyer John Solski, his partner in the firm Fratesi Solski. Solski had had no warning about his partner’s plans until Fratesi spoke with him just before the caucus session; Fratesi felt he owed it to Solski to tell him what was coming101 a few minutes before he told everyone else. In a 10-minute conversation, he told Solski about Jackson’s retirement package, and said that if council accepted it he would be asking for the job himself, and that if he got it

87

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

their practice would be closing. He asked Solski to keep this to himself until it came up in caucus.102 Solski was staggered not only by the changes coming at city hall, but also by the prospect that he would soon be looking for new work. He recalled later that his head was spinning during the discussion of Jackson’s retirement, and couldn’t remember whether or not he had voted on the eri package.103 Shortly after Fratesi left the council alone to discuss his offer, Solski started to say something and was interrupted by Swift and then DeLuca, with words to the effect, “Well, John, don’t you think you’ve got a conflict of interest here?”104 Feeling as though he had been hit over the head, he paused and realized that yes, he did — whatever council decided to do about Fratesi’s proposal would have a direct impact on his income.105 At that point he declared a conflict and also left the room. Fratesi was standing some distance down the hallway, and asked Solski as he approached why he was out there. Solski said, “Well, I’m in a conflict.” Fratesi replied, “I guess you are.”106 With Sanzosti in the chair, the 11 remaining councillors recovered from their initial shock and got busy accommodating the mayor. Some felt uneasy about the speed with which events were moving, the sudden appearance of Fratesi’s job application and his insistence on an answer that evening,107 but they did as he asked and dealt with his proposal quickly and in the way they knew would make him happy. Part of the reason they did this was summed up by Trembinski at the press conference the next day. Speaking to Fratesi, he said, “We know that . . . the word ‘no’ is not in your vocabulary when it comes down to business. It’s this way and that’s the way we have to follow.”108 As well, Fratesi had insisted that council agree unanimously to make him the new cao. It is possible that any councillor who had misgivings would have thought twice about blocking the appointment. Councillors’ later estimates as to how long it took them to make

88

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

their decisions varied substantially, from 20–40 minutes to two-anda-half hours.109 This may be because they talked about three separate issues before the meeting adjourned — Fratesi’s proposal itself, which they accepted virtually intact; the mechanics of announcing and implementing their decision to make him cao; and how to replace him as mayor. The lower estimates may refer to how long it took to reach agreement on the proposal, the higher estimates to the time spent on all three items. One or more councillors apparently raised the possibilities of rejecting Fratesi’s offer wholesale, of not dealing with it that night, even of holding a competition for the job.110 But these suggestions were evidently not taken very seriously. Fratesi’s request for the top salary of nearly $105,000 was accepted without a murmur, and councillors focussed their minds on the car allowance, the pension buy-back, and the hiring of Fratesi’s secretary.111 The city was paying the cao a monthly car allowance; Fratesi had asked that council consider paying him the same amount, but in the form of a car lease. DeLuca felt strongly that the city should pay Fratesi a car allowance just as it was doing for Jackson, and if “the new cao wants to kick that into a lease, then it’s up to him . . . but I didn’t want to put it in writing where we were going to provide a car based on the same funding that was given to the previous one.”112 DeLuca was adamant, and his colleagues accepted his argument.113 Thus councillors agreed to reject the only one of Fratesi’s terms and conditions which he had clearly signalled, through the language he had used in setting it out, was negotiable. The mayor’s demand that the city enrol him in the omers pension plan for his 16 years of service on council and pay an estimated $31,200 as its share of the buy-back also generated discussion. Associated with this was his demand for 16 years of seniority credit for purposes of benefits such as holidays and sick leave. Sanzosti later explained why

89

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

councillors had agreed with the seniority request; this reasoning may have applied to the pension buy-back too: . . . I think in our discussion we felt it was justified because of a — especially a mayor — a mayor really does work more or less full time, even though it’s maybe part time. But he does put in a large number of hours. And I think that was justification for members of council to support it.114 Council evidently overlooked the fact that Fratesi had been the city’s mayor for 10 years, not 16, and council had never before opted to allow and pay for participation in the omers plan by either mayor or councillors.115 Fratesi’s insistence on bringing his secretary onto the city payroll was the part of the overall proposal which caused councillors the most concern,116 because of its implications for Jackson’s secretary. To their credit, they wanted to protect her from the impact of the changes coming to the cao’s office; by implication they felt that Fratesi’s promise to work with the personnel department to try to find her another job provided less protection than she needed. They also wanted to avoid giving her grounds to sue the city for wrongful or constructive dismissal.117 Thus they decided that while Fratesi could bring his secretary into the cao’s office, Jackson’s secretary would be assured of a city job equal to or better than the one she had. They also decided that they themselves would have to approve her transfer to that new job, in order to be absolutely certain that she was being treated fairly.118 With these qualifications, councillors made up their minds with exemplary speed to give Fratesi what he wanted. Despite the fact that the issue of conflict of interest had been raised with respect to Solski’s

90

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

participation in the discussion, no one apparently wondered — or cared — whether Fratesi himself had broken the law throughout the evening. Whether, that is, the law permitted him to speak strongly in the open session for the continuation of the eri program, upon which Jackson’s early retirement and his own immediate job prospects depended; to recommend approval of Jackson’s eri in closed session without disclosing that he wanted Jackson’s job and was going to try to get it the instant councillors rubber-stamped his recommendation; and to table his job application and discuss it for 15–20 minutes in closed session. Unencumbered with any such concerns, councillors called Fratesi back into the room and told him that the job was his under his stipulated terms and conditions, with the exception of the car lease, and with stronger protection for Jackson’s secretary than he had proposed.119 All involved now considered how to announce and implement the decisions (there may already have been some discussion about this before Fratesi returned to the chamber).120 The public obviously had to be informed. Councillors would also have to pass bylaws accepting the mayor’s resignation and appointing him cao during an open meeting of council, to give effect to what they had just agreed to do.121 Fratesi wanted an announcement quickly. Solski had come back into the room with him and remembered that There was then a fair amount of discussion with respect to how are we going to announce this decision. I remember a lot of — the mayor wanted it announced the next day because council — council is notorious in caucus sessions of breaking the silence, if I can use that expression. And we — the mayor didn’t want it coming out through the city hall rumour mill or the city council rumour mill.122

91

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Someone proposed an immediate press conference, but for pretty obvious reasons — it would have been midnight by then — this suggestion did not fly.123 The possibility of a special council meeting either the next morning or the day after that, to accept Fratesi’s resignation and ram the appointment bylaw through, was raised124 and then discarded, apparently in the sense that since this was a done deal there was no need to rush through the formalities. Szczepanik remembered that the question was, after we accepted Mayor Fratesi’s application, to the mayor was, what do you require from council now that we have made an agreement and have come to a decision? What do you require from council? And do you require a special council meeting? . . . And Mayor Fratesi said at that time, you know, a press release is fine, I don’t need anything more from council. I have trust in council’s integrity that you’re as good as your word.125 Everyone settled in the end on a press conference at 4:30 the next afternoon in the council chamber. Sanzosti would chair; a press release would be prepared. The bylaws could wait until council’s next regularly scheduled meeting (set back a week because of Thanksgiving) on October 16, three weeks off in the future. One final issue — how to replace Fratesi as mayor — engaged councillors’ attention. The basic choices open to them under the Municipal Act were to appoint one of themselves as mayor to serve out the two years remaining in Fratesi’s three-year term, or hold a special election. There was some inconclusive discussion of these options apparently chaired by Fratesi after he was back in the room.126 However, various councillors had already expressed interest in Sault

92

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Ste. Marie’s top political job while discussing Fratesi’s application for the top bureaucratic job. Walter Chisholm, city alderman-then-councillor for 34 years by this time, recalled his surprise at the speed with which some of his colleagues expressed their interest in becoming mayor and the number of them — six or seven — who did so. In fact, he testified, councillors spent more time discussing replacing the mayor than they did about appointing him cao.127 The meeting broke up shortly after 12:30 a.m. Fratesi then phoned Jackson to tell him that the council had approved Kates’ transfer and his own eri — and that he, Fratesi, would become cao at year-end.128 Only then did Jackson realize that the mayor had known, for some undefined period of time, exactly who would be “more to his own liking” as the city’s new administrator.

WHEN EXACTLY DID FRATESI BECOME INTERESTED IN JACKSON’S JOB?

By now the alert reader will be wondering when exactly Fratesi began thinking he would be the best man for Allan Jackson’s job — before, during, or after he negotiated Jackson’s early retirement? Fratesi’s sworn testimony (given on January 29, 1996) was that he was not thinking of going after Jackson’s job himself “during the discussions . . . regarding his possible retirement.”129 But he began thinking about it after Jackson had confirmed that he “was prepared to retire”130 or “would retire.”131 This is consistent with public remarks he made on September 26, 1995, that “When Al came to us and me in particular and indicated he was serious about retirement, obviously my mind started to work,”132 and that Jackson’s decision to retire “instantly got some wheels turning in my head.”133 His own evidence thus appears to be that he was thinking about the possibility of apply-

93

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

ing for the cao’s job while he was still negotiating the package which would see that job become vacant.134 He testified as well that, after he first considered the possibility of applying for the job, he consulted his wife and family.135 He decided to apply after negotiations with Jackson were completed,136 this decision being made “during the weekend of September 23 and 24, 1995, after consulting my family.”137 And then, only on September 25 did he put together his job application with its extensive terms and conditions which he presented to council that evening.138 For those interested in knowing when Fratesi first stared with longing at Jackson’s job, this was all the evidence available until Fratesi’s long-time friend and campaign manager Ian MacKenzie made a strange public statement three weeks later. This occurred shortly after Fratesi’s first conflict of interest convictions, those which dealt with his behaviour on the evening of September 25, 1995. At the council meeting of February 19, 1996, the first after the guilty verdict was handed down, several people addressed council about what had just happened. One was MacKenzie, who said at the beginning of a long tribute to his friend, . . . I was the first one to suggest to Joe Fratesi, and I can tell you after a very heated argument in my home, that he should run for the position of cao. And I can assure you that it was well after it had been announced that Al Jackson had decided to retire. I can say, I can say that night that I suggested, he really wasn’t overly interested, initially. But I persisted, and after several days he decided that it was worth seeking.139 MacKenzie said later in his speech that he had not told Fratesi he was coming down to the meeting that evening. Fratesi may have

94

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

wished he had, and that MacKenzie had told him what he was going to say. This conversation that MacKenzie reported could not possibly have occurred after Jackson’s retirement was announced, because by then the council had already given Fratesi the job. But the more important problem was that MacKenzie’s version of the role he had played created an apparent inconsistency with Fratesi’s sworn testimony. Fratesi had made no mention in his affidavit of any discussion with MacKenzie, or any other friends, and certainly no mention of MacKenzie’s having had to twist his arm to go after Jackson’s job. All this registered with Sault Star reporter Linda Richardson, who quickly interviewed MacKenzie (coincidentally the Star’s advertising manager) and Fratesi. Entitled “Fratesi dismissed campaign manager as ‘nuts’ for suggesting he take over cao position,” Richardson’s article dealt with the apparent inconsistency. Fratesi told Richardson that his affidavit read, “I spoke to my family and friends.”140 This is in fact not true. But a far more important problem lies buried in the following story which MacKenzie and Fratesi told Richardson during her interviews with them. According to both of them, on the evening of the previous Friday, September 22, Fratesi mentioned to MacKenzie that Jackson was retiring. MacKenzie promptly told Fratesi he should go after Jackson’s job himself. Fratesi told MacKenzie that he was “nuts.” However, MacKenzie kept after him that weekend, which he and his wife spent with Fratesi and his wife at their cottage. According to MacKenzie, Fratesi “wasn’t that overly excited about it,”141 but he talked with his wife about it on the Saturday and Sunday. According to Fratesi, “We talked about it more and I talked to my wife about it and by the end of the weekend I guess he’d turned me around and Monday [September 25] I went ahead with it.”142 You see the problem. This story fundamentally contradicts Fratesi’s sworn testimony, and other things he said publicly before MacKenzie’s

95

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

speech at the council meeting on February 19. According to this new story: • Fratesi did not start thinking about replacing Jackson after Jackson said he was prepared to retire; his mind did not obviously start to work; little wheels did not instantly start turning in his head. • He did not talk with his wife and family at that point, about the possibility of trying to get the cao job. • He had to be pushed by his friend MacKenzie into even considering the idea at the eleventh hour; MacKenzie was nuts to even suggest it in the first place. Joe Fratesi is the only person on the planet who knows when exactly it was that he decided he wanted Allan Jackson’s job. He has put two inconsistent versions of the story which answers that question on the public record. I am thus unable to explain how much, if any, of either version should be believed.

TEST QUESTION: WHERE WERE THE “GUARANTEED” SAVINGS TO FUND JACKSON’S ERI?

City policy — confirmed overwhelmingly by council a few hours before it endorsed Jackson’s early retirement — was that an eri could be paid only when a retirement permitted, or was necessary to facilitate, a reorganization which produced ongoing labour cost savings for the city. So where were the savings coming from to fund Jackson’s eri, especially in light of the decisions which council had just made regarding Fratesi’s job application? From the transfer of Paul Kates and the downsizing of the cao’s office?

96

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

Sault This Week, January 1996. Reprinted with the permission of Cyril Morden.

This was certainly what Fratesi told councillors, all of whom were questioned closely about it during examination for discovery. Most agreed that Kates’ transfer was not dependent on Jackson’s retirement, with some adding that it provided a justification for the incentive. The flavour of this testimony is illustrated in this exchange between lawyer Malcolm McLeod (Q) and Sanzosti (A): Q: Can you tell me, in your own words, how does the resignation of Mr. Jackson expedite the move of Mr. Kates? A: I don’t know how it would expedite it, but that was left to Mr. Jackson to make the move when he saw fit. Q: What move?

97

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

A: I mean Paul Kates transferring over to the board of works. Q: All right. But how does that have anything to do with the Jackson resignation? How does the Jackson resignation make it possible to move Paul Kates? A: Because it was part of the package. Q: I understand it was presented to you as a package. But what I want to know is, in your mind, what’s the connection between Mr. Jackson resigning and Mr. Kates being moved out of the department? A: Well, I don’t think if we knew — if we knew that — at least I — if we knew that Mr. Kates was still being — if there wasn’t a reduction of one body in the cao’s office, then maybe his incentive would not have gone through. Q: Right. A: By him going there, then we could justify giving Mr. Jackson the incentive.143 Jackson himself was asked during his own examination for discovery whether there was “any other situation that you can recall where someone was paid an early retirement incentive as a result of having one of his employees or her employees moved to a different department?” “No, no,” he replied, “not like this.”144 He also told the press on the day his early retirement and his replacement by Fratesi were announced that he doubted “there would be any savings to speak of.”145 Could the savings have been coming from somewhere else? Council had just agreed to give Fratesi the same salary and benefits package as Jackson, and fund half of a pension buy-back for him at an estimated cost of $31,200. Council had thus just decided to replace one

98

JOE FRATESI FINDS A NEW JOB

cao with a more expensive one, so there were no savings there.146 In addition, if councillors were to decide to hold a special election to replace Fratesi as mayor — which they ultimately did — the price-tag attached to Fratesi’s appointment was going to jump by the $100,000plus cost of holding that election.147 They had not made that decision on the evening of September 25, but the very real possibility of a special election with its associated cost is the sort of thing councillors are paid to think about when they decide things. Council had also just agreed that while the secretary’s job in the cao’s office would disappear — it was going to be amalgamated with the assistant’s job to create the new position which Fratesi’s secretary would fill — Jackson’s secretary herself would not disappear from the city’s payroll. And the implication of that is clear in this exchange between McLeod (Q) and Jack Cameletti (A): Q: And in those documents that you were given was there also something about [Fratesi’s] staff requirements? A: Yes. Yes, I believe that was the other thing. That his — he wished his present secretary to come over. I’m not sure if this was in writing or in discussion, but I do recall one thing that we were very insistent, that with that happening that Mr. Jackson’s secretary be assured of a comparable position elsewhere in the organization. Q: So in that sense, there couldn’t be any confusion in anyone’s mind that some downsizing was being achieved by releasing the secretary. A: Not releasing. Well, yeah, I guess over the — yes, that would be part of it.148

99

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

So where were the savings? Obviously, there were none. So let’s sum this business up. Sometime — we don’t know when — Joe Fratesi became interested in having Allan Jackson’s job. If we accept Jackson’s version of events, we do know that around the middle of August 1995, Fratesi made Jackson an offer he couldn’t refuse. Paul Kates, whose future at city hall was in some doubt, would get a new job and a promotion, while Jackson himself would get a substantial monetary incentive to leave a working environment which had long ceased to be pleasant. According to Jackson, Fratesi made him this offer about three weeks after Caputo was appointed a federal judge, which had been a major disappointment to Fratesi.149 When Jackson jumped at the offer, he and Fratesi started negotiating. The eri, without which Jackson would not have retired, demonstrably did not fall within the city’s policy guidelines. Kates’ move did not depend on Jackson’s retirement, and the amount of the eri set by Fratesi was related directly to Jackson’s salary, not to any cost savings. Jackson’s retirement and his replacement by Fratesi generated no savings for the city. The reverse was true. The pension buy-back meant higher costs. Adding in Jackson’s eri payment, plus the costs of a special election if that were required, and the city’s hiring his secretary, the deal which Fratesi put before councillors on September 25 was potentially going to cost the city a quarter of a million dollars, perhaps more. Fratesi’s self-interest in proposing these arrangements is clear. That councillors accepted them virtually without serious question is tribute to the domination which he exercised over them, and the extent to which they had become used — “conditioned”150 — to following their leader.

100

Joe Fratesi Loses His New Job, But Gets It Back Again It was one of those cases in which the imagination is baffled by the facts. — WINSTON CHURCHILL

DIS-APPOINTMENT

When he left city hall early in the morning of September 26, Joe Fratesi might have thought he could look forward to a pleasant three weeks of congratulations and praise from his supporters, culminating with the passage of the necessary bylaws on October 16. Sure, there would be some carping from the disaffected 20 per cent in town who had always opposed him, but he would be able to ride that out easily. He always had. Those three weeks began well enough with the press conference in the council chamber. But after this happy beginning, it all went downhill quickly. The circumstances of the appointment and the fact that not one councillor had opposed it generated a backlash which several councillors said was unlike anything they had ever experienced. Fratesi’s two most recent mayoralty opponents, Harry Hurdon and John Rowswell, condemned the whole business in harsh terms, Hurdon saying, “No job announcement or competition: it could only happen here.”1 Hurdon’s and Rowswell’s reactions were expected, as was the fact that editorial opinion in the Sault media was highly critical.2 The real surprise was the extent of the immediate, spontaneous, overwhelmingly negative, and angry reaction from a portion of the public. A 101

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

furious Jim Hilsinger bought two quarter-page ads, damning the council’s actions which had caused the Sault to become known as the “home of bozos.”3 Letters flooded into the local newspapers, calls into the radio and tv stations. More importantly, calls flooded into the homes of councillors. Within less than a week, Swift received about 100 calls, “99 per cent . . . appalled with what happened.”4 He told his wife that he was going to need to have the telephone surgically removed from his ear.5 Borowicz fielded 53 calls in one morning alone from people in an uproar, who were “upset, very upset with the process.”6 The uproar would probably have been even greater were it not for the fear of reprisals, which a columnist described a few days after the announcement: . . . one person who called this week and who wanted to write a letter critical of the situation surrounding the appointment of the mayor asked for anonymity, because he is involved with an organization that would be seeking city funding and he was afraid his criticism might endanger that funding. He was refused the anonymity, something rarely extended to letter writers. But it was a reminder that, as has been mentioned before, there are a sizeable number of people in this city afraid to publicly cross the current mayor and council lest it result in retaliatory action from them. This is not a pleasing reflection on our city government, that residents would be afraid of this sort of meanness from their elected city representatives.7 But the uproar was still remarkable. Even for some long-time Fratesi fans and supporters, he had gone too far this time.8

102

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

The initial target of the outcry was councillors’ impending decision whether to replace Fratesi by appointing one of themselves mayor or by holding an election. At the September 26 press conference at city hall, seven of the 12 councillors confirmed that they were interested in the job,9 which begged the question of how disinterested they had been in agreeing to give Fratesi Jackson’s job. Further, though, several of them indicated that their interest was conditional upon the new mayor’s being appointed from within the ranks of council. An election would require a mayor wannabe to give up his or her council seat, raise money, and fight a campaign; appointment would not. Fratesi and several councillors quickly pronounced themselves in favour of appointment, arguing that the city could not afford the expense of a special election.10 Just as they had saved city taxpayers the cost of a competition for the cao job, they now proposed to save them the cost of exercising their democratic rights. People in the community with a functioning sense of smell ripped into the idea of mayor-by-council-appointment and demanded an election. Critics ranged from the local Chamber of Commerce (“strongly opposed”; it said council had to “act in a responsible manner” and call an election11) to a group of primary school children. The grade 5/6 class of Tarentorous Public School weighed in with a sardonic letter headed “The 10 Best Ways to Choose a New Mayor,” with the worst being “Have an election,” and the best, “Eenie Meenie Minie Mo (That’s the way we do it!)”12 The focus of the rage shifted quickly to Fratesi’s appointment itself, with more and more furious residents demanding that councillors reverse their decision. The growing pressure had several sources. Awareness sank in that the September 25 decision was in a legal sense only an expression of intent, and that council still had to pass bylaws in order to consummate the deal. Details of the richly preferential financial package and other arrangements which Fratesi had secured

103

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

from council leaked out piecemeal initially, then wholesale in a frontpage story on October 3.13 It had been clear from the beginning that Jackson’s eri had been instrumental in opening the job for Fratesi. His denials notwithstanding, it also became clear that the new arrangements at city hall would not generate the savings ostensibly required under city policy.14 The question of whether Fratesi had broken Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in getting the job the way he did surfaced a few days after the announcement in another front-page story entitled “Fratesi decision ‘stinks.’” The implication of the reporter’s interview with conflict of interest authority Michael Smither was that if Fratesi hadn’t broken the law, he hadn’t missed by much.15 Fratesi fought back. He denied having initiated the crucial discussions with Jackson; Jackson had approached him first, he insisted.16 He had distributed his job application and had answered “possibly one question”17 before declaring his conflict and leaving the closed council meeting. The pension buy-back was nothing out of the ordinary, it was something “standard in the position,” as was hiring his legal secretary.18 The criticism from the press in general? Well, 20 per cent of the residents of the Sault had never voted for him and “had been very vocal about anything he had done in the past” — and the media were simply playing on that.19 The particularly caustic criticism from the Sault Star’s columnist and retired editor Doug Millroy? According to Fratesi, it was personally motivated; Millroy’s daughter-in-law was Jackson’s current secretary, who was now going to lose her job in the cao’s office.20 And anyway, what was wrong with closed-door decisions? Personnel decisions of this nature were always made behind closed doors, so what was all the fuss about?21 It was no use. The storm continued to build and lash at the councillors. By Monday, October 2, several were regretting publicly what they now called the September 25 “process”22; by the next day three of them were indicating that in light of what voters were telling them,

104

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

they would not support the bylaw formally appointing Fratesi when it came before council.23 One of the three was Swift. On October 3 he apologized to his constituents for his part in the decision and offered to resign from council once the issue was resolved. He was very frank, and obviously distressed: “I cannot begin to tell you of my personal embarrassment in having betrayed the trust in my integrity you’ve shown over my 17 years as your council representative.”24 The process was badly flawed, he said, and “it was done in private, in haste and without proper competition.”25 The cao-to-be was also flawed, he continued — Fratesi had some serious weaknesses in the employee relations area which Swift hadn’t taken into account adequately when he supported Fratesi’s job application on September 25. These weaknesses included Fratesi’s endorsement of an eri policy which was wide open to abuse.26 And was it not a “preposterous distortion of logic” that Fratesi fully agreed with the Police Services Board’s taking a year to do a proper search for a new police chief, while asking council to take only a few minutes to think about how to replace the cao?27 The storm then forced Fratesi to run for cover temporarily. At an early morning press conference on October 4, he put his best spin on a bad week. He said that with the benefit of hindsight it looked as though what he had asked council to do “may not have been the best method given the circumstances.”28 His thoughts at the time were “well-intentioned” — he had figured that his “entering a competition might be viewed as either an undue advantage or possibly a patronage appointment by a council that I had led for over 10 years.”29 So that’s why he had asked for the job without a competition and under other privileged conditions — to avoid the appearance of getting special treatment because of his special position. I did not make that up. Despite council’s unanimous decision which it had appeared very

105

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

pleased with at the time, he said, some people were unhappy with the process (although no one had complained to him directly and he didn’t think the criticism in the media reflected the general sense of the community).30 The vote on the appointment bylaw was going to put some councillors in a difficult position. So for the good of the community and to let the council “team” get on with pressing matters, he was “withdrawing from consideration by council to fill the position of the cao without there being a clear competition for that position.”31 The whole experience had been a “most trying” one for him and his family, and he had learned much from it.32 It is hard to imagine the mayor’s and the council’s actions of September 25 occurring in many other municipalities in Canada. Now public protest had forced Fratesi’s retreat, in the context of considerable and reasonable suspicion that the eri program — so central to what had happened — was tainted. One might have thought that the cao affair would have ended there, from sheer embarrassment if for no other reason. But it was only beginning. Fratesi was not easily embarrassed; the job he wanted badly had been tantalizingly within his reach for the past eight days; his political support, although shell-shocked by the fury of the opposition which the appointment had generated, remained strong; he appeared to have beaten back the disquieting suggestion that it had been he who had approached Jackson and suggested his early retirement; and while some councillors had been bludgeoned by the voters into admitting that the September 25 process left something to be desired, only Swift at this point was saying publicly that Fratesi was perhaps not the best man on the planet for the job after all. Therefore, if the disgruntled in town wanted due process, they could have it. Council could now hold a competition for Jackson’s job, and — eating his words of a week earlier — it turned out that he

106

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

could see himself, and would put himself, in that competition. He thought that he was “the best person for the job but under the circumstances — in the interest of the community and council — he [was] willing to compete in a process for the position.”33 All he could ask was that he get a “fair shake” from council,34 and in the meantime he would soldier on as the city’s mayor in his usual hard-working and dedicated manner.35

THE FIRST CONFLICT OF INTEREST APPLICATION

I had returned to live in the Sault, my home town, with my wife Janet in 1993. I’m a former federal government official. I worked in Ottawa with some of Canada’s best public servants, watched what they did (and didn’t do) to help produce good government, and learned something about what good government requires. I continued to do so as a consultant on public policy and governance issues since I left the government. Janet and I had not caught a newscast on the evening of September 26 and so had missed the big news when it broke. Over breakfast on the 27th, we were stupefied to hear Peter Williams of cbc Radio’s Morning North describe what was now the main topic of conversation running in the doughnut shops in Sault Ste. Marie,36 and then interview Fratesi about his new job. Neither of us remembers any of the details of that interview. Janet was going ballistic, yelling, “He can’t do that!” and demanding to know what I was going to do about it; I was trying to make sense out of what I was hearing and catch my breath. We were incredulous and outraged, and we were worried about the future implications of what we had just heard. What was this going to do to the Sault’s already damaged reputation, we wondered? What would come out of this city hall next if Fratesi and the councillors got

107

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

away with this? What kind of a precedent might it establish for other councils in Ontario? It was our city too, and we decided we either had to fight to try to prevent it from being turned completely into Hooterville North or pack up and leave. We had only been here for two years, and we didn’t want to think about moving again. It seemed easier to fight. I fired off angry letters to the papers, and prepared to protest to council at its October 16 meeting. We were not hopeful that this would have much impact, given Fratesi’s political power — we were as surprised as anyone else at the outcry which built and forced his October 4 retreat — and so we looked for something more effective to do. Notwithstanding Fratesi’s insistence that he had complied with the provisions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, a number of people in town had serious doubts. Several contacted the Sudbury regional office of the province’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for information.37 Others, including Janet and I, went to our lawyers for advice. We wanted to know whether on the basis of what was known about the meeting of September 25 it looked as though Fratesi had broken the law, and if that were the case, what to do about it. Once we got a copy of the Act, it seemed clear to us that Fratesi had repeatedly not complied with the requirements of Section 5 (see Chapter 4). We also learned that it was up to people like us to do something about it. We had to decide quickly whether to run the financial risk associated with trying to enforce this particular law. We concluded that the risk was worth taking — the situation looked straightforward, we were reasonably sure we could win, and we doubted that the cost of fighting this one case would bankrupt us if we lost. I started looking for a lawyer to file an application. A few days after Fratesi’s retreat and his instruction to the council to hold a competition, I found my way to the office of Malcolm McLeod, one of the two lawyers who had argued successfully the previous year that the

108

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

English-only resolution should be struck down. That’s where I met Alison (Dee) Patterson. She and her family and friends had been appalled by the events of September 25. But as they discussed it during the next two weeks, she realized that no one she knew was going to do anything, for the usual reason — fear of reprisals.38 If she wanted action, she would have to take it. She did want action, and she found her way to McLeod’s office too. We quickly agreed to file a joint application and share the costs equally. Dee and I recognized how fortunate we were that our respective livelihoods did not depend upon the goodwill of either city hall or the community at large. My consulting business, for example, had no clients in Sault Ste. Marie, and was thus immune from the possibility of any retaliatory boycott. Our lack of vulnerability to local pressure gave us the freedom to do things which like-minded people wished they could, but felt they didn’t dare to. It was clear that no good, but plenty of harm, could result from our speaking publicly about the action we were initiating. We therefore agreed that we would make no statements to the press about our application while it was before the courts. The application alleged that Fratesi had contravened the Act on September 25 and had continued to do so by making statements promoting his candidacy for the job, and by continuing to sit as mayor while expecting to get the job through the competition which would now be held. We asked that Fratesi’s seat as mayor be declared vacant, that he be barred from a seat on council for up to seven years, and that he be ordered to pay our legal expenses.39 McLeod filed the application and my supporting affidavit40 at the local courthouse on October 12. As a courtesy, we tried to have Fratesi served with the legal documents before the news of our application became public. This didn’t happen. The media picked up the story — tipped off not by us, but

109

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

perhaps by someone at the courthouse — and were running hard with it by noon on Friday, October 13, before the process server had been able to get to him. He worked this into his first public reaction: Suffice it to say that I don’t think any one should be surprised that these same people would go to that length in these circumstances and the fact that the media had copies of the application before I was served with it is a pretty good indication of what this [is] all about.41 He followed this with a press release: Mayor Fratesi maintains that his involvement in this whole matter has been completely in compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and that he has done absolutely nothing wrong in offering to serve this community in another capacity. . . . His legal adviser has confirmed to him, after reviewing the circumstances that there have been no breaches in complying with the legislation in the circumstances and that he will be completely vindicated in the proceedings.42 The mayor declined to give the media any further insight into who these same people were or what this was all about. One of the ways he and his supporters had tried to discredit critics in the recent past, however, had been to link them to opposition to the English-only resolution43 — a simple application of the guilt-by-association principle, very potent in the Sault. Through this prism, any criticism of the mayor took on dark conspiratorial overtones.

110

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

I had criticized the resolution in years past, and in one of my angry letters published two weeks earlier I wrote that: I can’t think of a single more divisive municipal initiative ever than Fratesi’s and his then council’s English-only resolution of five years ago (which, remember, the court struck down last year). The last person we need running the city’s administration and advising councils on policy for the next 20 years is the chief architect of that divisive initiative. The mere thought of it is outrageous.44 This letter was one of the first attacking Fratesi’s appointment that the papers published, and I believe it would have caught his attention. It helps us decode his allusions to these same people, and what this was all about. Fratesi was simply telling his loyal 80-per cent following that his enemies from the English-only resolution fight were once again trying to get him, this time using the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. He was claiming that ours was a politically motivated attack45 and the charges against him were baseless; he was as pure as the driven snow. As the third week following the announcement of Jackson’s retirement and what had accompanied it ended, Fratesi had a couple of problems he hadn’t anticipated. The job had slipped through his fingers, even if only temporarily. Worse, his actions were going to be the subject of a hearing that would not be held behind closed doors down at city hall, but in a courtroom open to the public and the press, and which would raise hard questions about his fitness to administer the city’s affairs. In these changed circumstances, Fratesi’s immediate job prospects depended to a large degree on how councillors would manage the competition he had just thrust them into running.

111

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

SO WHO WAS GOING TO WIN THIS COMPETITION?

The reference department of the Sault Ste. Marie Public Library holds a scrapbook containing a collection of articles, letters, and reminiscences about life and times in the Sault from 1912 to 1976. Ron Irwin, former mayor, later federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development before becoming Canada’s ambassador to Ireland, introduced his essay on an earlier mayor with the sentence, “Over the years a dearth of dedicated men have represented this city on its council.”46 This was a prescient slip of the pen. A dearth of men who respected the spirit of the law now hurried to ensure that Fratesi got his new job back before his court hearing. We know a lot more about the way councillors managed the competition than they ever intended us to, in the same way we know so much about the circumstances of Fratesi’s first appointment. Fratesi’s participation in the competition while he remained the city’s mayor drew a second conflict of interest application. Councillors were again examined under oath — not all of them this time, but enough to expose how the process worked — and this testimony was again supplemented with other evidence. Much of the following account is based on information which did not become public until well after the competition was over. Six fundamental facts shaped the competition’s result and the process which produced it: First. This council was dominated by Fratesi and was used to doing what he wanted. The mayor was clever and hard-working, he knew a lot about city business, and he could run effective meetings. These abilities impressed and even awed his colleagues.47 His political standing and power in the community were enormous. He had ways of making councillors’ lives a little sweeter — such as sculpting with them a new car-allowance program which gave them an effective increase of 12 per

112

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

cent in their council take-home pay during the Social Contract period of wage restraint in the early 1990s.48 He could also make things unpleasant when they crossed him. He had what he himself called “sort of a strong personality”49 and did not hesitate to chastise those who disagreed with him. The Sault Star’s Millroy wrote that, “With the possible exception of Charlie Swift and Frank Manzo” (and Manzo was no longer on council in 1995), Fratesi had browbeaten councillors “into virtual submission during his tenure as mayor.”50 Second. There were strong bonds of friendship between Fratesi and many of the councillors — Sanzosti, for example, Chisholm, DeLuca, Cameletti51 — which went back years and in some cases decades. Third. Council had already given Fratesi the job once (demonstrating just how completely he dominated it), with most councillors justifying that decision with effusive praise for him. Eleven councillors — all except Solski, who declared a conflict of interest throughout the entire competition and played no role in it — would decide whether Fratesi got the job a second time. For this not to happen, six of them would have to change their minds and tell the public and him that he was not the best man for the job after all. Swift’s mea culpa showed that at least one councillor was prepared to recognize a mistake, but he paid a high price for it. His public admission of error was painful for him. The Sault Star criticized him harshly for displaying either poor judgement or political opportunism.52 Under extreme pressure from his constituents to reconsider his promise to resign, he decided to stay and fight on, taking a shot for that in a headline in the weekly paper Sault This Week, “Swift changes mind again.”53 To no one’s surprise, he also received a public tonguelashing from Fratesi.54 It seemed unlikely that there would be another five members of this particular council, with its particular history and relationship

113

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

with the mayor, who would step forward and say, “I made a big, big mistake.” The high odds against this happening quickly became clear. The day after Fratesi beat his temporary retreat, Szczepanik said that the mayor was the best man for the job, “a natural for the job, an obvious choice”; it was simply the September 25 process which had not been “politically correct.”55 A few days later Sanzosti, returning from a vacation to find that his friend was going to have to compete for the job, said that councillors had let the mayor down by not confirming their September 25 decision.56 Then a week after that, Chisholm criticized council for not doing the right thing by Fratesi. Council, he said, had made an agreement: “I think a gentleman’s agreement or a lady’s agreement publicly should stand up. . . . And as a gentleman in a gentlemen’s agreement, I tell you my word is good as gold. . . . I don’t back down from my original position.”57 Upset about having to hold a competition, he grumbled that, “We’ll likely end up what we’re thinking right . . . or what I’m thinking right now. So we’re going through a hell of a long route to take a short way home.”58 After the competition was over, Millroy called Szczepanik, Sanzosti, Chisholm, Moore, Niro, and DeLuca “disciples of long standing” who had ensured Fratesi had the majority he needed from the outset.59 Fourth. Fratesi was going to remain mayor until the competition was over. One implication of that would not have been lost on councillors. If he did not get the job, he with his “sort of a strong personality” would preside for another two years over the council which had refused to give it to him. Fratesi alluded to this himself in another justification of his first lunge at the job. If he had entered a competition and won, he said, critics would have accused him of “influencing unduly our council.”60 If he had lost, he would have carried on as mayor and, “If things did not appear to go well some might suggest that it was because I was wounded or pouting.”61 On the basis of these four facts, the outcome of the competition

114

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

was hardly in doubt. The only complication stemmed from a fifth — that a court was going to rule on the legality of Fratesi’s first run at Jackson’s job. Those familiar with the law and the mayor’s actions on September 25 — and all members of council were — could see the possibility of a guilty verdict. Worse, if the judge ruled that the breach of the law had not resulted from inadvertence or an error in judgement, he or she would have to remove Fratesi from office; a court has no discretion in this matter. If this happened before the competition were over, council would be in the awkward position of announcing that the best man it could find for the city’s top job was a lawbreaker who had just been booted out of the mayor’s chair in disgrace. The obvious implication was that it would be wise to move quickly and get Fratesi out of that mayor’s chair and into the cao’s office before the court hearing. A final fact offered comfort, though, in the event that the judge were to find against Fratesi after he had been declared the winner of the competition and been re-appointed cao. A guilty verdict itself would not invalidate the deal. Only councillors had the power to take their new cao’s job away, and the only thing which could force them to do that would be massive and irresistible political pressure from the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie. Sufficient numbers of voters in the Sault were as likely to turn on Fratesi and demand his removal as they were to storm city hall to demand that French be made the working language there.

GETTING GOING

The city’s new commissioner of personnel was John Luszka, who had worked for the Regional Municipality of Sudbury before coming to the Sault in September 1995. Shortly after Fratesi’s announcement that

115

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

he would be willing to compete for the job after all, Luszka received instructions — he could not remember later how or from whom, but they were not from the council62 — to prepare advice on how the competition should be run. Thus when they met in open session on October 16, councillors had before them Luszka’s report, with its key recommendation that council hire an “external” consulting firm (at an estimated cost of $30,000 to $50,000) to assist it. Luszka phrased the rationale for the consultant delicately but clearly: Council would like, I believe, in this scenario that we have now to have someone to attest that the process was carried out in a fair and consistent manner . . . in accordance with standard and generally accepted selection principles. An external adviser would be helpful in that particular requirement.63 But just in case anybody did misunderstand, Swift asked Luszka whether any of the selection processes he had helped run in the past had “involved the candidacy of a sitting politician,”64 to which Luszka said, “No.”65 He agreed with Swift that the situation facing council was unusual.66 After a long discussion, councillors agreed by a margin of six to five to hire an external consultant to ensure that the cao hiring process was “fair and equitable.” The five who voted against — Chisholm, DeLuca, Moore, Sanzosti, and Szczepanik — all professed concern about the cost involved. Swift, Rauk, and Borowicz insisted that the process had to be fair and be seen to be fair. Rauk argued at length that council need not rush to a decision within the three months Luszka advised was the minimum time required for a proper selection process. The Sault’s Police Services Board had just given itself a year to find a new chief, he reminded everyone, and had hired a former chief

116

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

to head the force in the interim. It was important to take the time necessary to find the right person, and if that meant appointing an interim cao for a few months, well and good.67 To which Sanzosti — himself the chairman of the Police Services Board — quickly retorted that this was bad advice; council had to get the new cao hired fast because of budgetary problems stemming from the provincial government’s spending cuts.68 No one responded that Sanzosti’s friend prided himself on his ability to deal with budgetary problems from the mayor’s office. He had been doing so for years. Borowicz alone addressed the fundamental question of timing. She said somewhat elliptically that I feel that no one has mentioned the timing here in regards to other issues that are still being clouded in our community. And I think dealing with the process right now, knowing that there are issues still going to be happening, I think the time is wrong to pass something such as this.69 As she explained more clearly after the meeting, she thought council should wait for the result of the conflict of interest hearing before hiring a new cao.70 The obvious merit in her idea — that by waiting, council would learn something relevant about the Candidate-inChief ’s fitness for public office whatever the court’s verdict — was one that most of her colleagues were determined to ignore. Councillors appointed a three-man selection committee to work with city hall staff and whatever consultant was hired, to oversee the competition and prepare a short list of two or three final candidates from which council as a whole would pick the winner. Sanzosti and Swift, two council heavyweights who by now had expressed very different views about the mayor’s qualifications, were put on it. Its third

117

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

member was Jack (“Joe is a legend of modern times”) Cameletti. The committee quickly organized itself, choosing Cameletti as chairman and agreeing to make its decisions by majority vote. With Luszka’s help it prepared ads for the position itself and for the services of a consultant and put together an action plan, which it presented to council on October 30.71 The plan proposed the end of January 1996 as the deadline for the completion of the competition, and among other things explained how the committee would advertise the job.72 Absent from the list of publications in which the committee would place ads was the premier municipal affairs journal Municipal World, one of the trade magazines in which Luszka had originally suggested that an ad should run.73 But it would take until December to get an ad into Municipal World. This would force a four-week extension of the deadline for applications beyond the proposed November 27 cut-off date, which in turn would push the competition into February. During the meeting on October 30, Borowicz and Rauk argued in favour of advertising in Municipal World, but their colleagues would have none of this and voted the suggestion down by a lopsided margin.74 This was a pretty clear giveaway about what the majority of councillors were determined to do.75 But if anyone still had any doubts, these could not have survived what happened next. On November 2 local Judge Gladys Pardu directed that Judge Michael Meehan of Sudbury would hear our conflict of interest application on February 12, 1996 — less than two weeks after the deadline council had just set to finish the competition. Sault This Week polled councillors to find out whether they thought they should wait for the results of the hearing before hiring the new cao. Of the eight the paper was able to reach, only Borowicz and Swift said, “Wait,” while the other six — Cameletti, DeLuca, Niro, Rauk, Sanzosti, and Szczepanik — either claimed to see no reason for delay or ducked the question.76 Sanzosti later testified that conflict of interest was certainly a “very

118

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

important” matter in municipal affairs.77 But he showed no sign of believing this when he told Sault This Week: These are allegations, not charges. They can’t lead to a conviction, and have nothing to do with the cao position. The sooner we get on with the job of getting a cao the better. There could be an appeal on either side, which could take years before it is resolved — why wait? If [Fratesi] is found in conflict, that means he made an error in judgement, not done something wrong.78 The three councillors whom Sault This Week had not been able to contact were Chisholm, Moore, and Trembinski, none of whom had given the slightest indication of withdrawing their original support for Fratesi as cao. It was clear how events were going to unfold. Dee and I explored with our lawyer whether there was any way to force council to wait for Judge Meehan’s ruling before it selected the new cao. There wasn’t. Events now ran along two tracks largely out of sight for several weeks. In preparation for the hearing, McLeod and Fratesi’s lawyer examined Fratesi, Jackson, and all the councillors about what had happened on September 25, and I was examined about our application and its supporting affidavit.79 Meanwhile, council ran its fair and equitable competition.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG

The selection committee received proposals from seven consultants, and on November 24 chose Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group

119

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

to act as its advisor. It confirmed this choice with the rest of council and announced it publicly three days later.80 When the committee first met in the latter part of October, there had been some discussion of possible implications of the pending conflict of interest hearing. Luszka and Cameletti “briefly discussed some concerns of what would happen if conflict of interest were to be shown, how that would affect the selection process, and maybe legal opinions were required on how to deal with this.”81 This was a recurrent theme throughout the selection process, according to Luszka: “What do we do about this? How can we handle it? Is there any precedent . . . for it?”82 Notwithstanding these concerns, the committee never sought a legal opinion as to whether Fratesi had broken the law on September 25, and what the implications might be. It did ask for legal advice in early December on another matter. DeLuca had received a letter from two of his constituents questioning the propriety of Fratesi’s applying for the job while still mayor, and he passed this on to the committee for its information.83 Swift proposed that the committee get an opinion from the city solicitor; over Sanzosti’s objection,84 the committee referred the letter to Bottos, who wrote back: Presumably the legal opinion sought is whether Mayor Fratesi must resign his position as mayor in order to apply for the chief administrative officer’s position. The answer to that is, no. There’s nothing in the Municipal Act or the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that requires a member of council to resign his or her seat in order to seek employment with the municipality.85 So the committee now had a legal opinion (erroneous, as it turned out), but one relating purely to Fratesi’s participation in the competition.

120

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

And even that was triggered by a fortuitous letter from two voters. The competition now moved forward briskly, with the committee proceeding as fast as it could to get the job done.86 The Coopers and Lybrand consultants prepared a position description and candidate profile, while Luszka screened the 120 applications he had received. The consultants and the committee each prepared their own “long list” of candidates to be offered a first interview; then, on January 3, 1996, they agreed upon a joint long list of six candidates (including Fratesi) they would interview a week later.87 On January 9 chairman Cameletti told the press that the long list would be pared to a short list of two or three candidates by the coming weekend (January 13–14) and that the entire council would pick the new cao from the short list. “We’re pretty well on schedule,” Cameletti said.88 Indeed they were. By the time Cameletti spoke to the media for public consumption, the candidates themselves had pared the long list of six to a short list of three. When the consultants informed the top six candidates that they had won an interview, three of them promptly withdrew.89 One of them said bluntly that, “it came to his attention the mayor was a candidate.”90 Presumably he could see the no-win situation that he and all candidates other than Fratesi were in — at best a very remote chance of beating the sitting mayor for the job, but if one of them against all odds did just that, he would be reporting to that same sitting mayor. Luszka was surprised to see so many candidates dropping out.91 The flight from the competition was not yet over, however. On January 10, the committee and the consultants interviewed Fratesi and the two other remaining candidates, whom I will call Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown. The committee decided to reject Smith’s candidacy and have council interview Brown and Fratesi on Sunday, January 21. Brown, however, withdrew his candidacy on January 11, citing personal reasons.92 The short list now had only one name on it. This was a problem. The expected result had now materialized, but

121

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

in an embarrassing way, with Fratesi having won by default. Explaining how this had occurred, especially in light of the events of the previous September 25, was not going to be easy. What to do? The competition now degenerated into a squalid farce, although this did not become public knowledge until later. The committee met with Luszka on January 12. Luszka offered it three options: proceed on the basis that there was just one candidate left (however difficult this might be to explain), interview some of the other applicants, or start again and search for new candidates.93 But Sanzosti, supported by Cameletti, was having none of this. He turned instead to a fourth option which had surfaced — bump the short list up to two names by putting Smith back on it.94 This action would permit the illusion of a contest to be maintained while the desired conclusion would be reached quickly. Outvoting Swift, Sanzosti and Cameletti thus agreed to present council with Fratesi and a candidate the committee had already rejected as the finalists in the fair and equitable competition.95 The disgusted Swift now did his best to slow the process down. He went public, telling Sault This Week on January 15 that some councillors were “not taking the law seriously,” that they had persuaded themselves that breaking the conflict of interest law was “not a serious breach of judgement and integrity,” and that Sault residents should insist that the competition be delayed.96 He reiterated this plea in an interview with the Sault Star on January 19.97 But his appeal to the public to get involved again, as it had the previous September and October, had little impact. People worried about Fratesi’s being appointed prior to the hearing (most in town were not, they welcomed the prospect) apparently decided to shrug their shoulders and accept the fact that certain things in this world are preordained. Swift also carried the fight to his colleagues and the consultants. On January 16 he phoned Clarke Wallace, the more senior of the two Coopers and Lybrand advisors working with the committee. Wallace

122

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

was to chair the interview session on January 21. Swift warned Wallace that on that day he, Swift, would ask several questions — whether Wallace knew that the city’s search for a new cao was of a sensitive nature, that the search was to have been objective, and that one of the candidates was facing a conflict of interest court hearing — which so far had not been answered to his satisfaction.98 This was an unexpected complication, with Swift’s third question being particularly touchy. Wallace thought Swift was asking whether council would have legal problems if it appointed Fratesi in the face of the pending hearing. He phoned Luszka to ask what to do. His own view, he said, was that there was no reason in law why the council could not wrap the competition up before the hearing. Luszka replied that he was in the process of getting a legal opinion on this very question from Bottos, because Borowicz was worried about the implications of council’s appointing Fratesi if he were subsequently found to have broken the law. He told Wallace that he should get his own legal opinion so that he could respond to Swift on the 21st.99 Wallace called Luszka back three days later with surprising news — his firm’s counsel had advised him to say that the selection process should not go forward. Luszka asked him to put that advice in writing, so that he could add it to the package of material to be given to councillors prior to the interviews. Wallace refused, and asked Luszka to keep the startling new piece of information to himself, adding, “Don’t you go blabbing this to Charlie.”100 Council members, absent Fratesi and Solski, met in closed session early on January 21. Most of them expected this final phase of the competition to involve no heavy lifting. They quickly got a shock. During the orientation part of the meeting preceding the interviews, Wallace advised them to “postpone the selection but proceed with the agenda”101 — interview Fratesi and Smith, but not pick and name the winner until after the court hearing was over.

123

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

The atmosphere in the council room was tense, “frosty,”102 as councillors started to deal with this piece of unwelcome advice. But then the advice became both contradictory and softer. Luszka read Bottos’s opinion: “I can think of no provision in [the Municipal Conflict of Interest] Act or in any other legislation that prevents city council from proceeding with filling the vacancy prior to the court hearing.”103 Swift asked whether council might be found in contempt of court; Sanzosti retorted that legal colleagues he had discussed that suggestion with had found it laughable.104 Wallace told councillors that it was up to them to decide what to do. Well, said Sanzosti, it might be seen as inappropriate to proceed, but it was not illegal and council should get on with it.105 Another councillor said that unless they got something in writing which told them not to go ahead, they were going to do just that.106 Rauk’s argument that council had hired consultants to keep the process objective, so it should take their advice to wait until the hearing had finished, fell on very deaf ears,107 and Fratesi was called into the room. The alert reader will be wondering how the mayor could possibly attend this job interview without breaking the law. He had a clear pecuniary interest in what he was going to discuss with councillors in closed session. Section 5(2) of the Act expressly forbids a council member to be in the room during a closed meeting when the subject matter of his or her pecuniary interest is discussed, let alone participate in the conversation. This was precisely what was at issue in our application, which Judge Meehan would hear in three weeks. Other alert minds had evidently thought about this. When Fratesi entered the room, he immediately declared a conflict of interest, then asked councillors to invite him to be interviewed.108 Which they promptly did.109 Apparently the hope was that calling a closed council meeting a job interview rather than a closed council meeting finessed the problem neatly. In response to an early question, Fratesi told councillors several

124

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

startling things. He didn’t want the job just because he would be getting more money.110 In selecting him, council would be making a “political decision” which was unrelated to any “legal matters.”111 As for those legal matters, he explained at length that there was no validity to the case against him, it had no bearing on his job application, and there would be no negative legal ramifications for the council if it were to hire him.112 But if he were found guilty he would appeal, “and the appeal would be tied up in courts for many, many years to come,”113 Rauk remembered Fratesi promising. Swift recollected that Mr. Fratesi took a great deal of time to enlighten council as to his point of view about the impending court action, and . . . he made us aware . . . very forcibly that if we thought that it was going to be done on February the 12th, then we were sadly mistaken; that if it took 10 years, he would take it through all of the court system, so that the whole process would be tied up; that if we thought that it was going to be clear-cut on February the 12th, then that was incorrect.114 So there it was. Council had just received its one and only legal opinion regarding the behaviour of Mayor Fratesi on the previous September 25. Lawyer Fratesi had assured it that the actions of Mayor Fratesi had been above reproach, and where could council get better and more disinterested advice than that? But Political Strategist Fratesi had also assured it that should Judge Meehan see matters differently than Lawyer Fratesi did, he would appeal the verdict as far as he could through the court system. It would be years before all the legal dust settled, by which time, presumably, the whole case would have turned into a massive bore for the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie, with people

125

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

being hard pressed to even remember what all the fuss had been about. The dust certainly would not settle on February 12. The interview proceeded, with Wallace working his way through his prepared list of questions and councillors asking a total of three or four additional questions. Fratesi was then excused, and previously rejected candidate “Smith” was ushered in to perform the function of demonstrating how good Fratesi looked against the rest of the 120 competitors for the job. Smith’s role performed, he was ushered out. It was now mid-afternoon, time to ignore Coopers and Lybrand’s advice and make the selection. Wallace was asked to rank the candidates, which he did — Fratesi first, Smith second — and then was asked to get a written legal opinion to council by the next day.115 Swift wanted to know whether Wallace had put Fratesi first without reference to the conflict of interest charges. That’s right, Wallace replied, he’s “innocent until proven guilty.”116 Moore pursued this, suggesting that Wallace didn’t care if Fratesi had robbed a bank the previous week, it just wasn’t relevant, was it? Right, said Wallace.117 Someone wanted to know why Wallace was advising against making the selection now. One councillor suggested that his firm wanted to protect its image — it would not look good for Coopers and Lybrand if the winner of the competition it had helped run was subsequently and very quickly found to have broken the law.118 Wallace said again that the implications of proceeding were unclear and there were moral and ethical issues involved, to which Sanzosti replied that these were different from legal issues.119 Councillors had been wondering since morning why Wallace had suddenly produced a legal opinion, a dangerous one at that, when this had not been part of his terms of reference. Chisholm now asked who had called the consultant. “I did,” said Swift, and testified later that, “Council did not receive that information very happily, and so we had some rather bitter words there.”120 The atmosphere did not improve

126

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

when Wallace said that he had not even considered getting a legal opinion before Swift phoned him.121 There were finally no more questions for Wallace; he and his fellow consultant now left the meeting to return to Toronto richer with insights into the conduct of the public’s business in Sault Ste. Marie. By secret ballot, councillors picked the new cao. Eight of them, Cameletti, Chisholm, DeLuca, Moore, Niro, Sanzosti, Szczepanik, and Trembinski voted for Fratesi; Rauk and Swift left their ballots blank; Borowicz walked out of the room, refusing to have anything more to do with the farce.122 Szczepanik was now chairing the meeting. When it broke up about 6:00 p.m., he told the reporters waiting at city hall that, “I’ve been given clear instructions to state that the process is continuing and that we have not come to a conclusion.”123 Considering that council had just chosen Fratesi as the city’s cao for the second time in four months, Szczepanik’s brief was economical with the truth. It was the case, though, that two loose ends had not been tied up. Coopers and Lybrand would be sending its legal opinion the next day. And council still had to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with the new cao.

WRAPPING IT UP

At 9:00 the next morning, January 22, Fratesi phoned personnel commissioner Luszka to tell him he had spoken to Bottos and that “if a legal opinion is what is holding this process [his appointment] up,”124 he would be getting one himself. This conversation made Luszka uncomfortable, and he told Fratesi that he was in touch himself with the city’s legal department about the issues involved.125 Later that day Wallace sent Luszka a memo from Coopers and

127

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Lybrand’s internal legal counsel, which Luszka immediately passed on to councillors. It was everything Fratesi’s eight stalwarts on council could have wished for. It simply repeated the soft advice they had already heard, that “the most prudent course of action might be for council to wait to make their final selection until after February 12.”126 Council met in closed session on the evening of January 22 to move the process to its conclusion. Bottos reviewed the Coopers and Lybrand memo and reiterated his advice that council could legally appoint its new cao before the court hearing. He said it was not at all clear how the hearing would unfold. It might be concluded on February 12, but depending on the lawyers’ arguments it could take longer and there could be an appeal.127 This last point would hardly have come as a surprise for councillors, given what Fratesi had promised the previous day. Most of them were now prepared to act as if a conflict of interest violation, at least in this particular case, was about as serious as a traffic ticket.128 They understood that a guilty verdict would probably not lead to Fratesi’s removal from the cao’s office, and that the only penalty a court could likely impose for a serious violation of the Act was disqualification from running for elected office.129 They apparently reasoned that this would be irrelevant, because Fratesi was leaving elected politics anyway. They turned blind eyes to the ugly reality of this scenario, that if it materialized, they would have installed as city administrator a man whose contravention of the law was so serious that it warranted disqualification, a penalty so harsh that the courts had demonstrably been loath to invoke it previously. With the legal concerns of the majority satisfied, councillors voted again on Fratesi’s appointment, eight in favour, Rauk and Swift against, Borowicz abstaining.130 They then focussed on the salary and benefits package to offer Fratesi, and how exactly to negotiate with him. This was going to be tricky. How could a sitting mayor bargain

128

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

about an employment contract with the council he headed, without running afoul of Section 5(2) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? Nimble minds now came to grips with this problem. Councillors had just started talking about what to offer Fratesi when Sanzosti suggested that Luszka and Bottos negotiate the package directly with him on behalf of council. This was innovative but unworkable — it would have placed Luszka and Bottos in an impossible position — and was quickly dismissed by the other councillors.131 The solution they found was the one Moore had identified the previous September 25, when he had asked Fratesi what councillors were supposed to do if he did not stay in the room and explain his first request for the job. Were they supposed to pass messages back and forth under the door? Fratesi was not in the room now, but he and councillors needed to communicate, so they decided to pass messages back and forth through the door using intermediaries, first Luszka, and then both Luszka and Bottos at the final stage of the process.132 The starting point for the negotiation was Fratesi’s set of terms and conditions of four months earlier. Now councillors, led by several of Fratesi’s disciples of long standing,133 quickly agreed to offer him the same top salary rate; the same holiday, sick leave, and benefits package; and the same pension buy-back he had demanded the first time around. The possibility of the city’s paying his annual Law Society fees had somehow made its way onto the bargaining table, but councillors pushed it off and focussed on the most contentious issue, his demand that he bring his law firm’s secretary with him. This time the majority decided that the other job in the cao’s office would have to be filled from within city hall. Luszka was instructed to tell Fratesi that he would be getting a formal offer of employment; Szczepanik was told once again to tell the media that no final decision had yet been made. With agreement to meet again on January 30 to wrap the process up, councillors went home.134

129

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Either someone was keeping Fratesi directly informed about the deliberations, or he was divining the intentions of his colleagues with uncanny accuracy. The next day, January 23, he asked to meet Luszka to “clarify” for Luszka and councillors “his proposed employment conditions to possibly expedite matters.”135 His first major clarification was the dropping of the demand to bring his secretary with him, coupled with expressed willingness to hire an assistant from within city hall — exactly what councillors had decided a few hours earlier they would have to insist on. He now had “no objection to maintaining a no increase to staff complement if that [were] the direction of council.”136 The second clarification was the dropping of the demand that the city pay half the cost of the pension buy-back. It could if it wanted to, but if not, he would pay the full shot himself.137 The timing of Fratesi’s approach to Luszka and the softening of his demands may also have reflected the fact that he had just received the legal opinion he had been waiting for. He would shortly testify that he had asked municipal law expert George H. Rust-D’Eye (as well as two local lawyers and a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing official) whether he could legally participate in the competition while remaining mayor, and that Rust-D’Eye’s written opinion (faxed to Fratesi’s lawyer on January 22) addressed that question and assured him that he could.138 This testimony was not true.139 What he had asked Rust-D’Eye was, in Rust-D’Eye’s words, . . . whether or not, in view of the fact that you are the city’s mayor, and the conflict of interest application, if successful, would lead to the vacating of your seat, there is any legal objection to the city’s deciding, prior to February 12th, to appoint you as its chief administrative office[r].140

130

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

Fratesi was emphatically not asking Rust-D’Eye to tell him whether his actions were legal. He wanted expert advice as to whether council would be within its legal rights to whisk him off to the safety of the cao’s office before his date in court with Judge Meehan. Rust-D’Eye wrote . . . it is my opinion that it is open to the city council to continue the competition for chief administrative officer, and that there would be no legal prohibition to its deciding to appoint you to that position, nor to your acceptance of that position, prior to the hearing of the municipal conflict of interest proceeding by the court.141 This was very good news for Fratesi. Everything would work out nicely as long as he and council struck a deal that got him out of the mayor’s chair. But quickly. Luszka put Fratesi’s clarified terms and conditions into a January 24 letter to all councillors in preparation for the January 30 wrap-up session.142 It now looked as though everything was going to fall smoothly into place, until Szczepanik strayed away briefly from the fold. Szczepanik had insisted that saving money was why he had supported Fratesi’s first, no-competition run at the job, and why he had objected to hiring a consultant.143 He now did a little arithmetic, adding the $150,000-plus cost of Fratesi’s salary and benefits to the estimated cost of the special election, getting a total of about $300,000. Realizing for the first time that the last thing replacing Jackson with Fratesi was doing was saving money, he insisted that a special council meeting be called for January 27. There he told his startled colleagues that he had “some very grave misgivings about the whole process,”144 and that the competition should be scrapped. Council should either appoint one of the city’s current senior managers cao or restructure

131

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

the administration so that the cao’s work could be done by the senior management team.145 None of the other councillors who had professed concern about the cost of a competition and a consultant were interested in any of this. Chisholm found Szczepanik’s suggestions “belittling to the mayor”146; DeLuca argued that council couldn’t “keep dragging this on” and had “to make a decision fast”147; Sanzosti expressed his deep disappointment with Szczepanik for bringing “such a drastic proposal forward at this time”148; and Moore said they needed a “strong cao” and should “proceed with [the] decision to hire Joe.”149 The rest of the support to hurry up and hire Joe held firm, and Szczepanik’s proposal was voted down. Council reconvened on January 30 to finalize the deal with its new employee. Borowicz opposed the proceedings on principle and refused to attend.150 Fratesi and Solski declared conflicts and left the meeting, Fratesi staying at city hall. The remaining councillors had his clarified terms and conditions before them, but they still had concerns for Jackson’s secretary and differences with Fratesi on more minor matters (one of which was that he was still asking them to pay his Law Society fees). They developed a compromise offer, then turned to their messenger system and sent Luszka and Bottos off to Fratesi with it. He sent back his reaction via the runners. Councillors countered. He countered. Councillors countered again, and this time their offer was acceptable. The runners were able to stop running.151 Fratesi now explained what was required to implement the deal. An open council meeting would have to be held. Council would first pass a bylaw to enrol the city’s mayor in the omers pension plan effective January 1, 1996, for purposes of the pension buy-back. (One implication of this bylaw was that future Sault mayors would also participate in the omers plan, with the city’s contributions representing an ongoing cost associated with Fratesi’s appointment. Normally such

132

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

decisions are based on policy considerations. Not this one, though.152) Council would then read his letter of resignation effective February 6 into the record, pass a resolution accepting it and declaring the mayor’s position vacant, and pass a bylaw appointing him cao effective February 7.153 Since the next regular council meeting was scheduled for February 5, it seems clear that these procedural matters were to be taken care of then. Luszka was to prepare the formal letter of offer to Fratesi and give it to him on January 31, which he did.154 But by then the procedural timetable had been rewritten. Someone may have realized that the documents supporting our conflict of interest application would soon be filed at the courthouse. It was always possible for an energetic reporter to dig them out and publish our case against Fratesi before February 12. If that case were strong enough, council just might be forced to delay the appointment until after Judge Meehan had finished his work. This didn’t bear thinking about. Far better to avoid that risk and get Joe moved while the moving was good. Or perhaps the reason the timetable changed was simpler. Someone may have decided that the optics of appointing Fratesi 12 days before the hearing, instead of seven days before, were better. I speculate here. The fact remains that councillors were summoned down to city hall for a special open meeting of council starting at 5:00 p.m. on January 31.

JOE FRATESI GETS HIS NEW JOB BACK

Fratesi was in the chair when the meeting began, but grinned and declared a conflict, turned the gavel over to Moore, and took a seat in the council chamber bleachers. Before it could get on with its main business, however, council had to deal once more with the stubborn

133

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Sault This Week, January 1996. Reprinted with the permission of Cyril Morden.

Szczepanik. He had brought his new idée fixe to this session, and had moved a resolution to defer the appointment of a cao pending a review of city hall’s management structure. During the short debate and confused procedural wrangle, tempers flared, Sanzosti attacking Szczepanik angrily, Swift responding with a shot at Sanzosti. The strain felt both by councillors racing to get Fratesi appointed, and those who had lost the battle to slow the process down, was palpable.155 With Szczepanik’s resolution voted down overwhelmingly, Moore asked Cameletti to explain how the competition had been run. Cameletti recounted selected details of the work of his committee (leaving out others such as how the short list had been boosted from one to two names), insisting repeatedly that the competition had been fair and equitable despite what some people thought.156 Moore 134

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

thanked him, had the city clerk read the Sanzosti-Chisholm resolution appointing Fratesi cao, and then invited the first of two citizens who wanted to address council on this matter to do so.157 This was Bob Taylor, the only Sault resident to stand up that evening and tell council that something very wrong was happening at city hall. Taylor was an exquisitely courteous man, who now drew blood in a soft-spoken way. He explained that he was speaking for a group of concerned citizens, many of whom were afraid to speak themselves for fear of retaliation. They had reservations about the imminent appointment, Taylor said, and repeated some of the questions he and two friends had faxed to councillors earlier in the day.158 These were tough: Were councillors convinced that Fratesi had not instigated Jackson’s retirement?159 Where were the savings to justify Jackson’s eri?160 What kind of contract was being offered to the new cao? How did the offer compare to Fratesi’s original demands of four months earlier? Would there be an escape clause for the city should Fratesi be found to have broken the law?161 How would council respond if it made a decision that night and Fratesi were then found guilty?162 Was this decision being made on the basis of ethics, or popularity?163 “Words like disbelief, sadness, mistrust, fear, intimidation, disrespect, inadequacy, and possibly contempt,” Taylor said, came to mind as he and others tried to express their feelings about what had happened in Sault Ste. Marie during the past four months.164 How could only one name keep “resurfacing as the obvious choice?”165 “So what’s the rush,” he asked, “in putting this issue to bed tonight? . . . In conclusion, we appeal to your better senses. . . . That is, if we’re already not too late.”166 Taylor had not actually expected to get answers that evening,167 and he didn’t. Instead, he got bitter badgering from DeLuca and Cameletti. DeLuca demanded to know who Taylor was speaking on behalf of — it wasn’t “the abj group . . . by any chance?”168 The puzzled Taylor had

135

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

no idea what he was talking about; DeLuca later explained that he had recently heard an “Anybody But Joe” comment which offended him. He added, in excusing his attack on Taylor: It was certainly not my intention to harass anybody, but for those of you who have never walked in the shoes of a councillor, it might not be that wise to get up to the podium and make statements like that, particularly in the last six months, when our life, the lives of our families, our spouses and our children, have been under extreme stress.169 Cameletti picked up where DeLuca left off, demanding angrily, was Taylor saying publicly that the process which he himself had chaired had not chosen the right candidate? Was Taylor saying publicly that Cameletti and his committee did not have integrity, had not run a fair and equitable process?170 Taylor had the right suspicions but no proof; he had not been privy to the inner workings of the competition, and those had not become public knowledge yet. He prudently and politely disengaged, yielding the podium to Marsh Barsanti, former councillor and Fratesi acolyte who now assured council that it had chosen the best man for the job but had taken far too long to do so.171 Barsanti yielded to high school principal Doug McChesney, who had not planned to speak but had been shaken by DeLuca’s and Cameletti’s attacks on Taylor, and now reminded council that people had a right to express their opinions to their elected representatives without being bullied.172 Even in Sault Ste. Marie. Councillors now took turns explaining why they were or were not going to endorse Fratesi. Borowicz, Rauk, and Swift spoke against the appointment. Borowicz cited the moral and political inappropriateness

136

JOE FRATESI LOSES HIS NEW JOB, BUT GETS IT BACK AGAIN

of proceeding under the circumstances; Rauk questioned Fratesi’s basic qualifications for the job; and Swift upbraided his colleagues for the contempt they were showing for the law and for their failure to take the advice of their own consultants and wait for the results of the court hearing.173 The other eight scrupulously avoided difficult terms such as morality and ethics, focussing instead on the strengths and accomplishments of Successful Candidate Fratesi.174 Sanzosti went on at particular length about the wonderful things his friend had done as mayor. He did not tell his colleagues or the wider audience in the council chamber or watching on tv at home that he was reading the list of achievements Fratesi had included in his job application.175 The speeches delivered, the formal votes taken to enrol the mayor in the omers pension plan, accept Fratesi’s resignation, and appoint him cao effective the next day, Moore invited The Winner to say a few words. In his last public speech as mayor, Fratesi said pointedly that everyone who had been involved in the competition had wanted to ensure that it was not only fair and equitable, but that it appeared fair and equitable, then complained, “I can tell you that at many points throughout the process, I thought that it might have been overly fair and equitable, or even unfair.”176 However, he had overcome the odds against him and had won the job again, demonstrating the wisdom of the council’s decision back on September 25. And as for the pending hearing which Borowicz had just described as a cloud lingering over everyone’s head, Fratesi told council: Please don’t let this cloud that has been suggested to be important, in any way, shape or form interfere with the working relationship that we need to develop over the next little while to be an effective group serving this community. As has been pointed out, if anything was done wrong in that room [on September 25], all

137

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

members of council were in the room that night. Council members are best to judge whether or not anything improper was done, and it doesn’t matter what a court is going to decide [my italics], council members were in that room. . . . 177 The courts and the law be damned; we make our own rules down here at city hall. This was Joe Fratesi’s angry parting shot at the judiciary. It was also an authoritative prediction and promise. It really didn’t matter what a court was going to decide; he was going to keep his new job this time.

138

Convictions and Values Conspiracy theory is the intellectual hobby of the stupid, a grimly mischievous parody of thinking. It’s the tool of those who want to reason for themselves but have never learned how to do it. — ROBERT FULFORD

SEARCHING FOR THE CONSPIRACY

For a few weeks after Fratesi had been forced to hand back his first appointment, the noise level remained high. Columnists dissected the September 25 deal as more information about it surfaced; our conflict of interest application generated some attention; Fratesi supporters who initially were slow off the mark now wrote to the papers. The most prominent of these was surgeon Sam Fratesi, who weighed in with a long letter on behalf of his brother. Editorial comment on Joe’s actions had been one-sided and vicious, Sam claimed: Joe’s “integrity has been brought into question and his reputation and good name and the good name of all of his family are being kicked around like a football by people who have a responsibility to the public to be more honest and fair.”1 After praising Joe’s and the entire Fratesi family’s “hard work and dedication and . . . our honesty and integrity and our high sense of values,”2 he said, “our family has always believed that there is nothing more powerful than the truth. Some in the media might want to try some!”3 He did not offer any specific examples of lies the media had told about Joe. Soon after Dee and I filed the application, we became the target of 139

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

efforts to discredit us and shift the blame for Fratesi’s problems away from his own behaviour. Some of this stuff was funny. It was a vendetta, was one charge. One of Fratesi’s relatives wrote to the Sault Star that Dee and I had had a vendetta against the mayor ever since he had been elected.4 He didn’t explain what this ancient blood feud was all about, but two versions of its origins filtered back to us. Version one was that Dee and I were sister and brother, and were carrying on a Sims/Fratesi family fight whose beginnings were shrouded in the mists of time. Version two was that Fratesi and I had been in primary school together (despite the fact that I’m 10 years older than him), and I was working off a grudge over something that had happened back then. Perhaps he had bitten my ankle. It didn’t take long for sex to get inserted into the smear campaign. Dee and I were an item, we heard first. (This must have been particularly titillating for people who also believed that she and I were siblings.) However, it didn’t do much in terms of exonerating Fratesi, and quickly moved into the shadow of a far more interesting lie — Dee and Jim Hilsinger were an item (a variant of which was that Hilsinger and I were an item). This was a richly satisfying explanation for Fratesi’s troubles. It was simply Hilsinger and the French using Dee (or me, depending on which version people liked better) to repay Fratesi for the resolution and his part in the boycott of the Water Tower Inn. Fratesi-ites pursued the conspiracy theory theme in their letters to the editors. A former sapelr executive member speculated that some councillors were the villains, that in some unspecified way they had entrapped Fratesi on the evening of September 25 and sold him out; who knew what evil lurked in the hearts of men? she asked.5 Another writer hinted that Dee and I were fronting for “some group with a personal or hidden agenda,”6 and Andrew Lucas, well-known locally for his keen insights into linguistic issues, identified the plotters:

140

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

The French Connection along with J.J. [Hilsinger] are still trying to discredit our town and destroy our mayor, for having the audacity to allow democracy to speak, by refusing to have the taxpayers of our city pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement a second working language (French) which would be used in city hall along with English in its every-day working operations.7 Initially I did not realize how important it was for a large part of the community to believe that Fratesi had fallen victim to a conspiracy related to the resolution, and so for the first few months of the fight I refused to take it seriously. This despite the fact that I learned that leaders of the fight against the resolution were making sure to avoid meeting me; they wanted to be able to deny knowing me and thus fend off charges that they were part of the plot. I was a very slow learner, but I gradually caught on. My education began with the examinations for discovery prior to the hearing before Judge Meehan. These gave Fratesi the chance to find out whether any councillors were in cahoots with Dee and me. His lawyer Gus Palombi asked each of them, including the most loyal soldiers such as Chisholm and Sanzosti, whether they knew us; he also asked some whether they had discussed the conflict of interest application with us. The only links he uncovered were that Rauk and Swift knew Dee through work they had done together on committees, and Rauk knew me from high school days 35 years earlier when we had curled together.8 A better way to unmask the plot was to put me under oath and try to force me to reveal all. I was called for examination about a week and a half before the hearing. McLeod had warned me that Fratesi would probably try to find out who had referred me to him, and who was

141

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

helping Dee and me pay our legal bills. I was thus prepared when questions probing for the shape and the size of the conspiracy surfaced early during the examination. Palombi wanted to know when and how I had decided to take Fratesi to court. I mentioned having talked it over with friends. My response triggered the following exchange between Palombi and McLeod, which gives something of the flavour of the next half hour or so of the examination: P: (to me) Which friends did you have conversations with? M: What’s the relevance of that, counsel? P: It goes to the basis of the application. M: The application speaks for itself. P: Well, he’s indicated that he made a decision to pursue the matter after speaking to friends, and I think it’s important that I know, and relevant, which friends he spoke to. M: Why? P: It goes to his decision to bring the application. M: What does that matter? P: Well, in my view that’s relevant to the application. M: We’re not answering those questions.9 Palombi wanted to know who had referred me to McLeod, whether I had been “encouraged” in bringing the application, who was giving us financial support, how many people had contributed to our legal fund, how much money we had received.10 I declined to answer those questions. (With respect to funding, Dee and I were not actively trying to raise money to help pay our costs. We had gotten into this knowing the risks. But by this time we had received 18 unsolicited donations from friends and well-wishers, most of whom wanted to remain

142

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

anonymous. The contributions ranged in size from $10 to $200; they totalled about $1800.11) Who referred Dee to McLeod? Palombi asked. I told him I didn’t know.12 Had I spoken with any councillors prior to bringing the application, had any of them slipped me key documents such as Fratesi’s application for the cao job, had any of them given us money?13 Refusing to answer those questions would have left the cruelly false impression that one or more councillors were supporting us clandestinely, and so I said “No” to each of them. Despite McLeod’s forewarnings, I made one huge mistake. Early on Palombi asked whether I had read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act before bringing the application. I said I had, then: Q: Okay. Where did you get a copy of that Act? A: From a friend. Q: And who was that? Who gave you a copy of the Act? A: Mr. Yvon Renaud. Q: Was he one of the friends that you had spoken to about pursuing legal action? A: Yes.14 This was truthful but really stupid. Renaud was my friend, but he was also our family lawyer, and it was in that capacity I had visited him to get the Act and learn what I had to do to bring an action. By not having the wit to simply say that I had gotten the Act from my lawyer, I provided potent support for the theory that Fratesi’s enemies from the resolution fight were secretly driving the conflict of interest application. Renaud was one of the three trustees who had developed the new admission criteria for the Sault’s French language schools in 1987; he was a leader of the dissident parents who had transferred their taxes

143

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

to the Public Board in 1989; he was an angry opponent of the resolution. Jeffrey Simpson told the story of the resolution in his 1993 book Faultlines by contrasting the radically different ways in which Fratesi and Renaud looked at French language minority rights in Canada. Finally, it was Renaud along with McLeod whose arguments had persuaded Judge Loukidelis to strike the resolution down in 1994. Now I had supplied a smoking nom. Palombi indicated that he knew the value to his client of what he had just heard and tried to learn more about the Renaud/Sims connection. Had Renaud encouraged me to bring the application? Was it Renaud who had referred me to McLeod? Was it in fact Renaud who had drawn up our application and its supporting affidavit (the implication being that McLeod was simply fronting for Renaud)?15 While I gave up nothing else, I had already said enough. Within a few days Fratesi would use the Renaud tie-in as part of a wider strategy to try to derail the hearing and suggest again to the people of Sault Ste. Marie that his legal troubles were simply the work of his political enemies. Whatever battles he might lose in the courts, he was never in much danger of losing the battle in the Sault’s court of public opinion. I did him no harm there by giving him the opportunity to link Renaud’s name and mine.

FRATESI’S COUNTERATTACK BEGINS

My brother-in-law Bob Roth and my sister Diane had moved to the Sault in mid-1995. Roth quickly got a job as the managing editor of Sault This Week and had pursued the unfolding conflict of interest story entertainingly and aggressively. He had been a journalist for a long time and knew that legal documents related to a case are filed with the court registrar before the case is heard. Sniffing for a scoop

144

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

in advance of the hearing,16 he and reporter Sandra Paul visited the registrar’s office on February 5, a week before the hearing was scheduled to begin, and asked to see the case file. The registrar produced it for the usual nominal fee, then snatched it out of their hands shortly afterwards, telling them that the light bulb had just gone on and she realized that the file might not be part of the public record yet.17 But Roth and Paul had gotten enough from their quick look at the transcripts of several examinations to write a dramatic story which appeared two days later. Headlined “Court document reveals Fratesicao connection” and subtitled “Court official seizes riveting testimony after transcripts given to Sault This Week,” the story made public for the first time Jackson’s version of Fratesi’s involvement in his early retirement — how Fratesi had initiated the discussions, negotiated the eri, and steered the package through council. It also revealed that Fratesi had stayed in the council room on September 25 to answer questions about his job application, in apparent violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and in contradiction to his earlier public statement that he had answered “possibly one question” before leaving the meeting.18 The Sault Star’s Linda Richardson went straight down to the courthouse to see what else was available. She found our factum (the statement of the facts of the case as we saw them, the law, and the remedies we were requesting) which McLeod had just filed. Richardson wrote her own riveting stories which appeared on February 8. She highlighted our charges that Fratesi had broken the law in “[manipulating] events so as to obtain for himself the job of chief administrative officer of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, on terms and conditions favourable to himself,”19 that he had “used the power and authority of the office of mayor to create and exploit the opportunity to become cao, thus putting his private interest ahead of the public interest,”20 and that he had violated “the fiduciary duty he owed to the inhabitants of the city.”21

145

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

She also highlighted the remedies we requested.22 We did not know as much about the fair and equitable competition as we learned later, but we knew enough to be convinced that he had broken the law by participating in it while still mayor. Our factum made this point, then said that given his “serious and pervasive” wrongdoing23 in pursuit of the job, the court should terminate his employment contract or force him to give back to the city all of the salary and benefits he was earning as cao.24 We were asking for this remedy under Section 10(1)(c) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the restitution clause25; Section 12 was clearly of no use to us (see Chapter 4). Our problem was that we had filed our application before the competition had even begun. McLeod would have to convince Judge Meehan to let us amend the application so that the hearing could deal with the competition, and particularly its latter stages. Without that, there would be no realistic chance that Fratesi would lose his job as a result of this hearing. Fratesi began his counterattack the day after Richardson’s articles appeared. I was working late and knew nothing about it until I got home after nine in the evening. I then learned from my shaken wife (who had first heard the news from a reporter) that Fratesi had filed a $575,000 defamation suit against Dee and me. Palombi’s office had faxed Fratesi’s statement of claim directly to the media early in the afternoon. This suit made news. So did word that Palombi was going to ask Judge Meehan to order me to explain who had referred Dee and me to McLeod, who were all the people helping us pay our legal bills and how much they had given us — and whether Yvon Renaud had encouraged me to bring the conflict of interest application.26 Fratesi’s statement of claim said that we had levelled false, reckless, and malicious accusations against him in our factum, such as, for example, “that he lacked honesty, candour, and good faith.”27 We knew or should have known that the media would pick these accusations up and

146

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

publicize them, he charged; or perhaps we had even leaked them to reporters ourselves.28 We had defamed his “character and reputation”29; we had caused him “distress, embarrassment, and loss of reputation.”30 He claimed general damages of $500,000, special damages of $25,000, and punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages of $50,000. Plus interest.31 McLeod told the press he was mystified by this sudden suit and doubted that there was any basis in law for it.32 Absolute privilege is given to statements, such as those contained in our factum, which are made in the course of legal proceedings; this privilege confers immunity against defamation actions.33 Friends and acquaintances who spoke with us that weekend assumed that the suit was an attempt to intimidate us. We did not dismiss the idea out of hand, but it didn’t make complete sense; the hearing was now only three days away, and we were hardly likely to fold our tents and creep away at this point. The more likely explanation for the suit jumps out of the line in Fratesi’s statement of claim, that he would “seek that this matter be tried with a trial of an issue arising in the aforementioned Application.”34 The “aforementioned application” was our application before Judge Meehan. Palombi was going to ask Meehan to combine it with the defamation suit and have the issues tried together, in a process which would call witnesses. If Meehan agreed, the time needed to prepare for this trial would delay any action on our conflict of interest allegations for nearly a year. Under the timetable proposed in the statement of claim, the trial would not start before January 1997.35 We did not know it at the time, but Political Strategist Fratesi had assured councillors just three weeks earlier that the conflict of interest case would not be over on February 12. Far from it, he had said. In this context, his suit can be seen as a first attempt to tie the proceedings up by adding to their complexity. This interpretation is supported by the fact that he went after only

147

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Dee and me, not the media. This was unusual. Normally someone seeking redress for an alleged libel sues all of the main actors involved, and particularly the media. It is the widespread dissemination of the alleged defamation by the press which can do the most damage to a reputation.36 It was the media — the Sault Star with Richardson’s February 8 stories, then the local radio and tv stations — which spread the allegations in our factum. But Fratesi took no action against the press. A plausible explanation is that the one suit was all that was necessary to try to delay the conflict of interest hearing. It was also the cheapest way of doing so. When the hearing began on February 12, Palombi asked Meehan that it be adjourned and reconvened at a later date as a trial, arguing that some of the testimony sworn during the examinations for discovery was contradictory, and that a trial was needed to sort out which evidence was credible and which was not. Meehan rejected this, saying that he was quite capable of making a ruling based on the facts not in dispute. He added that the hearing date had been set in November, Palombi had not requested a trial until he had filed Fratesi’s defamation suit on February 9, and the only purpose of that request was to frustrate the process.37 He rejected Palombi’s second motion that the conflict of interest hearing and Fratesi’s defamation action should be tried together.38 Palombi then asked him to order me to answer the questions which would expose the “conspiracy” — who had referred us to McLeod, who was funding us, what role Yvon Renaud had played39; my answers would help clarify the motivation behind the application, he said.40 Meehan swatted this down. He was surprised by these questions, he told Palombi — some people wind up in a lawyer’s office on the basis of a recommendation made in a beer parlour, some because of the advice of a parish priest, all of this was quite irrelevant.41 Certainly these questions were irrelevant to the court. But all of them,

148

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

and particularly the one concerning Renaud’s role, had every relevance in the court of public opinion in the Sault. Meehan turned down McLeod’s motion to amend our application to deal with events surrounding the competition, saying that the question of whether Fratesi had contravened the Act in 1996 would have to be dealt with through a separate application.42 The three-day hearing thus dealt only with Fratesi’s actions on September 25 and what had led up to them. The questions of whether it had been Fratesi or Jackson who had initiated the early retirement discussions and the appropriateness of Jackson’s eri were argued at length; Palombi claimed at one point that it had been Jackson who had manipulated Fratesi to secure his early retirement package.43 On the morning of February 15, Meehan told the packed courtroom that on the basis of the evidence before him, he was unable to decide whether Fratesi’s or Jackson’s testimony was the more credible. Therefore he was unable to decide whether the mayor had “manipulated events in the early part and through August up to the weekend of September 23 to suit himself.”44 Ominously, though, he then quoted a 1972 decision of Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey: As I have indicated, qualification for the election to and holding of high office in all levels of government are a matter of considerable importance in the functioning of a democratic community. The sanctity of these offices and the strict adherence to the conditions of occupying these offices must be safeguarded if democratic government is to perform up to design. Therefore, these enactments, as they are brought before the courts . . . must be given their full application according to the law.45

149

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Meehan now applied the law. He found that Fratesi had breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act three times on September 25 — by “failing to disclose his interest in the continuation” of the eri program during the open part of the council meeting, by not disclosing his interest in Jackson’s retirement package when he presented it to councillors and recommended they endorse it, and by staying in the council room to answer questions about his job application.46 Were the saving provisions of inadvertence or error in judgement relevant? “No,” Meehan said. Inadvertence meant “oversight, inattention, carelessness, and the like.”47 The term “error in judgement” had to be understood as meaning a bona fide error in judgement, “because basically almost anyone who breaches the statute is presumed to have made an error in judgement.”48 Bona fide meant “something done in good faith, without fraud or deceit or collusion. There must be honesty in fact. There must be complete frankness.”49 As for Fratesi’s behaviour, While an argument could be mounted that [Fratesi] while debating the merits of continuing the early retirement incentive only committed an inadvertent error or a bona fide error in judgement, when one views his actions on the evening as a whole, and his later conduct in relation to the actual retirement acceptance and his immediate distribution of his previously prepared proposal, one cannot describe his conduct either as inadvertent or bona fide error in judgement.50 In light of these findings, he continued, the law directed him to declare Fratesi’s seat as mayor vacant. He was unable to do this since Fratesi had already resigned. Because the contravention of the Act was in his view a serious one, though, he disqualified him from running for office for four years. He turned down our request to cancel Fratesi’s

150

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

employment contract with the city; he had ruled only on the events of September 25, he could not find that Fratesi had gotten the job the second time around as a direct result of what he had done that day, and thus “the question of me depriving him of his employment or imposing some sort of penalty based on his employment cannot arise.”51 However, he ordered Fratesi to pay all of Dee’s and my costs, on the so-called solicitor/client scale. “It is rare indeed that solicitor/client costs should be awarded,”52 he said, but he noted the unusual circumstances of the case, that we had done nothing improper but had acted in the public interest,53 and that “the reason we are here is because of the conduct of [Fratesi] when mayor of Sault Ste. Marie.”54

THE COUNTERATTACK CONTINUES

It was a clear verdict coupled with a four-year disqualification (twice the length of the heaviest ban previously imposed by the courts), delivered two weeks to the day after Fratesi had started his new job. Dee and I immediately spoke to the press. I tried to lay the conspiracy theory to rest — fat chance of that — by explaining that it had been my wife who had encouraged me to take Fratesi to court.55 Dee called on Fratesi to resign56; fat chance of that, either. The Sault Star’s editor echoed her call, writing that, “Even though the court did not compel it, the proper thing for Fratesi to do now would be to resign”57; but Roth at Sault This Week decided not to waste ink on the suggestion.58 It was clear that having gotten his arms wrapped firmly around the job just prior to the hearing, the last thing Fratesi was going to do now was the honourable thing59 and give it up. Palombi said that his client had not gotten his new job in “any devious manner”60 and there was no reason he should resign. Despite the fact that the court had agreed with the thrust of our

151

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

case and had ruled decisively against Fratesi, he was not going to drop his defamation suit.61 Plus he was going to appeal Meehan’s judgement,62 exactly as he had promised councillors on January 21 he would do. The appeal was filed the day after Meehan delivered his ruling63; the grounds on which it was based amounted for the most part to assertions that Fratesi had done nothing wrong and that Meehan didn’t know the law.64 The first council meeting since things had gone badly in court was held on February 19. Sanzosti was in the mayor’s chair. Two weeks earlier councillors had bowed to public pressure and agreed on a special election to replace Fratesi (there went more “savings”); they named Sanzosti to serve as interim mayor until the May 2 election.65 Fratesi was sitting beside Sanzosti at the cao’s desk. The public gallery was jammed with more than a hundred people. Fratesi’s family and friends, sitting under an eight-foot banner reading “WE support JOE!”, were there to encourage their man and make life unpleasant for anyone who didn’t.66 Bob Taylor stepped up to the podium for the second time in three weeks: Mr. Acting Mayor and members of council, well, what say you now?. . . Our city’s chief administrative officer has been found . . . to have breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act while in his capacity as mayor. By your combined actions, you have made a mockery not only of our city and [its] decency . . . but of the justice system by which we live and raise our families. . . . I personally believe that the haste of the decisionmaking process which you undertook and orchestrated was devised to do nothing more than

152

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

shelter Mr. Fratesi from the inevitable court ruling which took place just five short days ago. If the courts were to find Mr. Fratesi guilty, which they did, he would have been removed from public office for possibly up to seven years. Seemingly, the only way of protecting him was to have those of you who report to him appoint him to the cao position. Of that, I am firmly convinced. . . . Your arguments of fair and equitable process don’t wash with me any further in light of recent revelations. Why . . . was Mr. Fratesi permitted to retain his seat as mayor, until council had guaranteed his cao position? Fair and equitable? Not in my eyes. Democracy at work? Not in my eyes.67 As Taylor’s tirade continued, the mob in the gallery became agitated. People heckled and jeered and ignored Sanzosti’s half-hearted efforts to maintain order. Finally Sanzosti himself had had enough, interrupting Taylor to tell him to stop making accusations. This drew wild applause, as did the acting mayor’s second intervention. In a transparent attempt to trivialize the verdict, Sanzosti waved a document in the air and said, “And another point I want to make, I have the transcripts here, and in no, and in no, no point in this transcript, that I find the word ‘guilty.’ It’s a contravention of conflict of interest.”68 There, Joe wasn’t guilty of anything at all, Mike had just proved it. The gallery loved it.69 (Well-known Sault educator Vin Greco, watching at home on tv, did not. “Well,” he wrote immediately, “when your actions are found by a judge to be in contravention of a law, you have broken the law, and you’re guilty. To suggest otherwise is illogical and indicative of intentional self-deception. There are some hairs we should not split.”70)

153

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Taylor wanted to know when he was going to get answers to the pointed questions he had put to all the councillors on January 31, and in particular was he going to get an answer that evening to the question, “What response will this council have, if you make a decision prior to the conclusion of the scheduled court case concerning Mr. Fratesi, if in fact he is found to be in breach of municipal conflict of interest?”71 Sanzosti told him that he would get an answer some time that week, probably.72 Taylor cut his remarks short and left the chamber.73 After long-time Fratesi supporter Ken Marshall told council that Fratesi had “gotten a bad rap from the media”74 and that he and his group of well-wishers were there simply to say “We support Joe,”75 Ian MacKenzie stepped up to the plate. I described in Chapter 4 how MacKenzie’s remarks contradicted Fratesi’s explanation of how he first became interested in Jackson’s job. MacKenzie covered a lot of other ground as well, evoking the Englishonly resolution, saying that this was “not the first time that the vast majority of council and Joe Fratesi have been attacked by minorities who have said, and screamed blue murder, that you were wrong.”76 The same thing was happening again — it was just the small minority which was angry; the vast majority of taxpaying citizens wanted Fratesi as cao.77 But MacKenzie’s best line of the evening was his assurance to everyone that, “Joe Fratesi neither is nor ever has been a criminal.”78 In case someone had missed the message the first time, he repeated it at the end of his speech: “Joe Fratesi is not a criminal.”79 If MacKenzie meant that Judge Meehan had not found Fratesi guilty of criminal offences, this was correct. Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is a civil statute. But as commission counsel during the Sinclair Stevens inquiry a decade earlier had said, “It is not enough . . . to show that you are not a crook. . . . More, surely, is expected of public office holders. . . . That is why the enhancement of public confidence is at the root of the conflict of interest guidelines.”80

154

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

MacKenzie sat down to prolonged applause. Two other citizens spoke briefly — Ralph Huculak asked the council to fire Fratesi, and Gino Parissenti stated that MacKenzie had said everything that needed to be said. Parissenti demanded to know who was running the city anyway, the eight councillors who had voted for Joe or the three who hadn’t?81 More prolonged applause which gradually died away; then, with no one else stepping forward to speak, most of the crowd filed out of the chamber. Councillors turned to other business; a little while later they answered Bob Taylor’s question. Swift had told a reporter a few days earlier that, “Joe Fratesi and his supporters will be unabashed by the findings that he violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act three times in one day.”82 Returning to the chamber after a short break, his colleagues made reality of his prediction. DeLuca and Chisholm moved a resolution expressing the council’s full support for the new cao; Rauk and Swift cast the only dissenting votes.83

REPRISALS AND FAMILY VALUES

On the day Meehan read his verdict, a reporter tried to find out what city residents thought about it, and what should be done about Fratesi. Many people he tried to interview begged off, saying that they didn’t know anything about the issue, or as the reporter put it sardonically, “expressing a keen desire to keep their opinions to themselves.”84 Of the eight who spoke with him on the record, most thought that Fratesi had gotten the cao job fairly, or anyway should be allowed to keep it. Two of the eight were outspokenly critical. Pete Marshall felt betrayed, thought Fratesi had turned his back on the city that had trusted him and that he shouldn’t be in politics at all.85 Michelle Masse didn’t think that Fratesi should have gotten the job, and said it wasn’t fair “for the

155

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

other applicants . . . for the people living in Sault Ste. Marie, knowing that he was found guilty and he’s still being left sitting in his position.”86 The reporter’s article noted that Marshall worked at the Spruce Haven Petting Zoo and Masse at Madonna Optical.87 Phone calls and brown paper envelopes came next. Pete Marshall was the son of the owner of the Petting Zoo. Notwithstanding his parents’ loyalty to the cause — Ken and Helen Marshall were part of the Fratesi phalanx in council chambers on February 19 — in came the calls from people threatening not to take their kids and their friends out to pet the animals because son Pete had said what he thought.88 The same thing happened to Lou Madonna. He got two phone calls from people angry at Masse’s exercise of free speech, one of whom told Madonna that he and his family would no longer be buying their glasses from him. Madonna told a reporter that, “I talked to him for half an hour trying to get him calmed down; he really was upset, and he wouldn’t identify himself.”89 Councillor Rauk also heard from people who wouldn’t identify themselves. Someone left a brown paper envelope on his council desk on February 19, with a letter inside purporting to be from a group of downtown merchants. The letter said that Fratesi had paid dearly for violating the conflict of interest rules, that Rauk himself had broken the law during a council discussion on downtown parking four months earlier, and that the letter writers were thinking of bringing charges against him. They gave copies of the letter to the other councillors and to Fratesi, to make them “fully aware of this pending suit”90; they signed it, “In the spirit of justice we remain, anonymous.”91 Blind justice, anonymous justice, what’s the difference? No one was much surprised by any of this; it was part of an unhappy pattern which had now become familiar in the Sault. What was startling was an attempted reprisal from within the Fratesi family

156

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

Sault This Week, February 1996. Reprinted with the permission of Cyril Morden.

itself. This was never intended to become public knowledge,92 although it is hard to see how it could have been kept a secret. In the days following Meehan’s verdict, a new wave of letters critical of Joe Fratesi and council poured into the papers. One of the first came from Bob Denham, a teacher at St. Mary’s secondary school. St. Mary’s was the alma mater of Joe and his brother Sam, and they had strong ties to the school. The Fratesi family trophy was one of St. Mary’s most prestigious prizes; it was awarded annually to the student best exemplifying Christian living in everyday life. In addition, the grateful wife of a patient whom Sam had treated had donated a scholarship of $500 in his name to the school. This gift was given annually to a graduating student planning a career in medicine.93 Denham was furious at what had gone on at city hall. He wrote:

157

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Our former mayor has just been found guilty of breaking our laws and finds himself not outside the gates of the city pleading his case with the masses but buttressed in a golden palace by the St. Mary’s. . . . [T]he odor inside the Civic Centre continues to build. Won’t someone please open a window? This winter of discontent demands that [councillors] take a risk and explain their roles in the whole rotting mess and face the people. They must open a window. Let the voters decide who else might be responsible for the smell coming from down by the river.94 Sam Fratesi and others in his family found this letter distasteful; it upset them.95 The day after it was published, with Joe on his way out of town to holiday in Mexico, Sam called St. Mary’s principal Harvey Barsanti. Was the author of the offensive letter the Bob Denham who taught at St. Mary’s? When Barsanti said that it was, Sam told him that the Fratesi family trophy was going to be withdrawn from the school and that he wanted his name taken off the scholarship. Barsanti surmised that he might try to have the donor of the scholarship shift it to another school.96 So because Bob Denham felt he had a right to express his opinion, Sam Fratesi, with the subsequent full support of his brother Joe,97 was going to punish the students of the school where Denham worked. When Barsanti told Sam that this was unfair and didn’t make sense, Sam replied that it might not make sense to Barsanti, but it did to him and his family.98 This story was too good to be kept a secret. It was running through the grapevine in town the next day and was quickly picked up by the press. When a reporter phoned the doctor to pursue it, he told her that he had no comments, and then gave her these:

158

CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

I don’t know what you’re talking about. The discussion is over; you people are going to tie yourself in a noose. . . . [I hope this doesn’t show up in the paper] because if it does that’s another story. What I do in my private life is my business, and I don’t expect to see this in the Sault Star tomorrow, what I told you, because if you do, I’m sorry the ball will be rolling. I’m not a public figure like my brother and I don’t have to have people taking cheap shots at me.99 February 1996 had been a memorable month in Sault Ste. Marie and a difficult one for Joe Fratesi and his family. By the time he returned from his Mexican vacation in early March, however, things must have appeared to be looking up. The storm of protest letters to the papers was beginning to die down. On March 4 council passed yet another supportive bylaw (Rauk, Swift, and Borowicz dissenting), reconfirming his appointment as cao and making public his salary and benefits package — the top-of-the-scale $104,762 salary; five weeks of annual vacation; 12 months of sick leave credits; a car allowance; $500 annually for professional memberships; plus the whole package of health, dental, long-term disability, and group insurance benefits available to all city hall supervisors and fully paid for by the city.100 Plus, Fratesi could presume, his appeal of Meehan’s verdict and his defamation suit would keep the judicial processes rolling in the directions he wanted them to for the foreseeable future. We had some other ideas.

159

More Convictions and Values I am against government by crony. — HAROLD L. ICKES

A SECOND APPLICATION

Dee and I met with McLeod shortly after Meehan’s ruling to review our options. The situation was now very different from what we had imagined four months earlier it would be. We had thought we were going to fight one case and get a guilty verdict before the council could appoint Fratesi cao a second time. But the length of time required to get a hearing, and the other circumstances described in Chapter 5, had worked against us. As well, we were now involved in two cases. We were not overly worried about the defamation suit, in light of Meehan’s findings and the advice we were receiving about how the suit had no chance of success. Nor did we think that Fratesi’s appeal would succeed. But these cases were certainly irritations which were causing us some anxiety. What bothered us most was that Fratesi remained cao despite the entire sequence of events through which he had gotten the job, and despite the fact that he had broken the law three times during his first lunge at it. “Three times,” Winston Churchill once wrote, “is a lot.”1 Meehan had ruled that because Fratesi’s second appointment had not been directly related to the circumstances of the first appointment, he would not consider striking down his contract. Fine, we

161

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

thought. If we could demonstrate that Fratesi had broken the law during the competition itself, perhaps a judge would then be willing to remove him from the cao’s office. We told McLeod to prepare another conflict of interest application. We had to have him hurry, though. We were going to base the application largely on Fratesi’s participation in the January 21 job interview, which had been widely reported the next day. This was when we had heard about it, and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allows an elector only six weeks from the time of learning of a possible violation to bring an application.2 We beat the ticking clock with a few days to spare, with McLeod filing the new application at the end of February. This time it took a little while for word to seep out from the courthouse, but by March 6 the story was public.3 Our application claimed that Fratesi had broken the law three more times in the last 10 days of January — by attending the closed meeting of council of January 21 when an issue in which he had a direct pecuniary interest was being considered; by participating in the job interview and promoting his candidacy that same day; and from January 21 until the end of the month, by attempting to influence councillors to vote for his appointment.4 This was as precise as we could be with the information we had at the time. The new application drew little open reaction. Fratesi made no public comments about it, and neither did we. Almost no one else did, either. Our attempts to get a court date were not very newsworthy. We did not succeed until the end of April, when the hearing was set for November 4, 1996, over six months away.5 Meanwhile, the special election campaign to replace Fratesi as mayor was by now well underway. This, and a series of other civic scandals involving the Separate School Board and the local police force, were of much more immediate interest than another conflict of interest case way off in the future.

162

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE, DOWN-HOME STYLE

Five candidates ran in the special election. The two best-known were Steve Butland, elementary school teacher, former city councillor for eight years, and the Sault’s mp in the 1988–93 Parliament; and Russ Ramsay, former broadcaster, councillor, Sault mpp, and provincial cabinet minister, subsequently head of Ontario’s Industrial Accident Prevention Association. The others were Lois Beckett, a city police constable for over 42 years; Ontario government employee Maureen Sullivan; and lab technician Robin Thibault.6 Early in the campaign Thibault made an extraordinary statement to the press, triggering a series of responses which became one of the highlights of the election. Thibault said that he met with Fratesi on March 14 to discuss a number of issues. During the meeting Fratesi mentioned that Ian MacKenzie had contacted an unspecified number of candidates or their advisors, “and that there would be a gentlemen’s agreement that (the cao appointment process) wouldn’t be discussed between those candidates.”7 Thibault told the media that he was “upset that this whole election process would be nothing but a mockery.”8 Reporters followed up this interesting accusation with these results: MacKenzie refused to confirm or deny the story to Sault This Week.9 He refused comment to his own paper’s reporter, saying that he wasn’t going to “enlarge the story,” then enlarged it by adding, “Make sure that if you’re going to use my name and you’re going to accuse me of something or you’re going to report something that is a lie that you’re aware that I’m going to sue you.”10 Fratesi told Sault This Week that four candidates had come to him and, “without being asked by me,” assured him that if elected they could work with him, and that they would not bring the cao issue up during the campaign.11 To the Sault Star, Fratesi said that four candidates (including Thibault) had approached him to

163

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

tell him how much they looked forward to working with him, and that three of them (again including Thibault) had told him that they would not be speaking about the cao issue.12 He also denied telling Thibault that MacKenzie had brokered a gentlemen’s agreement with these candidates (“Ian’s not that stupid, I’m not that stupid . . .”13). Confronted with Fratesi’s version of events, Thibault refused to retract what he had said.14 The three other candidates whom the papers were able to reach for comment — Butland, Ramsay, and Sullivan — all denied having even talked to Fratesi about the cao issue, let alone volunteered to keep quiet about it.15 Butland was forthright: Nobody’s going to put a muzzle on me. All issues are open to public debate. . . . You can’t muzzle debate. This is a democracy. What people ask you are obligated to answer regardless of the issue. I think plain and simple that’s the way it should be.16 It was pretty difficult to figure out from all this which shell the pea was under. The all-candidates debate sponsored by a local Kiwanis club two weeks later helped a bit, though. Sullivan left the meeting before the question-and-answer period. Four candidates thus faced the first questioner from the audience, who began with the flat statement that recent city council decisions such as the appointment of Fratesi as cao had made the Sault “the laughingstock of this country,”17 then asked, “What do you plan on doing to restore moral, ethical, and political integrity to our city council?”18 Ramsay thought that the cao issue would “eventually blow over,” he was “very optimistic that after a few months people will forget about all that’s happened,” and he hoped that the pro-Fratesi and anti-Fratesi “factions” could start working together.19 Butland said it was “time to move forward,”20 time “to get on with it,”21 then asked rhetorically, “And

164

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

do you suggest that we continue to hurt ourselves in the local media and yes, in the national media [by talking about this issue]?”22 Beckett agreed; it was time to “make amends and get these divisions mended.”23 She offered another reason for silence — the issue was “in the hands of the courts.”24 Thibault alone thought differently. He had said from the beginning that he would not keep quiet about Fratesi’s appointment (this had resulted in the defection of part of his original campaign team25), and he now said that if elected mayor he would ask for Fratesi’s resignation. He added that he knew he wouldn’t get it.26 A second litmus-test question was lobbed up to the candidates’ table. Who among them “would lead the campaign at the city council level to have that stupid [English-only] resolution rescinded?”27 Beckett said she’d think about it, “if it didn’t cost too much.”28 Not Butland: “Three years ago, yes. Now, no. For the same reason I don’t want to discuss that other (cao) issue. It’s too divisive.”29 (Making the same point metaphorically a week later, Butland observed that “You don’t pick at a festering sore.”30) Ramsay agreed with Butland; although he had been appalled by the passage of the resolution, and had subsequently been the butt of “snide comments” in the outside world simply because he came from Sault Ste. Marie, he believed that there was no point in reopening the issue.31 Thibault thought differently; he had been appalled by the resolution in 1990 and he was still appalled by it, and as mayor he definitely would try to get it rescinded.32 It is hard not to be sympathetic to candidates who did not want to debate either Fratesi’s appointment or the resolution.33 The front-runners Butland and Ramsay in particular were experienced politicians who could count, and who knew their community, and knew that fighting on an anti-Fratesi platform (against the appointment, the resolution, or both) would be politically suicidal. These people did after all want to win. This meant, however, that with the exception of Thibault’s efforts,

165

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

the campaigns rolled forward without discussion of the bizarre circumstances which had made the special election necessary. On May 2 Butland won an overwhelming victory, taking 23,194 votes to Ramsay’s 10,347; the other three candidates shared 3,016 votes among them.34 It was evident that the bulk of Fratesi’s political support had shifted to Butland. The conclusion Thibault drew from his experience and the 637 votes he received was that the cao issue was dead and people wanted it buried.35 This was probably right, but our second application still had to be heard. When it was, six months after Butland’s electoral triumph, the issue erupted again with a fury. At that point Fratesi supporters learned how wise they had been to vote the way they had.

THE CONSPIRACY RESURFACES

Our first line of defence against Fratesi’s defamation suit was to file a motion asking the court to strike it down. McLeod and Palombi argued the motion in late June. Just before they did, the rump of sapelr reminded the town that Joe Fratesi’s problems with the law were the result of a dark plot. sapelr’s high-water mark had been reached in early 1990 with the passage of the resolution. Later that year it tried without much success to influence the provincial election results in the Sault, by supporting the local Confederation of Regions Party candidate36 and by doing its best to tar mainstream party candidates with the linguistic tolerance brush.37 Renamed The English Language Rights Organization, it made news beyond the Sault’s borders in early 1992 when it placed ads in Alberta newspapers congratulating Premier Don Getty on his new-found opposition to official bilingualism. The

166

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

Edmonton Journal responded with an editorial entitled “Don Getty’s new friends,” telling its readers: Like it or not, the premier is now clutched in the embrace of one of the most intolerant organizations in the country. He can squirm if he likes, but he can’t escape. . . . It’s unbelievable that Peter Tadman, spokesman for the premier, can say that praise from this organization is ‘more than welcome.’ Would Tadman welcome a congratulatory telegram from the Aryan Nations with equal enthusiasm? (‘Glad to hear you’ve had enough of hyphenated Canadians! We have, too!’)38 Membership by this time was waning. The Mother of All Battles against the French in the Sault had been won decisively, and enthusiasm for the crusade couldn’t be kept at a fever pitch forever. What was left of sapelr folded itself into the Voices of Canadians Committees as one of its local chapters, and festered away quietly until the spring of 1996. At that point its executive sent a letter to the 300 remaining members telling them that a fund had been set up “to assist Joe and his family with court costs resulting from the cao issue,”39 and explaining how they could contribute. The letter said that Joe’s stand on controversial issues such as the resolution had angered the town’s elite and its special interest groups, who were using the cao issue to retaliate and make an example of him.40 Jim Liscumb, long-time sapelr stalwart and now president of the local vcc chapter, described the conspiracy. Anyone who had ever objected to the resolution could be part of it: “The same people’s names keep cropping up . . . I can’t prove it, so therefore, I’m not going

167

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Sault This Week, June 1996. Reprinted with the permission of Cyril Morden.

to go out on a limb and name names. People could get sued. We know it but we can’t prove it.”41 Even some councillors could have been involved in the plot, Liscumb went on. After all, some of Fratesi’s legal problems stemmed from the fact that he had stayed to answer questions during that closed meeting the previous September, and he had only done that because someone asked him to.42 The innocent Fratesi had evidently been entrapped by one or more councillors suborned by the French. Once again I tried to dismiss this stuff, calling it goofy and preposterous.43 Roth had sport with it in an editorial: How does Liscumb know there is a plot? Well, the same way people know Elvis is still alive. “We know it but we can’t prove it.” It’s as if a bunch of French guys dragged Fratesi

168

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

into the council chambers by the boot heels, bolted the door, wrote up the world’s sweetest job demands for him and then compelled him at gunpoint to apply for the $105,000 job as chief administrative officer. Oh, I forgot, that “Frenchman” Judge Meehan was in on it too, a deep cover mole sent here years ago by the French Foreign Legion to penetrate our justice system. The French Language issue has nothing to do with this case. Fratesi is a victim of his own behaviour. And it’s time for the Jim Liscumbs of the world to stop trying to rewrite history. The earth isn’t flat. The Holocaust happened. And Fratesi broke the law — three times according to an impartial court. Learn to live with it, Jim.44 The day after this entertainment was published, we were in court to try to have Fratesi’s defamation suit dismissed. The arguments did not take long, and it did not take long for Judge R.T.P. Gravely to rule. On June 24 he struck the suit down, ruling that the statements at issue in our factum were protected by absolute privilege.45 He also ordered Fratesi to pay the costs we had incurred in fighting him off. We were relieved.

MORE CONVICTIONS

The summer was quiet. It was business as usual down at city hall. Don Redmond, another of the architects of the eri program, retired effective June 30 with his own eri, which Fratesi had recommended council approve to facilitate the restructuring of Redmond’s engineering and planning department. Redmond did not disappear from city hall

169

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

immediately, though. On Fratesi’s recommendation, council gave him a six-month contract as a special advisor to help Fratesi — wait for it — reorganize engineering and planning.46 The savings to the taxpayers of Sault Ste. Marie from the eri program continued to pour in. Summer gave way to autumn. In preparation for the second conflict of interest hearing, we called four councillors — Niro, Rauk, Sanzosti, and Swift — and city commissioner of personnel John Luszka for examination. Their testimony and accompanying documentary evidence gave us more information on how the competition had been run (see Chapter 5), and also exposed one of the main lines of Fratesi’s defence. We were arguing that his participation in the job interview on January 21 was a clear violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. As Palombi examined Sanzosti, the shape of the counter-argument emerged. Sanzosti told Palombi that the Coopers and Lybrand consultants had prepared the agenda for the January 21 meeting, arranged the interview schedule, put together a package of background material on the finalists Fratesi and “Smith,” and distributed that package to councillors through Luszka’s office. He also confirmed that consultant Wallace had chaired the January 21 meeting until after the interviews were over.47 Then, Q: Okay. How long have you been a member of council for the city of Sault Ste. Marie? A: About 30 years. Q: Has there ever been a meeting of council which has been chaired by someone other than the mayor or a member of council that you’ve attended over the last 30 years? A: A meeting of council? Q: Yes. In which someone other than the mayor or a

170

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

member of council has acted as chairman, that you can recall. . . . A: No. I don’t think we’re allowed to do that. Q: Okay. And it’s clear that at least — A: A meeting of council has to be called by someone on council or the mayor. I don’t think we’d be — I may be wrong. I don’t think we could have a meeting of council without — Q: Your view is that you can’t have a meeting of council without it being chaired by the mayor or some member of council. And do I gather you’re also of the view that you can’t have a meeting unless it’s been called by council? A: Well, council, or council members, or the mayor.48 Simple. The defence was going to be that the crucial council meeting of January 21 hadn’t been a council meeting at all, and therefore Fratesi could not possibly have breached the Act by attending the job interview. The case surfaced to public view a few days before the hearing, when McLeod and Palombi filed their factums at the courthouse and reporters got hold of them and filed stories. It appeared as if almost no one except journalists, and Dee and I and our families, was interested in it. Only a handful of spectators were in the courtroom on November 4 to listen to the lawyers make their arguments before Judge John Poupore of Sudbury. Even Fratesi didn’t attend the hearing. When asked why his client wasn’t in court, Palombi said that he didn’t know; contacted later by a reporter, Fratesi said that his lawyer had told him he didn’t have to be there.49 McLeod argued that it was impossible for a sitting mayor or a councillor to apply for a job awarded by a council without contravening the Act, and thus Fratesi had broken the law repeatedly from the

171

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

time he submitted his application until the negotiation of terms and conditions was over. He dismissed the notion that the January 21 session was not a council meeting as “something very artful and contrived by the candidate and his defence — a meeting is not a meeting.”50 If that were so, why had Fratesi declared a conflict of interest immediately upon entering the room that day, before asking his colleagues to invite him to a job interview?51 McLeod dismissed Fratesi’s testimony that he had relied on legal advice that he could enter the competition without resigning as mayor; the only written opinion produced in support of that claim was George Rust-D’Eye’s, and that opinion dealt with an entirely different question. If Judge Poupore agreed with him and found that Fratesi had again broken the law, McLeod finished, he should order Fratesi to make restitution; “otherwise, there is no meaningful remedy.”52 Restitution in the circumstances of this case should mean the cancellation of his employment contract.53 But Palombi told Poupore that, “You’re being asked as a judge to interfere in a political forum,” and to grant the remedy McLeod was asking for would be to go “beyond all democratic processes.”54 Besides, Palombi argued, if Fratesi had in fact broken the law, it had only been because of his inadvertence or his proneness to make errors in judgement.55 Poupore told the lawyers that he would rule on November 6. On that day, however, he said that he had not finished writing his decision on what he called an “obviously difficult and complex”56 issue, but promised that he would do so as quickly as he could. He added that he intended “to take as much time as necessary to render a decision that is clear.”57 The decision reached Sault Ste. Marie on December 2.58 It was indeed pretty clear. Poupore found that the January 21 council meeting was indeed a council meeting.59 He found that Fratesi had breached the Act by submitting his job application to the council which he

172

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

presided over as mayor, by attending the January 21 meeting, by contacting commissioner of personnel Luszka on January 22 to find out what was holding his appointment up, and by his entire “course of conduct” over the period from January 21 to January 31.60 Here were three more violations of the Act (four if the phone call to Luszka on the 22nd were distinguished from the rest of his actions during the last 10 days of January) to go along with the three violations found earlier in the year by Judge Meehan. If three times is a lot, six or seven times is a lot more. About the fair and equitable competition, Poupore wrote, The hiring process was not conducted on a level playing field. The then sitting mayor of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, with all of the powers that are lodged in that office, entered into and actively participated in a competition for the chief administrative officer’s position at the city. He did not see fit to resign prior to submitting his application for the position. This was a competition for a position, the decision upon which was to be made by council. How could they not be influenced by the mayor, or to use the words of ss. 72(1) of the Municipal Act, by the “head of council.” His participation amounted to an attempt to influence and at the least, it is the perception he succeeded in his chosen task. Had council voted not to accept the mayor for the position, at the very next meeting of council, he would be presiding as “head of council” over those very same members who voted against his candidacy.61 To the proposition that Fratesi’s breaches of the Act had been merely the result of an error in judgement, Poupore in effect said,

173

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

“Come on, gimme a break.” Fratesi had been a practising lawyer for 25 [sic] years, he wrote. Given that, and his long experience as a councillor and mayor, it could not be said that he lacked knowledge of municipal affairs and municipal law. Quite the reverse was true.62 As for the argument that he had been guided by legal opinions, the only written one (Rust-D’Eye’s) provided to the court “clearly indicates the question of the mayor’s possible resignation while proceeding to apply for the position of cao, was not addressed.”63 And as if all this wasn’t enough, Fratesi was already facing conflict of interest allegations over his first attempt to secure the job when he went after it the second time: The respondent did not see fit to resign his position as mayor in order to properly seek, and hopefully attain, the position of cao. There is no doubt he was attempting to “have his cake and eat it too” by using the influence of his office to obtain his desired goal, and if he failed, retain the office of mayor. He did so during the meeting of city council on September 25th, 1995 and was found to be in contravention of the Act by Meehan, J. He then turned around and did it again [my italics].64 Noting that Meehan had already given Fratesi a four-year disqualification, Poupore ordered a further six-year ban on his being a member of either a council or a local board. This penalty would run consecutive to the one Meehan had imposed,65 which meant that the best man for the job had just had his right to run for a seat on the council he worked for lifted for a total of 10 years. No one else in the modern conflict of interest sweepstakes in Ontario had ever come close to drawing as heavy a penalty.

174

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

But Poupore did not think he could use the principle of restitution to strike down Fratesi’s employment contract. Fratesi’s breaches of the law had not in his view resulted in “personal financial gain or profit”66 narrowly construed, since presumably he was going to have to work for his salary and benefits, and the judge was not convinced that anyone was “out of pocket”67 as a result of how Fratesi had gotten the job. Moreover, Section 12 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act constrained the court’s ability to craft a remedy based on restitution; that section clearly gave the power to rescind the employment contract to the council alone.68 The judge was not happy where this left him. It appeared, he wrote, that Fratesi had “successfully put himself out of reach of the penalties” of being removed from the mayor’s office or being obliged to make some form of restitution, while the only punishment the court could apply — disqualification — was “not sufficient.”69 Fratesi had clearly benefited personally in the broad sense of the term by getting the job, breaking the law in the process. Council could fire him, and Poupore invited it to do so: “Perhaps city council should be guided by the words of [Justice] Mansfield [quoted earlier in the decision] which paraphrased for this case would be ‘the respondent ought to be prevented from retaining a benefit it is against conscience that he should keep.’”70

MORE VALUES

Coming as it did on top of Meehan’s earlier verdict, this decision seemed to wake the Sault up and shake it. For one group of people, Poupore’s findings exposed for the first time a four-month pattern of illegal behaviour, and Joe had to go. The more vocal among them phoned their councillors and Mayor Butland, since the unrepentant Fratesi made it plain that he would not go voluntarily. He issued an

175

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

immediate press release assuring everyone that his illegal behaviour had been guided by legal advice (including George Rust-D’Eye’s), and implying that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was the villain of the piece because it did not provide clear enough guidelines for elected officials who wanted to become bureaucrats.71 His lawyer told the public that he was “still the best person for the job.”72 The larger group was solidly behind Fratesi, and was prepared to ignore his behaviour or blame his problems on the conspiracy (which the theoreticians now widened to include this second judge73). These people sensed that Poupore’s suggestion to council to do its duty could mean trouble, and reached for their phones too. Councillors were deluged with even more calls in the four days following the release of Poupore’s judgement than they had been following the September 25 meeting the previous year.74 Council members knew that they had to do something this time; they simply couldn’t ignore Poupore’s verdict as they had ignored Meehan’s. As their new leader, Butland swung into action. The verdict had been made public on Monday, December 2. On Tuesday the 3rd, the mayor told the press that he had a “reasoned, rational approach” and he was anxious to deal with the cao issue so that council could get on with other business.75 Council would meet in closed session probably on Thursday the 5th to discuss what to do; it would also hold a public meeting at which citizens as well as councillors could express their views.76 But by that day the prospect of having to listen to angry citizens on both sides of the question, some of whom could be trusted to say some difficult things eloquently, had evidently become unappetizing. Council would deal with Poupore’s recommendation later that day in closed session, Butland announced that morning. There would subsequently be an open meeting at which councillors would explain what they had decided to do about Fratesi. And no, members of the public would not be allowed to speak

176

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

during that meeting; after all, “It would be counter productive to have hundreds or thousands [sic] of people take sides in a room stating and restating their position.”77 It would probably take quite a long time, too. Press reports the next day made it clear that councillors had decided to reject Poupore’s suggestion to fire Fratesi, by the 8–3 margin which had hired him in January.78 This meant that the outcome of the voting which would occur at the open session was known in advance, but an overflow crowd was still drawn to city hall that evening, and many more people watched the show on the community cable channel. The town had never seen anything quite like this before; neither had the province for that matter. In addition, Butland in his new capacity as mayor was still something of an unknown quantity, and there was much interest in what he was going to do. Before the set-piece speeches began, city solicitor Bottos responded to questions from councillors. Yes, he said, Poupore’s ruling meant that Fratesi would not be able to sit on any local boards including the Economic Development Corporation, but he would still be able to attend board sessions and make presentations to them if council so requested.79 The obvious implication was that any practical consequences of Poupore’s ban on Fratesi’s sitting on local boards could be nullified.80 More interestingly though, Bottos confirmed that council had up to two years from the date of the bylaw appointing Fratesi cao (January 31, 1996) to terminate his contract.81 Thus, regardless of whatever decision it made this evening, council could revisit the issue any time until January 31, 1998. And since municipal elections were scheduled for November 1997, the council elected then would have the better part of three months to fire Fratesi if it wanted to. The speeches began. Fratesi’s eight loyalists provided a range of rationalizations for their continued support as they took their turns at the microphone. The cao was a brilliant man who was

177

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

being victimized, and they weren’t going to participate in his public lynching or his “crucification” [sic], or see him tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. It was not their job as councillors to punish him; in fact, it wasn’t proper for Poupore to have suggested this in the first place, and he probably wasn’t very serious about it. Fratesi was no criminal; he had already been punished enough; councillors had made mistakes throughout the process too, and it wasn’t fair to lay all of the blame for this situation on him. Besides, Poupore’s decision was badly flawed, inconsistent, and illogical. Fratesi should never even have been in court a second time, since the one issue at stake was his desire to get a new job, and that had been dealt with in Meehan’s courtroom. But anyway, what he had done couldn’t have been all that serious, since neither judge had imposed the maximum disqualification period allowed under the law. Fratesi had had the misfortune of receiving incorrect legal advice about the appropriateness of his jobsearch methods. Shoot, he had just made a little error in judgement, and that was all. He had not broken the spirit of the law.82 Oh yes he had, said Borowicz, Rauk, and Swift. He had broken the law repeatedly and intentionally, and council had to take the advice of the court seriously. If councillors did not fire him, the message it would send to the community was very simple — if you were a powerful and popular figure in Sault Ste. Marie, you could break the law and get away with it. What did that say about values here? How could the youth of the community be expected to respect the law in these circumstances?83 Good questions, which the new mayor as the evening’s final speaker ignored. Instead, in a rambling and often maudlin speech he called Fratesi competent, offered his unequivocal and unconditional support, and paraphrased Henry Kissinger in proposing that there was some (undefined) high community interest in Fratesi’s remaining cao which was more important than the law. He lashed out at the residents

178

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

of the town who were angry with the misbehaviour at city hall and emerging evidence of serious problems within the local police force, and horrified by the sexual assault scandal in the Separate School system. How dare people criticize our local institutions, Butland demanded? This negativity had to stop, and if the media came looking for stories about what was going wrong in the Sault, residents should give them only positive sound bites. Our city, right or wrong. The town needed closure on the Fratesi issue; both his supporters and his opponents must let the whole business drop; they should all “check their baggage at the door.”84 And oh yes, Fratesi had told him that he regretted what had happened and was contrite, and would be making a public statement to that effect.85 One of the most dismal parts of the mayor’s speech was the selfportrait — “Steve Butland as Repentant Petty Thief ”— he painted: Let he or she without some sin, without some sort of conflict with their employer over the years throw the big stones. I’ve had conflict with my employer. I don’t want to bare my soul here, but I remember when I was an mp, bothered me ever since. I ripped off the Government of Canada and therefore the taxpayers for $52.00. It’s been bothering me ever since. I’m glad to tell yuh, finally. You know what I did? I was travelling via car from Ottawa to Sault Ste. Marie and they allotted $52.00 a day I think for expenses. Yeah. It took me half a day. I claimed $26.00, but I didn’t eat any food. And I took the $26.00 and God, I was so proud of the money that I had taken, and I did it again. So, now I want to bare my soul and say, “God, I’m sorry, folks I hope I can give the 52 bucks back.”

179

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

We’ve all, we’ve all got things in our closets somewhere that we’ve had a conflict with our employer. We might have stole [sic] a bar of soap at work, or a garbage bag, or something. The difference was, I didn’t get caught. If I had been caught at that time, a judge would have found me guilty, and removed me from my job as a Member of Parliament.86 This was preposterous. Butland was the Sault’s mp from 1988 to 1993. Under the rules in effect when he was elected, members who chose to travel between Ottawa and their ridings by car were not allowed to claim any reimbursement for their meals en route, period. This changed in April 1990 with the introduction of the members’ Travel Status Expenses entitlement. Now those members who drove between their constituencies and Ottawa could claim for their meals, on a standard per diem basis with no receipts required. Such claims were (and still are) settled against the Travel Status Expenses entitlements.87 This system is simply a variant on the practice which many organizations (including city hall in the Sault) follow — they reimburse employees at standard rates for their travelling expenses. This saves employers the enormous cost of auditing receipts for individual meals, dry cleaning, and the like. No dishonesty whatever is imputed to employees who claim expenses at standard rates without actually having incurred them. Butland had done nothing wrong by submitting standard claims for travelling expenses after April 1, 1990. His suggestions that he had, and that a judge would have removed him from office for doing so, were absurd. Only he knows for sure why he made these statements. Their immediate effect, however, was to trivialize Fratesi’s behaviour by comparing it to an (imaginary) expense-account peccadillo, or

180

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

some other so-called conflict with an employer. As well, this deflected attention from the fact that Fratesi was not in conflict with his employer at all. Far from it. His conflict was with the law. In retrospect, Butland’s decision to vote to reconfirm Fratesi as cao was hardly surprising. As the city’s mp nearly six years earlier, he had not challenged Fratesi and his political power in any meaningful way when the English-only resolution was passed. Among his first reactions then had been the statement that people should simply be quiet about the resolution, because to talk about it was too divisive. He had run his mayoralty campaign in March and April 1996 on a platform of silence about Fratesi’s appointment (and the resolution as well) knowing where the votes were on these issues, and he had reaped the reward.

Sault This Week, December 1996. Reprinted with the permission of Cyril Morden.

181

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

On the evening of December 6, 1996, he didn’t challenge Fratesi’s still considerable power either. He preferred to lecture the city on the benefits of maintaining silence within its borders, and putting positive spins on ugly events for the consumption of the outside world. At the time, though, many of the now aroused minority which wanted Fratesi gone had mistakenly expected something different from Butland, and felt angry and betrayed. Reaction was swift and loud. Editors denounced Butland’s abdication of responsibility and the lack of moral authority and leadership he had displayed, with Roth describing his conduct as reprehensible.88 A scathing Sault This Week editorial cartoon pictured the mayor in a city council old-boys’-club shirt checking his baggage — principles, moral leadership, integrity — at the door.89 Denunciations poured into the talk shows and the talkback lines and the opinion pages of the papers. Butland’s defence of Fratesi was the “biggest disappointment.”90 His performance was “amazing if not simply pathetic.”91 He and the Gang of Eight had just told the residents of the city to “swallow our ethics and turn a blind eye once again to a lack of integrity on the part of elected officials.”92 How disheartening it was to have learned that the mayor had “placed himself under the thumb of Joe Fratesi” and was kow towing to him.93 His behaviour and that of the other eight was mortifying and profoundly embarrassing.94 It was buffoonery.95 It was another “denial of guilt by the leaders of this city that is at the heart of every issue that has blackened the reputation of Sault Ste. Marie of late.”96 “Shame on you, Mr. Butland. . . .”97 This hurt.98 However, Butland could take comfort from the fact that Christmas was approaching fast, and the natural rhythms of the holiday season would dampen down the noise level. Fratesi had issued a pro forma statement of regret,99 and Butland thought that at least some of the angry people would see that as a sign of good faith.100 He had urged Fratesi to drop his appeal of Meehan’s decision and not to

182

MORE CONVICTIONS AND VALUES

appeal Poupore’s, and seemed to think that Fratesi had agreed.101 Poupore had not yet assigned costs, but he would do that early in the new year and then that issue would be disposed of. There were therefore grounds for hoping that the cao issue would fade quietly away, perhaps resurfacing as a blip during the elections in November 1997. The issue was in fact just entering its most bitter and, from the perspectives of my family and me, its most illuminating phase.

183

The Worst of the Affair We’re all a warm and loving people here in Sault Ste. Marie. — JOE FRATESI

A CASE AGAINST THE COUNCIL

While the war of words over the council’s decision and the new mayor’s contribution to it continued to rage, Dee and I sat down with McLeod to review the situation again. Fratesi’s repeated unwillingness or inability to keep his private interests separate from his public duties had now been exposed as clearly as we could have wanted. The penalties he had drawn were by far the heaviest the courts had ever imposed under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. But he still had the job he had broken the law repeatedly in getting. This angered us deeply. We wanted him out. We wondered if we could persuade a judge to take his job away on the grounds that the councillors who had given it to him knew or should have known that they were participating in an illegal act. Fratesi had declared a conflict of interest when he appeared at the meeting the previous January 21, then asked to be invited for a job interview. Council had complied, which at face value looked like a conscious effort to help him circumvent the law. We thought as well that if we could demonstrate that several councillors had decided to give Fratesi the job a second time even before the competition began — some of 185

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

them were on the public record with statements suggesting they had — our argument would be strengthened. We instructed McLeod to examine whether we had a reasonable case to argue. If we did, and we decided to go forward, we would be proceeding this time against the council rather than Fratesi. We also discussed whether to appeal Judge Poupore’s conclusion that he could not use the principle of restitution to take away Fratesi’s job. We thought that an appeal might succeed, but we decided, with one caveat, to have McLeod focus on the possible case against the council. The caveat was this: Despite Butland’s comments at the December 6 meeting which indicated that Fratesi would abandon his one appeal and not launch a second, time passed without any sign that he was going to do this. We decided that if he chose to appeal Poupore’s verdict (he had 30 days to do so) we would cross-appeal and try to get him out of the cao’s office that way. But we didn’t think he would give us that opportunity. We were wrong. Late in December Palombi filed Fratesi’s notice that he would appeal Poupore’s ruling.1 This had two immediate effects — it triggered our cross-appeal which McLeod filed a few days later, and it provided another twist which kept the story running in the media. It turned out that Fratesi had not told the mayor beforehand about his latest move, despite Butland’s generous endorsement of him and the impression he had given the city that Fratesi had agreed not to appeal.2 Fratesi refused to talk to the press, leaving Butland to twist in the wind, to do his best to explain that he really hadn’t had any such agreement from Fratesi after all, and he hadn’t meant to suggest that he had. His comments kept the story interesting and entertaining for the better part of January. He had made a pretty stupid statement on the evening of December 6, he said, and he had been surprised by people’s negative reactions to his story of the $52.00, but he wasn’t going to give that money back because he was now satisfied that he was entitled to

186

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

it after all.3 As for his support for Fratesi, if he had voted against reaffirming the cao that wouldn’t have changed the outcome, so what would have been the point?4 He wasn’t a liar, he didn’t double-speak, he wasn’t naïve or less than intelligent, and he was going to come out of this situation with his integrity intact.5 The situation would be much improved if the press would just stop printing stories about the cao affair.6 The latest editorial attack on him by Roth at Sault This Week was “replete with innuendo, untruths, inaccuracies, character assassination, etc.,” and Roth should try telling the truth.7 Butland had no sooner finished asking rhetorically, “Is there no end to it?”8 when Judge Poupore echoed Judge Meehan’s previous ruling on costs and ordered Fratesi to pay all of our bills for the second case.9 The result was more media coverage, and something else. McLeod had developed the case against the council as Dee and I had asked him to do, and it seemed reasonable and worth a try. Poupore’s order on costs gave us the comfort we needed to bring the action. Although Fratesi’s appeals were still running, we were confident they would fail, and once they did he would have to pay our outstanding bills. Thus our exposure would be limited to the case against the council, and even if we lost it we expected the costs to be manageable. McLeod filed our new application on January 23. It argued that the bylaw appointing Fratesi cao a year earlier was illegal, that it “conferred a preferential benefit upon the then mayor and head of council, in circumstances where improper means were used to procure its passage,”10 that the councillors who had given him the job had pre-judged the entire issue, and that they had broken their fiduciary obligations as councillors.11 It asked that the bylaw be quashed.12 Council reacted quickly. Within days it decided not to rely on its own or other local lawyers, but to hire a large Toronto law firm to defend it.13 Bottos first explained that a firm from outside the Sault would bring “an objective assessment to the issues at hand.”14 Subsequently he said that it

187

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

should have been obvious why an outside firm had to be hired: “If the case had been kept in-house we would have been criticized for either not working diligently enough if we had lost the case or having been ordered by our boss to devote all our efforts to defending the bylaw. Either way we would have been open to criticism.”15 Something else was immediately obvious to us — the potential costs we were facing by continuing to fight had just jumped dramatically. Fratesi’s reaction to the new application was pretty quick too. While the council was deciding how to deal with us, he had been reviewing his situation. The court battles of the past 15 months had put a heavy strain on his family.16 He had lost the two conflict cases decisively and had had his defamation suit dismissed. He had been stuck with our costs as well as his own, and carrying on with the appeals was simply going to drive his bills higher. Our cross-appeal was a potentially dangerous wild card which just might cost him his job. On top of all this, here was now a new case. True, it was going to be defended by the best legal talent the taxpayers’ money could buy, but it still meant months of ongoing stress and another possibility that his job might be snatched away. The situation was becoming unpalatable, and he decided to try to end it through an offer of settlement conveyed to McLeod on January 30. He would drop his appeals if we would drop the cross-appeal, which was fine with us, but the offer went downhill rapidly from there. He demanded that we drop the new case against the city (which we were not prepared to do on his say-so) and he proposed to pay about twothirds of our bills rather than all of them, as the courts had ordered him to do. He then made most of the details of his offer public in a press release the next day. He wanted closure, he said, adding that he was ready to drop his appeals because, “The interests of the city of Sault Ste. Marie and all of its citizens must come first,”17 assuring everyone that, “The best interests of the city of Sault Ste. Marie have always been my

188

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

first and foremost consideration,”18 adding that the toll on his family had been huge and, “We all need to get on with our lives.”19 Whatever Fratesi thought he was doing by moving the negotiation into the public domain, he was also keeping the issue running hard in the press. So did our rejection of his offer, which we sent him in the form of an open letter from McLeod to the media. If Fratesi were sincere in saying that he was ready to drop his appeals for the good of the community, McLeod asked, what was stopping him? Let him do that and we would drop the cross-appeal, but Dee and I were not going to accept a settlement which would leave us with thousands of dollars worth of bills which were his responsibility. And as for breaking off the new action aimed at taking away his job — “the job that the courts have said he got by breaking the law,”20 — our answer was implicit in McLeod’s elegant summing up: Some of us may question the value of punishment, but surely we at least agree that the person who breaks the law because he covets something ought not to be allowed to keep it. I have spent most of my professional life defending people accused of breaking the law. All of those people had a fair hearing, in a court where the rule of law was respected. Every person who was found to have broken the law, even the least of our laws, was punished. Where a person admitted wrong-doing, before trial, and demonstrated remorse and repentance, that punishment was often very lenient. Sometimes more lenient than the public demanded. But I have never seen a case where the person who broke the law was allowed to keep the thing that he coveted.21 So no closure yet.

189

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Noise, anxiety, and anger, though, and plenty of it. As soon as Dee and I announced, by bringing the case against the council, that the cao affair was not over, the atmosphere in town became uglier than it had been since we filed the first application. We could see it in the tone of the pro-Fratesi letters showing up thick and fast in the papers.22 We could hear it in the voices of people calling the radio and television stations. We could feel it in the rumour sweeping through town that our fight against Fratesi was an “Italian thing,” that we were bigots picking on Fratesi because he was an iconic figure in the Italian community. Then a new conspiracy-theory story, which demonstrated by virtue of its staggering stupidity just how desperately Fratesi supporters were groping for weapons to turn on us, started swirling.

THE SMOKING FLAGS

In outlining the plot against Fratesi in June of the previous year, Jim Liscumb had lamented, “We know it but we can’t prove it.” This was what was missing — hard evidence which could be shoved in the faces of those who really thought this fight was about ethics in public office and respect for the law. Imagine the delight experienced by much of the city, then, when Joe Orazietti, member of a prominent Sault family, well-known merchant and real estate salesman, solid Englishonly-resolution man, former candidate for city council,23 stumbled across proof positive that I was in league with the French to do Fratesi in, and spread the news. You need some background to understand what Orazietti found. As soldiers of the Canadian army, my father and my uncles Roy and Tom had fought in the campaign which liberated Holland in the winter and spring of 1945. Roy was wounded before the final campaign began, but went back into the line quickly; Dad was wounded terribly

190

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

in its closing weeks. Like millions of other families around the world, ours lived with miserable after-effects of the war which lingered on after Dad died in 1978. The war was not something we were ever quite able to close the book on. In 1994, my sister Diane told my mother and me about the mammoth preparations Holland was making to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Liberation. Dutch organizations were encouraging Canadian veterans and their families to share in the celebrations; they were putting together packages which included billets with Dutch families and preferential klm air fares, which put a 10-day pilgrimage within easy financial reach. Diane had arranged to do an article on the celebrations for the Royal Canadian Legion’s national magazine, and she wanted company. Mom and I decided we should not pass up the opportunity, and so the three of us joined one of the tours and flew to Holland in April 1995. The thoughtfulness which had guided the planning of the main ceremonies of remembrance and celebration, the precision with which they unfolded, the heartfelt gratitude with which Holland honoured Canadian veterans 50 years after the event, the warmth of Dutch hospitality, and the reactions of the veterans to what they were experiencing, were remarkable to see. So were the flags. The country was covered with flags — the Maple Leaf flying side by side with the Dutch tricolour from every flagpole and from thousands of ropes and wires strung especially for the occasion in town after town, the Red, White, and Blue Ensigns, the flags of the other Allies, pennants, banners, streamers, bunting everywhere. The Dutch had spared no effort in dressing the country up for the party. The visual and emotional effects were overwhelming. A few months after we returned from Holland, Fratesi made his first run at Jackson’s job and the legal battles started. Then a series of disasters struck my family. In January 1996 my sister Karen died of

191

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

ovarian cancer. Karen’s death, and the death of Mom’s sister-in-law two months later, were blows which she could not sustain; she collapsed and died in May 1996. Then in October 1996 Diane, who had battled multiple sclerosis for over 20 years, underwent emergency surgery for the removal of a massive ovarian tumour. It was malignant, and her doctor told her to prepare for a second operation in mid-November. When the Dutch friends who had hosted us learned what Diane was facing, two of them decided to fly to the Sault in November to give her their support before and after the operation. This was an act of great kindness, and we wanted to give them as warm a welcome as we could. We remembered how Holland had been festooned with flags a year-and-a-half earlier. I had a Dutch flag, and Diane now made a second one by adding red and blue stripes to a piece of white cardboard. So when Marlies Bontje and Aaltje Aanstoot got off the plane at the Sault’s airport, Diane and her husband Roth were there with one Dutch flag and Janet and I were there with the other. Joe Orazietti was out at the airport that night too, and took in the sights. I didn’t know what he had made of them until radio broadcaster John Campbell phoned me late in January 1997. A sapelr diehard had just phoned him in a rage, to tell him that a very wellknown local businessman (Orazietti, it turned out) had seen me running around the airport waving two Quebec flags high in the air, and here was the missing proof of the conspiracy. Campbell knew this was nonsense, but called me to ask if there was any factual basis at all on which such a story could have been constructed. Boing. Our Dutch flags. The Dutch flag is a tricolour with horizontal stripes. The French flag is a tricolour with vertical stripes. It is easy enough to understand how someone with limited first-hand exposure to Holland and France could confuse horizontal and vertical, and think that we had been

192

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

waving French flags at the airport the previous November. For Orazietti to get from the Dutch flag through the French flag to the Quebec flag (four white fleurs-de-lis and a white cross on a blue field), and then make of that what he did, demanded a higher order of imagination and other qualities entirely. This is just too stupid, I thought after my conversation with Campbell; nobody other than a few sapelroid nutters could ever believe this. I was wrong again. Despite my experiences thus far, I remained slow to understand just how much the townsfolk were ready and eager to believe. Soon afterwards I learned from a friend who has lived in the Sault all his life that the story was spreading rapidly and was being lapped up with glee. Here were the smoking flags; the conspiracy was finally exposed; clearly, irrefutably, Joe truly was an innocent victim of dark and dirty intrigue. I denied publicly again that Dee and I were part of any plot against Fratesi, and did my best to poke fun at the stupidity the flag business represented.24 I don’t think I made much headway; reality checks in the Sault were becoming even more irrelevant than usual, as the noise level over the cao affair continued to rise through the rest of the winter and into the spring.

MORE UGLINESS

A few days after Dee and I rejected Fratesi’s offer to settle, we made an offer of our own to the council. It had dawned on us that even if we won this new case and got Fratesi ousted from his job through judicial order, council could simply organize another fair and equitable competition and re-appoint him. We were thinking hard as well about the much higher level of financial risk we were running, given the involvement of the Torontonians. We wondered whether instead of going to

193

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

court again, we could extract the truth from Fratesi and the council about what had gone on. The truth would be valuable to have on the public record, we thought, particularly in light of the upcoming municipal election now only nine months away. We decided to settle for the truth, if we could get it. Accordingly, we offered to drop the case against the city. In exchange, we demanded that Fratesi, Butland, and all councillors except John Solski (who had not participated in the process) sign a 15point declaration which set out the key facts of the cao affair, based on sworn evidence gathered in preparation for the conflict of interest hearings, and on the two judges’ findings. Among other things, we wanted all concerned to acknowledge that Fratesi had knowingly and wilfully and repeatedly broken the law to get his job, that he had attempted to mislead the public about George Rust-D’Eye’s legal opinion, and that councillors knew or should have known that he was breaking the law but played along with him. The last point of the declaration read that Mayor Butland and Councillors Moore, DeLuca, Chisholm, Szczepanik, Trembinski, Niro, Cameletti, and Sanzosti “continue to endorse Joseph M. Fratesi as cao despite the unlawfulness of the way in which he obtained that job.”25 Our offer promptly leaked to the media. It, and Fratesi’s and council’s quick rejection, made more good press.26 So did the news that residents disgusted with city hall had just formed an organization called Citizens for Good Government, which would try to encourage and support new and credible candidates to run in the coming election.27 So did the news a week and a half later that Fratesi was withdrawing his appeals in exchange for our dropping the crossappeal, and that he had agreed to pay all of our bills after all. His lawyer’s press release of February 25 also urged us to drop the case against the council “in the best interests of all concerned.”28 Through McLeod, we told the town that we weren’t going to do that unless all

194

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

concerned at city hall acknowledged the roles they had played in the cao affair and accepted responsibility for their actions. Butland refused comment on any of this.29 The campaign aimed at vilifying Dee and me now intensified.30 The smoking flags story was still making the rounds, and Fratesi-ites continued to insist that revenge for the resolution was at the heart of his troubles.31 One embittered soul even dragged my dead mother into the mudslinging, recalling for everyone’s benefit that she and I had been on opposite sides of the resolution fight in 1990, and asking how proud Mom would have been about what I was doing now.32 But there was a lot more. Dee and I were “two hyenas flaying a carcass of a dead beast.”33 We were McCarthyists leading a witch hunt against a great citizen; we were clowns who were posturing on the altar of morality.34 We were vindictive character assassins and a venom representing a “dangerous malignant growth” on the community.35 It was Dee and I — not Fratesi’s appointment — who should be rescinded, a proposal that was suggestive, if a little vague.36 The letter which conspiracy-theorist Jim Liscumb sent to the editors of the Sault Star and Sault This Week at the end of the first week of March has to be read with the charged atmosphere of the town in mind: Recently someone was going through school yearbooks from the 1960s and came across an interesting article in the 1961 issue of the Sault Collegiate Institute (yearbook) Argus. Someone dropped the information off to me anonymously. The person said that they found the photograph on page 144 of the boys’ curling club interesting. It was a picture of a team of curlers which included Harvey Sims and Udo Rauk. What they found on page 22 rather than being interesting, was

195

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

disturbing. Part of the graduating Grade 13 class was Harvey Sims, yes the same Harvey Sims who has been partly responsible for the recent court applications involving the cao matter and Joe Fratesi. Sims stated his “ambition in life” to be the following words: “to direct a public stoning.” This doesn’t speak well for the character of Harvey Sims. Well, Mr. Sims, I hope you have finally realized your life’s ambition.37 The Sault Star’s editor declined to print the scoop that I was a frustrated fundamentalist killer, and that a 36-year-old conspiratorial link existed between me and Councillor Rauk.38 Roth on the other hand chose to deal with it in his usual head-on style, which had turned Sault This Week under his editorial management from a pennysaver tabloid into a widely read and respected paper. However, his decision to have more fun with Liscumb and try to teach others another lesson had devastating consequences for him and my sister. It did start out well, though. Roth knew instantly how he wanted to play Liscumb’s letter and had a little research done to learn what some prominent people in town had written about themselves in their graduating years. On March 19 Sault This Week ran Liscumb’s letter under the headline “Sims and Rauk caught curling together in 1961.” This was accompanied by the photograph of our schoolboy curling team, and an editor’s note from Roth entitled “Conspiracy of curlers is added to ‘French’ plot.” After pouring scorn on those who did their dirty work anonymously, and labelling the conspiracy theorists both desperate and demented, Roth wrote that if the yearbook comments of 17-year-olds were to be taken seriously the Sault was in big trouble. In 1960, future mayor Butland had written that his ambition in life was “to get more stag movies,” and Chief of Police Bob Davies’s 1975 yearbook described him as a “local hustler” with “fast hands.”39 It wasn’t

196

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

clear, Roth added, whether the reference was to babes or to billiards. On Friday, March 21, two days after the town had been regaled with this exposé, the Sault’s own Deep Throat called Roth and suggested that he find out from the city museum who had borrowed its copy of the 1961 Collegiate yearbook recently. The museum’s staff were initially reluctant to talk — city hall provides much of the museum’s operating budget40 — but Roth was persistent and persuasive, and learned something startling. On February 26, about a week and a half before Liscumb sent his letter to the papers, Joe Fratesi’s secretary had phoned the museum. She said that a councillor needed the 1961 Argus for some unspecified purpose and asked whether it could be borrowed.41 It could, and the cao himself appeared at the museum later that day to sign it out on behalf of the city of Sault Ste. Marie.42 Here was a suddenly serious story — Fratesi, possibly, as Liscumb’s anonymous source of information — and Roth pursued it. Sault This Week was printed on Tuesdays, which meant that the story had to be nailed down on Monday, March 24, if it was to get in that week’s edition. First thing that Monday morning Roth had a reporter phone Fratesi and start asking questions. An angry Fratesi immediately phoned Roth’s boss, Sault This Week publisher Rick Muncaster, to complain about the questions and to demand an apology.43 This was far from the first time Fratesi had phoned Muncaster to bitch about Roth’s coverage of the cao affair,44 and Muncaster was tired of it. He was tired of the whole ongoing story and concerned that Roth was alienating advertisers by the way he went after Fratesi.45 Over Roth’s objections he refused to publish the story, and according to Roth said that, “I don’t want any more of this Fratesi stuff. I’ve had enough of this Fratesi stuff and [the story’s] not going.”46 My sister phoned me late that afternoon to tell me about Muncaster’s decision, and I went over to commiserate with Roth. As he talked his way through his options, he said that if he did not find a way

197

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

of breaking the story, he would be no better than anyone else in town who was willing to ignore or suppress the truth about Fratesi’s and the council’s actions. With Diane’s support he was determined to get the story out, despite the possibility that it could cause enough trouble with his boss to get him fired. Given their circumstances — they were not independently wealthy, Roth had no other job prospects in sight, and the desperately ill Diane was recovering only very slowly from a third operation the previous month — this was brave. As well as being Sault This Week’s managing editor, Roth co-hosted the popular discussion and phone-in program Encounter, which was broadcast every Tuesday evening on the community cable tv channel. He opened the show on Tuesday March 25 by holding up a copy of the loan receipt which Fratesi had signed when he took the yearbook out of the museum, and a copy of the Liscumb letter, and demanded to know what was going on. Fratesi’s wife was watching the program; she called her husband,47 who raced out of a budget meeting at city hall48 to call Encounter. As soon as Roth took the call, Fratesi began to yell at him, but Roth refused to be intimidated and gave his audience several minutes of riveting television, pressing Fratesi persistently about his role in the yearbook affair. During an angry exchange, Fratesi admitted borrowing the yearbook (he could hardly do anything else, Roth had a copy of the museum loan receipt and kept flashing it at the camera), but denied passing on anything to Liscumb49; he said he didn’t even know this man who had launched a fundraising drive nine months earlier to help him pay his legal bills.50 Why had he borrowed the book anyway, Roth demanded, what was there in it which was remotely connected with city business? Making no mention of getting it for a councillor, Fratesi replied that someone had told him that there was something interesting in the yearbook he should see.51 (When he spoke to reporters the next day about his interest in old yearbooks, he said that

198

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

he had received several calls including some anonymous ones about this particular book.52) Would Fratesi call off the vindictive attacks of his supporters? Roth wanted to know. Would Roth stop attacking him, and start writing about other things? Fratesi demanded. Sure, when Fratesi’s people stopped doing what they were doing he would stop responding to it, said Roth, and Fratesi replied, “Then we have a deal . . . we’ll live with that deal!” and rang off.53 The obvious question which other reporters put to Roth the next day was, why hadn’t he broken the yearbook story in Sault This Week rather than on Encounter ? Roth explained that Muncaster had cancelled the story, as it was his right as publisher to do.54 Invited to comment on this, Muncaster said that he had been told by the reporter involved that there was no story worth publishing, and thus essentially it was the reporter’s decision not to publish.55 He subsequently added that Roth’s version of events left the impression that he had killed the story in response to a request from Fratesi. That was not true: “Joe Fratesi has never asked me not to print a story, he simply has more class than that.”56 No, said Muncaster, he had postponed rather than killed the story — “Consultation with my reporter indicated that more research needed to be conducted before a decision could be reached on its newsworthiness” — without telling Roth what he was doing and why.57 Two weeks later Muncaster fired Roth. Negotiations over a settlement package started immediately, and the lawyers warned their respective clients against making public comments. Muncaster did write that it was “employment issues” rather than “local controversy issues” which were at the heart of his problem with Roth,58 and he assured a crowd of 125 people who demonstrated outside Sault This Week’s offices to protest the firing that it had nothing to do with the hard-hitting way Roth had pursued the cao affair or the Ken DeLuca sexual molestation scandal.59 Councillor Swift, one of the demonstrators, had another view.

199

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

“You can hang another scalp on the belt of the forces of darkness in this town,” he said. “Free speech has just taken a punch in the eye.”60 Roth and my sister paid a heavy price. So did Sault Ste. Marie because, as the more astute minds in town recognized, it was losing a refreshingly vigorous journalist and editor who was not afraid to expose the Sault’s problems to the light of day and encourage people to do something about them. One of those astute minds belonged to high school student Craig Sloss, who wrote a periodic column for the Sault Star’s weekly feature page targeted at teenagers. The week of the pro-Roth demonstration, Sloss provided a perspective with which not many adults who thought about it could have been very comfortable: The firing of Sault This Week managing editor Robert Roth is just another nail in the coffin of Sault Ste. Marie’s image in the eyes of local teens. Many Sault teens are disillusioned with their home town and speak often of moving to other cities after they graduate from high school. Granted, one of the main reasons for this is the view that there is nothing to do in the Sault. But another — more ominous — factor is the image of our city at home and across the country. Many people, including teens, find it difficult to be proud to be from a city that, in recent years, has been plagued by such image-tarnishing events as the English-only resolution, the cao affair, the DeLuca coverup and the “Yearbook Conspiracy.” Roth’s firing is simply more gas on the fire.61 The last non-word on the great yearbook conspiracy belonged to Mayor Butland. As soon as Roth broke the story, including the fact that

200

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

Fratesi had ostensibly borrowed the book for a councillor to look at, McLeod wrote to Butland on my behalf. It looked as if Fratesi and at least one councillor were actively gathering information on me, McLeod said, and there didn’t seem to be any reasonable explanation for that. He wanted Butland’s assurance that the city did not condone “unwarranted and malicious” attacks upon his clients. Which councillor had asked the cao to get the yearbook, McLeod wanted to know, and would the mayor please find out if the information the cao had gathered for that councillor had been conveyed directly or indirectly to Liscumb?62 That letter quickly leaked to the press, which wanted to know what Butland was going to do. He didn’t know. “How do I respond? Should I respond?” he asked rhetorically. “It’s very disconcerting to get a letter from a solicitor on this issue.”63 He evidently decided that there was little profit in either learning the identity of the curious councillor or finding out that the curious councillor did not exist. He did not reply to McLeod’s letter. Three weeks after Roth lost his job, several hundred enthusiastic Fratesi supporters showed up for a party for him organized by Ian MacKenzie. Nine hundred tickets were sold. The venue was the Marconi Club; the menu was pizza and pop at $25 a head. This was an Appreciation Night to thank Fratesi for his years of service to the community, said MacKenzie. It would have been held a year and a half earlier except for “time constraints” and the fact that, as someone had put it delicately, “people thought that it might be inappropriate, given the circumstances surrounding [Fratesi’s] retirement from public office.”64 It was emphatically not a fundraiser to help the cao pay his bills (and ours),65 according to MacKenzie, and he refused to tell reporters what was going to be done with the proceeds of the event.66 “Not a fundraiser or benefit, at $25 a ticket for pizza and pop with 900 tickets sold?” asked one jaundiced observer. “Does Ian MacKenzie think we are stupid?”67

201

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Whether he did or not, he knew that he wanted no reporting of what was said and done at this particular celebration. When the press showed up at the Marconi Club, it was met with signs on the doors which said “Private Party, No Media,” and was told by MacKenzie that this was a purely social gathering and that the media was trying to make something more out of it “because of who the guest of honour is,” which was unfortunate.68 No, said a columnist a few days later, the really unfortunate thing was that by refusing to let the media cover what by any normal standard was a newsworthy event, the organizers took the edge off what should have been a sparkling affair, and did the former mayor no service at all. All they did by shutting the doors in the faces of the media was “attach to this special occasion a hint of pettiness of the kind that has tinged too many events and matters related to Joe Fratesi in recent years.”69

THE FINAL CASE

Four weeks after Fratesi’s party, Judge Richard Trainor heard our application requesting that the court quash the bylaw appointing Fratesi cao. McLeod represented us; Ronald Rolls of the Toronto firm Fasken Campbell Godfrey defended the council. That day in court went badly. Trainor was unhappy that Fratesi and his job were back before the courts for a third time, and wanted to know why we hadn’t tied this action together with one of the earlier conflict of interest cases. “It seems to be a waste of the court’s time to hear these issues piecemeal,” he told McLeod early on.70 As the day progressed, his comments and questions made it clear that he was having difficulty with our attack on the legality of councillors’ actions in appointing Fratesi. Coupled with Rolls’s appeal to him that he make us pay the city’s bills as well as our own, and his statement that he was going to be giving “very serious consideration” to awarding costs,71 this

202

THE WORST OF THE AFFAIR

sent us home from the courthouse that afternoon feeling uncomfortable. There was an odour of embalming fluid emanating from the case. We were thus not surprised when Trainor found against us in the decision he released two weeks later. What did surprise us was how close he said we had come to winning. We had not established that a majority of the councillors who had voted to appoint Fratesi had acted in bad faith, or themselves had a “private or pecuniary interest” in Fratesi’s getting the job.72 But our application had had merit, he wrote, and we had come very close to success, and for that reason he rejected Rolls’ request that costs be assessed against us on the solicitor/client scale. We would have to pay costs on the so-called party and party scale instead — our own bills plus a portion (the norm is 55–60 per cent) of the city’s.73 Trainor made several comments which were important additions to what was on the public record about the cao affair. Our two conflict of interest applications and this most recent case “were brought about because of the selfish attitude of the mayor and one or two councillors, who lost their objectivity,”74 he wrote. Further, “Mayor Fratesi improperly tried to influence council. His statements [to councillors on January 21, 1996], relating to the lack of merit in the conflict of interest applications, were inappropriate particularly coming from a lawyer and the mayor of a large city.”75 Trainor was particularly scathing in his remarks about those councillors who had acted as though they knew the law and the implications of breaking it better than Judges Meehan and Poupore: Several council members, who played down the importance of the conflict of interest allegations and the findings of two judges, appear to consider themselves above the law. That is the wrong message for municipal councillors, who are legislators and decision

203

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

makers in their own right, to send to the public. Councillors and Mr. Fratesi are entitled to disagree with court decisions. The remedy is to appeal. The suggestion that acts and words designed to further a personal agenda, are not to be taken seriously even though they are contrary to law, is indicative of someone who lacks the judgement to be an effective representative of his or her community. This attitude triggered the original applications and the proceedings before me, at substantial cost to the taxpayers.76 But the fact remained that we had lost. We did not know yet what our bill would be, but we knew it would be big. It seemed clear that an appeal of Trainor’s decision would fail; the only effect of an appeal would be to push our costs skywards. We concluded that we had come to the end of the line, and in mid-July we issued a press release announcing that we would not appeal. We could almost feel much of the town heave a collective sigh of relief. If the cao affair was going to become an issue in the elections, which were now less than four months away, then so be it. If council unexpectedly chose to review Fratesi’s appointment prior to January 31, 1998, then so be that too. At least there would be peace and quiet until then. The court actions, which had exposed so much about the reality of politics in Sault Ste. Marie, were now at an end. There would be no more court-generated revelations, thank God. Nothing captured the mood better than the one-word editorial which appeared in the Sault Star two days after our press release. It said, “Hallelujah.”77 But peace and quiet were still a little ways off.

204

The End of the Affair I could understand it if I were in a soap opera. Maybe I am. — BETTY BOOTHROYD

The cao affair refused to die for months after Judge Trainor found in favour of the council. It was a storm which had shaken the city severely, and had lasted too long, exposed too much about how business was done here, aroused too much anger and stirred too many other strong emotions, to end overnight. It took time to blow itself out. Terry Lemieux’s intervention helped prevent it from dying quickly. At the height of the vilification campaign in early 1997, Lemieux wrote a letter to the paper criticizing Fratesi and supporting us. Fratesi responded with a sarcastic and worrying card sent to Lemieux’s home. After unfruitful discussions with a lawyer about what to do, Lemieux went looking for Fratesi at city hall, missed him, then confronted him during a telephone conversation. Later the same afternoon he spoke with Mayor Butland in his office and showed him Fratesi’s card. “Well, that’s Joe’s propensity,” said the mayor.1 Four days later Lemieux and his fiancée received a threatening phone call from a man who promised to “fix you with a bigga stick.” The call (traced when Lemieux’s fiancée hit *69) had been made from a local electrical business. When the police pursued their enquiries with the help of an Italian-speaking interpreter, the man they interviewed

205

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

denied having made the call. The police told Lemieux that *69 number traces were not accepted as proof by the courts, and there was thus insufficient evidence to lay charges.2 Now in August 1997, with the court cases over and Dee and I looking at a bill of unknown size but sure to be big, Lemieux wanted to help.3 If MacKenzie could arrange an Appreciation Night for Fratesi, Lemieux thought he could do the same for us. With our delighted goahead and the help of my sister and a handful of friends, he began organizing a fundraiser for October at the Water Tower Inn. And immediately learned it was going to be very hard slog. A local bank refused to let him open an account for ticket revenues when its manager learned what Lemieux’s project was in aid of.4 Ads which he put up in one of the malls were torn down almost as fast as he could replace them.5 Worse, he found that people who he knew supported our efforts to get Fratesi out of city hall were afraid to show that support openly. Some were willing to buy the $15 tickets, but told him they could not afford to be seen at the event for fear of reprisals. Others were afraid to even buy tickets in case that information fell into the wrong hands.6 It was discouraging. Paradoxically, another threat helped turn things around. Lemieux got a call a few weeks after he started organizing, this one from an enraged wasp who told him that he was going to take care of Lemieux or anyone else supporting the Appreciation Night. “I know where you live. You’d better be watching your back.”7 This guy gave Lemieux his name; armed with that and *57 and *69 traces, Lemieux had the police pay him a visit and had his own lawyer send a warning letter.8 He also told the media about it. Strong and angry commentary followed. John Campbell asked his listeners, “What else should we expect? This is Sault Ste. Marie. We used to be able to say it the other way.”9 Campbell quoted a businessman friend who told him he would gladly attend the soirée at the

206

THE END OF THE AFFAIR

Water Tower, but that if he showed his face there that night it would cost his business 50 per cent of its sales. No legitimate business could survive a beating like that, Campbell said. Was it even worth being in business at all in a place like this? Did people understand the evil side of what was happening? They were “going to have to fight back against the mob mentality and practices that are being employed in this community in efforts to silence people, and cause them to deny themselves their rights out of fear.”10 It would not be enough to make an anonymous donation to our legal fund, or buy a ticket to the event but not show up. Something much more basic than the specifics of the cao affair was now at stake, and people had better master their fears, buy their tickets, and show up — even, Campbell roared, if they felt they had to wear masks.11 This kind of reaction helped enormously. Enough people to matter recognized the truth in what Campbell and other like-minded commentators were saying and reassessed their initial reluctance to support us visibly. They seemed to ask themselves, “What are we, men and women, or mice?” Ticket sales suddenly started to come more easily. Two other things helped. Shortly after Trainor released his decision, I tried to find out from Bottos how much Fasken Campbell Godfrey had billed the city for its work. All he could tell me was that the city had not yet gotten an invoice. Finally I had McLeod demand a bill directly from the Toronto firm for our share of the costs of its successful defence of the council; by this time Lemieux had started work on the Appreciation Night and needed to tell people just how much we were on the hook for. McLeod was finally successful, and in midSeptember we received a bill for $35,291.15. We quickly made this figure public.12 It was everything Lemieux could have hoped for to demonstrate that the battle we had lost was going to cost us real money. (We, on the other hand, were pretty unhappy with it, and asked McLeod to have it assessed in the court

207

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

system in the hope of getting it reduced. He asked Judge Trainor to do the assessment; Trainor agreed.) The other thing which helped was the news that the fifth estate was doing a feature on the cao affair which would air soon. Author and award-winning producer Brian Vallée was the driving force behind the program. Originally from the Sault, he paid careful attention to what was happening here, and in 1996 pitched proposals for stories on the DeLuca child molestation scandal and the Fratesi/cao saga to the fifth estate. The DeLuca story went to another producer and was broadcast early in 1997, but the fifth estate hired Vallée to do the cao affair for showing in October 1997.13 He made an exploratory trip to the Sault in July, then returned with program host Linden MacIntyre and a camera crew for filming in late September and early October. Vallée and his colleagues were a highly visible presence in town as Lemieux was pushing for a breakthrough on ticket sales. The breakthrough occurred. As sales took off in the first week of October, Lemieux saw the possibility of getting more people out to this event than had attended Fratesi’s party back in May and set that as the target. He reached it, selling nearly a thousand tickets and drawing an overflow crowd to the Water Tower Inn on the evening of October 16.14 This was richly satisfying, and not just because it was going to help pay our bills. It told us that a lot more people in the Sault opposed illegality at city hall than we had imagined. Not enough to provide the political muscle needed to get rid of Fratesi, as it turned out, but a lot nonetheless. Dee and I and our families had fun that evening, which marked the end of a stressful period in our lives. We also tried to leave a couple of pointed messages with the audience and, through the media, with the city at large. I put an open question — never answered — to the mayor and Fratesi’s other eight council apologists:

208

THE END OF THE AFFAIR

“Is it only Joe Fratesi’s illegal behaviour which you are prepared to condone, or are you willing to reward and condone illegal behaviour on the part of any and all of us here in Sault Ste. Marie?”15 Dee reminded everyone that the municipal elections were now less than a month away, asked whether Butland and the other eight deserved their vote and their trust, and said that the forces of intimidation could not reach inside a polling booth: “The (people) that I am relying on most to make a difference in our city are faceless and their act is so simple — marking an ‘X’ on a ballot.”16 Vallée’s fifth estate production was broadcast on October 28, less than two weeks prior to the elections. It was entitled “A Tough Cookie,” Fratesi’s satisfied description of himself to program host MacIntyre. I thought this was stretching it. Arguably, if he really were tough he would have stood and faced Judge Meehan from the mayor’s office rather than running for the safety of the cao job in February 1996, or he would have resigned once the verdicts on his behaviour were in. The program situated the cao affair within the context of the English-only resolution and the broader politics of the Sault very well. While its tight air-time limitation allowed only cursory treatment of the sleazy but complicated process through which Fratesi had gotten and kept his job, it was able to paint a striking portrait of his approach to wielding power. Part of that picture was drawn by the supporting cast. Corriere Canadese editor Dan Iannuzzi despised politicians who used their roots in an ethnic community to rise to power, then consolidated their positions by playing on Canada’s linguistic tensions; he spoke harshly to MacIntyre of Fratesi’s willingness to use bigots and to turn people against other people in order to advance his own ends.17 Charlie Swift said that Fratesi had to “totally destroy” any opposition he encountered.18 Allan Jackson described how he had secretly taped conversations with Fratesi as far back as 1991, to protect himself against what he saw

209

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

as Fratesi’s desire to push him out of his job.19 In the sample tape which was aired, viewers heard Fratesi rasp to Jackson that while Jackson was competent, he was “too goddamned political,” and he had three basic choices — to “play ball” with Fratesi, to retire, “or the third is you just keep it up and I bring this thing to a public forum and I do what I gotta do.”20 But it was the star of the show himself who filled in the most defining elements of the portrait. No regrets or apologies about the resolution or about his role in the attack on Jim Hilsinger’s business. After all, that “hotel fella” had actually spent money in a mayoralty campaign against Fratesi because he hadn’t liked Fratesi’s ideas on tourism.21 Then the pièce de résistance. After Bob Denham described Sam Fratesi’s threat to deprive St. Mary’s College of the family trophy and scholarship, MacIntyre said that, “Joe Fratesi sees nothing wrong with a reprisal which defines the current political spirit of the Sault,”22 and the camera cut away to a pensive Fratesi: Well again, there’s an example of how a private conversation with an individual who my brother thought could be trusted all of a sudden became a media event. It was a natural reaction for him to make the phone call. I don’t know how natural it was for anyone to expect that the private conversation that he had with the principal of that school would become public. But this thing took on a life of its own and all of the old rules of the games that all of us are accustomed to were cast aside. Nothing made sense any more.23 At the same time as the cbc was broadcasting these startling observations, someone else briefly cast aside the old rules and provided a further insight into Fratesi’s style of doing business.

210

THE END OF THE AFFAIR

Fratesi and his wife had recently sold their house to a relative, three or four days after a listing agreement with the local Real Estate Stop expired. They had refused to pay the $9,000 commission to which the firm claimed it was entitled, and its proprietor Dan Alessandrini was taking Fratesi to court.24 A private matter, except that in the course of the dispute Fratesi had worried Alessandrini enough for him to write to Mayor Butland on October 27, then copy the letter to all councillors on October 31. He accused Fratesi of using city resources — fax machines, support staff, and so on — in the course of the dispute, and said that as a taxpayer he objected to this. But his more serious concern was that, “Mr. Fratesi has made certain comments to my solicitor about persuading other persons from utilizing the services of the Real Estate Stop Inc. in the event the Real Estate Stop pursued its interests. I find these comments threatening.”25 He told Butland that he wanted written assurances from council that Fratesi had not been speaking in his capacity as cao when he made this threat, and that his firm’s business with the city was not going to be affected by the private fight.26 The letter leaked to the media almost instantly. John Campbell read it to his talk show listeners on November 2 and it was a front page story the next day. Neither Fratesi nor Alessandrini were happy about it, nor could Butland have been — here was more unwelcome publicity for the cao he had embraced, just one week before the elections. A deal which resolved the dispute over the commission was quickly brokered, but the mayor had to write an embarrassing letter to Alessandrini in which he said that he had spoken to Fratesi about using city resources for personal business. He added, “I guarantee you that the comments of Mr. Fratesi will not be a city position and that all necessary communications will be conducted so that the guarantee will be realized.”27 Whatever that meant. But as the election campaigns entered their final days, there was little sense that either this latest uproar or whole cao mess itself would

211

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

have much impact. Councillor Rauk was Butland’s main challenger in the mayoralty race, and Rauk had tried to distance himself from the accusation that one of his top priorities if he won would be to get rid of Fratesi.28 Some 45 candidates including 10 incumbents were running for the 12 councillors’ seats; the fingers of one hand were more than enough to count those who said that if they were elected, they would try to have council “revisit the cao issue” (that is, try to get Fratesi fired). These were strong signals that the voters were telling the politicians to leave Fratesi alone, which in turn suggested that the majority of the incumbents would be safely returned to office. Very few observers picked up any signs of serious voter dissatisfaction with the council, and the sheer number of new candidates in the field was expected to strengthen the huge advantage which incumbents in Sault Ste. Marie have typically enjoyed.29 Butland beat Rauk easily, although he got nearly 4,000 fewer votes than he had in 1996.30 But the voters rejected seven incumbents — Moore, Sanzosti, DeLuca, Chisholm, Trembinski, Szczepanik, and Solski. Two of these were permanent council fixtures — Chisholm had sat for 36 years, Sanzosti for 30.31 Only Swift, Borowicz, and Niro held their seats. This was a remarkable forced changing of the political guard at city hall, all the more stunning for being so unexpected. It was obviously related to the cao affair, which had been the dominant local issue for over two years. Six of the seven who lost their jobs had supported Fratesi staunchly through the piece, while Solski’s declared conflict of interest had kept him on the sidelines. Council newcomer Sam Lepore thought the results meant voters were looking for honesty, integrity, and a council to be proud of: “They don’t want to see this council on the fifth estate. We don’t want our name to be mud all over Canada.”32 Peter Vaudry, another new councillor, said that all he heard as he campaigned door to door was that voters wanted

212

THE END OF THE AFFAIR

to clean house, and that, “They just seemed to realize that we need a change.”33 Commentators spoke of Sault voters as no longer being complacent, as having turned on the old council because of its handling of Fratesi’s appointment, and of having shown through the ballot box that there were ethical standards they wanted observed.34 If this was the message, it was significantly nuanced by the other clear signal from the bulk of the voters — Fratesi himself was not to be touched. One of the factors accounting for Butland’s easy victory was that he would be no threat to Fratesi, while Rauk in the mayor’s chair most certainly would be.35 None of the few council candidates who spoke openly about revisiting the cao issue was elected (although one came very close36). New councillor Jody Curran told reporters the day after the election that most voters in his ward wanted the appointment reviewed, and the issue was probably going to be on council’s “front burner.”37 But when Curran quietly polled his colleagues to find out whether they would support re-opening the issue prior to the January 31, 1998, deadline, he learned that most would not.38 This was definitely what their electors did not want. The irony could hardly have been richer. During his job interview nearly two years earlier, Fratesi had assured council that there would be no negative legal ramifications for it in appointing him. That had proven to be true, but another important ramification had materialized. Among the eight councillors who backed his appointment, only Niro was now left. Meanwhile, Fratesi’s own job was secure. Except for a final threat which emerged from an unlikely quarter just as Sault voters were delivering their complicated message at the ballot boxes. Mike Brouillette was a local craftsman hired to produce a dozen large carvings to beautify the waterfront in the city hall area. A longsimmering dispute over the terms of the contract led Brouillette to demand a police investigation into the city’s Economic Development

213

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Corporation. Then, apparently frustrated with the way city hall was treating him, he went to the police again early in November 1997, and asked them to investigate whether Fratesi had committed a criminal act in the process of getting his new job.39 Section 125 of the Criminal Code of Canada reads in part: Every one who (a) receives, agrees to receive, gives or procures to be given, directly or indirectly, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for co-operation, assistance or exercise of influence to secure the appointment of any person to an office, (b) solicits, recommends or negotiates in any manner with respect to an appointment to or resignation from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit . . . is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.40 On the face of it, subsection (b) looked relevant to the circumstances of September 1995, when Fratesi had negotiated the eri package with Jackson. By one of his versions of those events (see Chapter 4), he had been thinking of going after the cao job at the same time as he was carrying on those negotiations. As well (under both versions), he had firmly decided to do that by September 24, before the negotiations formally concluded on September 25 with Jackson signing off on the eri offer.41 The police were aware of this section of the Criminal Code, and knew they did not need a complainant — Brouillette or anyone else — in order to start an investigation. But they had done nothing before Brouillette came forward. “There was no real reason why we did or

214

THE END OF THE AFFAIR

didn’t investigate,” said Chief Davies, who then explained that the real reasons the police hadn’t done anything were that Fratesi’s appointment had been “well publicized” and that Dee and I had brought conflict of interest applications under a civil statute.42 By implication, the civil proceedings were sufficient to deal with the matter; no criminal investigation of a possible criminal offence was necessary. Davies immediately called for help from the opp, claiming that the local police could not conduct an investigation themselves because they had a conflict of interest. As mayor, Fratesi had been a member of the Police Services Board until resigning to become cao, and Sanzosti had been its chair. Davies added that there could be a “perceived” conflict as well by virtue of the fact that the city funded local policing.43 If all this sounded a little thin, it was still wise of Davies to call for outside help. A series of recent problems in the local force had hurt its credibility, and whatever conclusions it reached had it now investigated Fratesi would have been greeted sceptically by one faction in town or the other. At first the opp moved quickly. A senior officer from its Criminal Investigation Bureau arrived in the Sault on Monday, November 17, and spent several days conducting interviews and examining documents. At the end of that week, however, the force announced that it had asked the Crown Law Office in Toronto for a legal opinion on the case, and that the investigation would be put on hold until it received that opinion.44 In something of a giveaway, though, the opp added that its investigators had learned “that the same fact circumstances are being presented as was alleged in previous conflict of interest proceedings.”45 The obvious implication was that since the subject matter of the complaint had already been through civil proceedings, the opp might not lay a charge. Here was a Catch-22 Joseph Heller would have savoured with delight. The city police had chosen not to investigate the peculiar

215

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

circumstances of Fratesi’s appointment, and thus by definition had no factual basis to assess whether criminal charges were warranted. It was only the civil actions Dee and I had launched which had generated the factual basis on which Brouillette had based his Criminal Code complaint. Now those civil actions themselves might preclude any further police action on Brouillette’s complaint. Sure enough, the end of the cao affair finally came with a whimper rather than a bang. Nearly two months passed without visible signs of opp activity. Then on January 12, 1998, its major cases section announced that it had found no evidence to support the laying of criminal charges, and that the Crown Law Office concurred with the results of the investigation.46 Fratesi expressed his relief and his hope that this was the end of it all. “I’ve seen this move in the political, civil and criminal arenas now,” he told the press.47 He and his family had paid a huge emotional and financial toll during the past two and a half years, and any further action against him would in his view “just be harassment.”48 John Campbell’s commentary on all this pulled no punches. “It’s not a duck!” he told his listeners two days later: There’s an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But sometimes things are not what they seem. . . . Take the Criminal Code Section 125, read it, and then spend two minutes thinking about whether or not you’ve ever seen a real life circumstance that seems to fit it. But in spite of how closely the cao selection process seems to nestle into the parameters of that law, the opp major crime unit investigators have

216

THE END OF THE AFFAIR

“found,” to use their word . . . [that] criminal charges are not warranted. They found nothing. They made a decision, and it was not to lay charges. Their reasons were not released. Maybe one day soon they’ll say why something that walks and squawks like a duck, isn’t.49 They never did. The opp’s decision guaranteed that council would follow its political nose and do nothing. Dee and I discussed the possibility of going down to city hall to ask, simply for the record, that councillors review Fratesi’s appointment with a view to firing him. We decided to let someone else step forward. No one did, and January 31, 1998, came and went quietly. Two and a half years after negotiating the critical eri with Allan Jackson, the best man for the job was finally safe and secure in it. The outstanding legal bills were disposed of quickly. The Appreciation Night Lemieux had organized raised over $20,000. Along with the unsolicited contributions we had received and money we had put into the pot ourselves, our legal fund stood at nearly $30,000 in the first week of February 1998. That was when Judge Trainor cut our bill from Fasken Campbell Godfrey from the original $35,291.15 to $17,400.75, ruling that the hours for which the firm had billed us were excessive.50 We now had more money than we needed to pay our bills, and we divided what was left over between the United Way of Sault Ste. Marie and the defence fund of another local resident who was fighting another civic institution.51 Four months later, the city received a bill from Fasken Campbell Godfrey for $42,000, the difference between the firm’s total charges of over $59,000 for its work, and the $17,000 plus which Trainor had ordered us to pay. In effect, the city was invoiced for its share of the

217

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

costs, plus the amount by which Trainor had reduced our bill. The city, through Bottos, expressed its satisfaction and quickly paid up.52 By this time the refurbishment of the cao’s image was well advanced. In March 1998 the Calabrians Multicultural World Society Inc. (Sault Ste. Marie chapter) had held a dinner dance to honour its 1998 Person of the Year — Joseph M. Fratesi. The award was given for Fratesi’s “activism in the promotion of equality for all cultures, and economic growth.”53

218

Joe Fratesi’s Decade and Its Legacy This shit must stop. — JOHN F. KENNEDY

The English-only resolution and the cao affair made the 1990s Joe Fratesi’s decade in Sault Ste. Marie. These two issues dominated civic life here, and bequeathed a legacy which will last a long time. It is a sad and shabby legacy, one which most politicians in other places in the country would probably not want to leave behind. But Fratesi was not a politician like most other politicians in late twentieth-century Canada, and the Sault is different from most other places. The decade opened with the resolution which divided the city more deeply and bitterly than ever before, pitting the large majority which supported it against the minority appalled by the anger and bigotry which lay behind it.1 It also made the Sault an instant synonym nationally for intolerance, which is where Fratesi and the local English-rights activists and their fellow travellers badly misjudged the mood of the larger part of the province and the country. Some residents still recall with dismay how people outside the Sault reacted to them months and even years after the resolution passed. A laugh, a sneer, a snicker, a comment, a look, a turning away. Former mayor McIntyre told the fifth estate in 1997 that:

219

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

The Globe and Mail spoofed the English-only resolution in early February 1990 with this Brian Gable caricature. Reprinted with the permission of the Globe and Mail.

We’d become a synonym for bigotry. I was attending a conference and I had my name and my city on a name tag. And they would say, “Oh, you’re from Sault Ste. Marie,” and they’d look me up and down like I was some kind of vermin.2 The resolution was exactly the wrong kind of signal for a city in the hinterland with an ageing resource-based industrial economy to transmit to the world. The Sault has been in decline since 1990,3 and while there are several reasons for this, the ill will generated by council’s action in January of that year has cost the city badly needed tourism income, investment, and jobs. Although the resolution was struck down by Judge Loukidelis in 1994, Fratesi never admitted that his council had been wrong to pass it.4 Neither did its other supporters, as became clear in August 1999. City

220

JOE FRATESI’S DECADE AND ITS LEGACY

council had decided to spend $40,000 on a National Post advertising campaign to try to spruce up the Sault’s image, when Councillor Peter Vaudry reminded his colleagues and the community at large that the resolution had hurt the city’s tourism potential: “I travel and hear comments about Sault Ste. Marie, they are negative because of the resolution.”5 He proposed that simply by rescinding the resolution, council could get costless positive publicity while undoing some of the damage it had done.6 There were two problems with Vaudry’s idea. In the first place there was nothing to rescind; there hadn’t been since Loukidelis’ ruling. This would have been manageable, though. The point of Vaudry’s suggestion was to do something to remove the stigma of the resolution, and council could have done this by passing a new resolution expressing regret about what a previous council had done, or something equally simple but meaningful. Apologies or expressions of regret would have been politically dangerous, however. Dead though the old resolution was, it still stirred in the night, shambling like a malevolent Marley’s Ghost through the back alleys of Sault Ste. Marie, clanking its chains in a call to the faithful. It was the symbol of how under Fratesi’s leadership the city had fought the good fight and told the French and the country at large where to get off. It remained too dear to the hearts of too many voters to be disowned. But Vaudry had wandered into the swamp by reopening the issue, and it looked as though council might be dragged in there behind him, and something had to be done. Councillors invented a quick fix and unanimously passed the following resolution at their meeting of August 9, 1999: Whereas the “language resolution” was struck down by the courts because it was beyond the city’s authority;

221

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

and whereas it is not legally possible to rescind a resolution that has already been struck down by the courts; be it resolved that a notation be added to the minutes of the regular meeting of city council on January 29, 1990 to include the following beside item 5.(e): N.B. “This resolution was struck down by the courts on June 30, 1994 and therefore has no effect.”7 Some of the national media reported that the Sault had rescinded its notorious resolution.8 This was not true. The councils of other municipalities such as Thunder Bay and Napanee9 rescinded their English-only resolutions, but the Sault’s didn’t. All it did in effect was attach a yellow sticky note10 to the old resolution, recognizing five years after the event that it was dead. This was a meaningless gesture except in one respect: it clearly defined the limits of what council was prepared to do about a terribly costly mistake nearly a decade after the event. Not for the first time, Mayor Butland expressed his hope that the issue was now well and truly over.11 Wishing does not seem to make the residue of the resolution sink permanently out of sight, however; it keeps resurfacing. Early in October 2000, for example, cbc Newsworld interviewed some of the tens of thousands of mourners who waited hours on Parliament Hill to file past Pierre Trudeau’s casket. Suddenly the national tv audience watched a gentleman explain softly to a reporter that he was from Sault Ste. Marie, that some years earlier the city fathers had passed an English-only resolution, that he had come to pay his respects to Mr. Trudeau, and this was his way of apologizing for that resolution.12 Little more than a year after Loukidelis’ verdict, the cao affair erupted and polarized the town for another two and a half years. Many of the principal milestones in the story — Fratesi’s stupefying first run at the job, the conflict of interest cases, the guilty verdicts, the impact on

222

JOE FRATESI’S DECADE AND ITS LEGACY

the 1997 local elections — were reported nationally.13 With the exception of the fifth estate program, however, this coverage overlooked the crucial link between the resolution and the cao affair — it was the resolution more than anything else which gave Fratesi the political power to hold on to the job it was “against conscience that he should keep.”14 In previous chapters I described incident after incident which demonstrated how support for Fratesi during his time of legal troubles drove off support for the resolution. To test the strength of the connection further, I reviewed all the letters written about the cao affair which the local papers published from the fall of 1995 through the winter of 1997. I had a copy of the sapelr petition, so I was able to tabulate the letters according to whether or not their authors had signed the petition, and whether or not they supported Fratesi as cao regardless of what he had done to get the job. About 55 per cent of the writers who supported Fratesi, but fewer than 20 per cent who opposed him, had signed the petition in 1989 or early 1990. The connection between support for or opposition to the resolution, and support for or opposition to Fratesi, was not perfect, and no one should expect it to be. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that Fratesi’s behaviour in 1995 and 1996 was too much for even some of his fans to tolerate. But applying a standard statistical test to these results shows that they are highly significant. There is little reasonable doubt that the link between people’s views about the resolution and their views about Fratesi’s fitness for the cao job was strong.15 And far more people supported the resolution than had opposed it. There is sad irony in this. Many Sault residents were galvanized by Fratesi’s endorsement of sapelr’s petition because they were alienated from and cynical about the way democratic government worked in late twentieth-century Canada. In January 1990 Fratesi had epitomized for them how democracy should work. A few years later they themselves endorsed him, illegality and all, as the best man to run their city hall.

223

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

They thumbed their noses at some of the cornerstones of democratic government — ethics, integrity, respect for the law — and in the process ratified a shockingly low standard for the conduct of public business. This is a standard they would have been the first to rage about, had it not been Joe Fratesi’s standard. In validating it, they exposed the limits of their understanding of democracy. Although it is easy and fashionable to pretend otherwise, Canadians have mainly good government and enjoy the benefits of it. But good government does not float down like manna from heaven. We earn it by working hard at it, and by doing those things which experience and common sense have taught us and previous generations are important. Things which matter. Honest and ethical behaviour on the part of elected and appointed public officials are things which we think matter to good government, and we have tried over the years to put in place the guidelines and laws which promote that behaviour and discourage its opposite. And when people validate behaviour which does not meet the basic standards officials are normally held to, they chip away at the foundation of good government, slowly but surely, a public institution, a ward, a city at a time. Many of the same people who supported lawbreaking here at city hall also thumbed their noses at fundamental democratic rights, particularly the individual’s right to express an opinion without having to worry about reprisals. People reacted angrily to criticism of the resolution and its chief defender, and his subsequent approach to getting his new job. They wanted his and their opponents muzzled; they supported reprisals, smear campaigns, other forms of intimidation. This behaviour affected people’s actions, or lack thereof. Shortly after my part in this story began, I started to be approached by people I knew and by people I didn’t, who told me that they agreed with what Dee and I were doing but could not support us openly. They had

224

JOE FRATESI’S DECADE AND ITS LEGACY

relatives who worked at city hall, they did business with the city, they worked at one of the other public institutions in town, they didn’t want their stores boycotted, they didn’t want volunteer organizations they worked with denied city funding. Their experience was that, “You keep your mouth shut in Sault Ste. Marie if you know what’s good for you.” The most startling of my conversations in the dark, as it were, was with a woman who stopped her car and asked if I was Harvey Sims, and then urged me to keep fighting. She was visibly frightened that someone might see us talking. She said that she could not even run the risk of telling me her name, that the repercussions of being caught speaking with me would be dreadful. I have no idea what she thought these repercussions might be, but for her they did not bear thinking about. She drove off quickly. I was amazed by these conversations. I was amazed at the number of times editors and commentators felt obliged to try to teach their readers and listeners in the Sault how democracy works, just as they had tried to do back in the days and weeks following the passing of the resolution. I was amazed at the various smear campaigns launched against Dee and me, and the degree of stupidity people were prepared to believe. I was amazed when people asked me questions such as, “Well, did you have your wife start your car for you this morning?” I am amazed by all of it still. Repercussions of the degeneration of civic life here continue to manifest themselves. Take the Big Box fiasco. In May 1999 council approved a proposal for a large new mall (the Big Box), despite the facts that the development violated the city’s official plan, and the city was awash with empty retail space. Opponents requested an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. When council learned in April 2000 that the hearing would be postponed for five months, it agreed overwhelmingly to write to the Big Box opponents and urge them to drop their opposition and let the project proceed.16

225

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

One of those opponents was Howard Tishman, a Toronto developer who had been a major force in property development in the Sault since the early 1970s. Coming on top of years’ worth of destructive council antics, this was too much for him. “That councillors pass a resolution attempting to make me give up my democratic right [to an omb hearing] was the last straw,”17 he wrote. “The situation has come to exemplify the way in which city council has chosen to conduct itself on not just this, but a myriad of issues too numerous to mention. . . .”18 He immediately put all of his local properties including a large mall up for sale; having contributed significantly to the city for nearly three decades, he was voting with his feet. He was not the only one. A decade after the resolution and five years after the cao storm broke, solid citizens, the kind of people who are part of the backbone of a vibrant community, continue to leave town or make every effort to do so. After all, Joe Fratesi told them in 1993 that if they didn’t like the resolution they could get out, and they have been doing just that. Others have stopped participating in civic affairs, in anger, disgust, sorrow, or from fear of triggering reprisals against community groups with which they are associated. The city’s reputation continues to suffer. I had first-hand examples of this in the summer of 1998, when a consulting contract took me throughout Northern Ontario. Even at that time, after the battle over Fratesi’s appointment was over and the local Calabrians had chosen him as their Person of the Year, people I met shook their heads when they learned where I was from, and while not wanting to be impolite still muttered things such as, “Poor Sault Ste. Marie; so corrupt,”19 and “That place needs an attitude transplant.”20 The Institute of Public Administration of Canada has recognized that Fratesi’s and council’s 1995–96 behaviour was worth studying, and this hasn’t enhanced the city’s reputation either. ipac runs a case-study program covering a range of public administration issues; the

226

JOE FRATESI’S DECADE AND ITS LEGACY

Institute sells these cases to university, community college, and government agency instructors for use in their courses.21 In 1997 the program added a case called “Frank Greco — From Mayor to cao in One Easy Step!” to its collection.22 Brian DeLorenzi, who grew up in the Sault, wrote the case, basing it on the cao affair23; ipac sees it as an excellent case for students of municipal administration, municipal law, and similar subjects.24 If instructors follow the discussion points which DeLorenzi set out in his guideline for them, students using this case are invited: . . . to examine at least two important issues. The first is the conflict of interest. An obvious conflict of interest occurred when the mayor stayed at the council meeting and answered questions, but conflicts may also emerge over other aspects of the procedures he used throughout the events. For example, why did all other candidates withdraw? How clean were the hands of the consultants? Was there some form of intimidation involved? The second area that can be analyzed is the appointment of a highly visible political figure to the position of cao, a non-political position. As a digression from the case students can also deal with the actual decision of council. Several of the members seem to have coveted the empty mayor’s seat. Were they ethically in a conflict of interest situation when they voted to appoint Greco cao?25 These are good issues and good questions. They not only speak to part of the legacy of Joe Fratesi’s decade. The case study itself is part of that legacy.

227

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Perhaps positive impacts of the cao affair will result from the lessons public administration students absorb as they work through the case — as long as they don’t conclude that the main point is that a powerful political figure in an Ontario city can break the law and get away with it. Thoughtful people in the Sault worried about this. Here is part of a letter published shortly after council ignored Judge Poupore’s advice and reconfirmed Fratesi as cao in December 1996: To Mayor Butland and the [eight] councillors who spent much of their time ignoring the main issue of honesty and ethics, I hope you understand the implications of your decision to continue to support the cao. I am a Scout leader in Sault Ste. Marie and have 24 youth who are, as we have been told by people like our city councillors and mayor, our future. I spend considerable time with the other leaders helping these youth live up to a promise of doing their best and being trustworthy in everything that they do. We go to great pains to talk about integrity and being honourable in all actions. The first line in the Scout Promise is “On my honour . . .” What have they learned from this latest episode from city hall? They have learned that, despite breaking the law, you can get ahead.26 The law. The affair exposed the inability of Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to deal with Fratesi’s dedicated run at the public trough. The length of time it took us to get a hearing into his first vio-

228

JOE FRATESI’S DECADE AND ITS LEGACY

lations of the Act let his council supporters slip him into the cao’s office before a court could rule, while the court’s inability to declare his employment contract void let him keep the job he broke the law repeatedly to get. When we brought the 1997 case against the council in a final effort to get rid of Fratesi, even people who opposed what he had done thought we had gone too far. “After all,” they argued (I am paraphrasing here), “this is a democracy, and if the majority in Sault Ste. Marie wants a lawbreaker running city business on a day-to-day basis, that is its right. This is a political issue, pure and simple.”27 They were right. Under the present law, it did come down to a political decision, and thus Fratesi now runs city hall. However, this speaks to a need to change the law and close the loopholes (the Association of Municipalities of Ontario made the same point at its 1998 workshop on conflict of interest), rather than accept the notion that a majority in Sault Ste. Marie should automatically get what it wants. A modest amendment to the present Act would ensure that what happened in the Sault would not recur elsewhere. The amendment would simply extend the scope of the Act’s current disqualification provisions. Under it, a politician prohibited from being a member of a council or a local board for a period of time would also be barred from working as an employee of the council or the board during that period. My proposed “Fratesi amendment” would fix the problem with the Act which surfaced so visibly here. But our personal experience confirms the practitioner view that a more radical overhaul of the legislation is necessary. Bringing the two conflict of interest applications alone would have cost Dee and I about $30,000 had Judges Meehan and Poupore ordered us rather than Fratesi to pay just our own legal costs, let alone his. Expenses of this order or higher, the possibility of a defamation suit such as we encountered, and the aggravation involved with the current adjudication process, all make

229

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

ordinary citizens understandably reluctant to enforce the Act. The almost certain result is that much illegal behaviour on the part of local officials is never challenged. Ontario’s consultation committee on conflict of interest reported in 1991 that the overwhelming majority of submissions it received argued for some alternative enforcement mechanism. The committee’s view was that the status quo was simply not acceptable. It reviewed several options, a number of which had the benefit of removing conflict of interest from crowded court dockets, and it recommended the establishment of a central enforcement body called the Municipal Conflict of Interest Commission. The Commission would provide advice both to the public and to members of councils and local boards, investigate complaints, and make decisions (including decisions to take complaints through the court system if necessary). It would also bear the costs of enforcement.28 Nearly 10 years later, the provincial government has not acted. The unacceptable status quo prevails. Perhaps greater knowledge of what has happened in the Sault will reinforce the idea that the law needs to be improved considerably. If it did, that would be one positive legacy of Joe Fratesi’s decade here. 

The 1990s was a bad decade for Sault Ste. Marie. But as 2000 drew to a close, the news from the Sault was not unrelievedly bleak. More and more residents were coming to realize that the city they loved was in deep trouble. They may not have been willing or able to come to grips with its moral malaise and its causes. They may have been capable of seeing only highly visible problems such as the city’s crumbling infrastructure, its economic difficulties, its inability to generate the jobs which could hold their children here. But at least they were seeing

230

JOE FRATESI’S DECADE AND ITS LEGACY

these, deciding that part of the trouble lay down at city hall, and demanding change. In the November 2000 municipal elections, they replaced Steve Butland as mayor with John Rowswell,29 whom they had so overwhelmingly rejected in 1994 when Fratesi-mania still ruled the town. They also elected six new councillors to join six incumbents, all of whom were first elected in 1997.30 This was by far the most significant realignment in local politics since Fratesi had become mayor in 1985. No one was now left on council from the days of the English-only resolution; no one was left from the days of the cao affair. True, the prime mover of these events remained in the cao’s office, from which he still wielded considerable power. But if the new mayor and council were determined to begin the process of making meaningful change occur, they certainly had a mandate to do so. 

Oh yes, I nearly forgot. At a swearing-in ceremony in Sudbury on November 24, 2000, Yvon Renaud became the Honourable Mr. Justice Renaud of the Ontario Court of Justice.

231

NOTES

CHAPTER ONE Shaw Community Cable tv, News Conference, Council of the Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, videotape, 26 Sept. 1995. 2 The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, News Release, 26 Sept. 1995, p. 2. 3 Ibid., pp. 3–4; and News Conference, 26 Sept. 1995. 4 News Release, p. 4. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., p. 5. 7 Transcript of comments made following reading of Press Release at News Conference held September 26th, 1995 in council chambers with all council members present and Councillor Mike Sanzosti taking chair, pp. 1–2. This transcript appears as Exhibit G, referred to in the Affidavit of Joseph M. Fratesi, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent. 8 Ibid., p. 4. 9 Ibid., pp. 4–5. 10 Ibid., p. 6; and Joe Fratesi, “Re: Chief Administrative Officer Position,” memorandum to all members of city council, 25 Sept. 1995, p. 3. 11 Transcript of comments made, p. 8. 12 Ibid., p. 9. 13 Ibid., p. 10. 14 Ibid., p. 13. 15 Ibid., p. 14. 16 Ibid., p. 21. 17 Ibid., p. 26. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., p. 27. 1

233

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Linda Richardson, “Fratesi quits mayor’s chair,” Sault Star, 27 Sept. 1995, pp. A1–A2. “The Fratesi verdict in full,” Sault Star, 22 Feb. 1996, p. A5; and Poupore, O.C.J., Reasons for Judgement, Court file 15603/96, 29 Nov. 1996, p. 31. 22 Quicklaw files, principally Ontario Reports, reviewed by the author in 2000. 23 Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp, Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1984), p. 22. 24 Ibid., p.15. 25 The Honorable W.D. Parker, Commission of Inquiry into the Facts of Allegations of Conflict of Interest Concerning the Honorable Sinclair M. Stevens (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1987), pp. 27–28. 26 Poupore, Reasons for Judgement, p. 37. 27 Special Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, 6 December 1996, transcript of the videotape recording prepared by Alison Patterson, p. 21. 20 21

CHAPTER TWO “Want Action? Take case to the top, Mayor says,” Sault Star, 26 Feb. 1988, p. C10; and Examination of Joseph Fratesi, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 5 Feb. 1996, pp. 20–22. 2 “Fluoridation ‘guarantee’ being sought,” Sault Star, 17 Oct. 1985, p. B1; “Butler-Jones won’t sign fluoride guarantee,” Sault Star, 18 Oct. 1985, p. B4; “The Chisholm circus,” Sault Star, 19 Oct. 1985, p. A4; Wendy Nicol, “Sault defeat leaves fluoridation proposal as a three-time loser,” Sault Star, 13 Nov. 1985, pp. A1–A2; and Fred Loader, Sault Star, 4 Nov. 2000, p. A4. 3 Nicol, “Sault defeat.” 4 Sault Star, 10 Nov. 1988, p. C1. 5 Joseph M. Fratesi, letter to Attorney General Ian Scott, 28 Jan. 1987, p. 1. 6 Ibid., p. 2. 7 Ibid., p. 3. 8 Ibid., p. 1. 9 Ibid., pp. 1, 3. 10 Linda Richardson and Joe Warmington, “Fratesi romps to easy re-election triumph as mayor,” Sault Star, 15 Nov. 1988, p. B1. 11 “The mayoralty contest,” Sault Star, 17 Nov. 1988, p. A4. 12 Dave Robertson, “Shortage of bilingual judges cited as area replacements ignored,” Sault Star, 13 July 1989, p. B1; “A shortage of judges,” Sault Star, 2 Nov. 1989, p. A4; Yvon Renaud, letter to Thomas Bastedo, Q.C., 15 June, 1989; and Attorney General Ian Scott, letter to Yvon Renaud, 26 Apr. 1990. 13 Jeffery Simpson, Faultlines (Toronto: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 260. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.; and Karl Sepkowski, “Soo language vote puts mayor in spotlight,” Globe and Mail, 3 Feb. 1990, p. A10. 16 Simpson, Faultlines, p. 260; an Ottawa Citizen reporter had earlier raised the issue 1

234

NOTES

of whether Fratesi was bitter about having to learn French to pursue his judicial ambitions, without getting any confirmation of that from him. Deborah Dowling, “City defends anti-French vote,” Ottawa Citizen, 5 Feb. 1990, p. A4. 17 Yvon Renaud, letter to the author, 4 June 1999. 18 John Halucha, “Comparing Sault resolution with Quebec’s Bill 101,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C28. 19 Debates, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2 Apr. 1990, p. 306. 20 Nancy Wood, “French furor: Racism or panic?” Toronto Star, 19 Mar. 1990, pp. D1, D4. 21 Kathleen Byrne, “Soo English-language lobby denies link to ‘racist’ group,” Globe and Mail, 12 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 22 Ibid.; and Howard Goldenthal and Wayne Roberts, “Francophobia,” Now, Vol. 9, No. 25, 1–7 Mar. 1990, pp. 10–12. 23 Gerald Caplan, “A stalking horse for the ultra-right?” Toronto Star, 18 Mar. 1990, p. B3. 24 J.V. Andrew, Enough! (Kitchener: Andrew Books, 1988), pp. iv, vii. 25 Wood, “French furor.” 26 Goldenthal and Roberts, “Francophobia,” p. 10. 27 Caplan, “A stalking”; and Hubert Bauch, “He likes being called bigot,” Montreal Gazette, 14 Apr. 1990, pp. A1, A6. Leitch was featured prominently on c-far’s web site (www.canadafirst.net/c-far/) in 1998. 28 Tom McFeely, “The Rise of apec,” British Columbia Report, 5 Mar. 1990, pp. 34–37, p. 34. 29 Ibid., p. 36. 30 apec Canada, Newsletter, Vol. xii, No. 7, Sept. 1989. 31 apec Canada, Newsletter, Vol. xiii, No. 3, Mar. 1990. 32 Ibid. 33 apec Canada, Newsletter, Vol. xiii, No. 11, Nov. 1990. 34 Byrne, “Soo English-language.” 35 Ibid. 36 Richard Pearman, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 5 Dec. 1989, p. A4. 37 Jeffrey Simpson, “The prejudice below the surface,” Globe and Mail, 6 Feb. 1990, p. A6. 38 Canadian Press, “English-only community disturbs premier,” Sault Star, 6 Jan. 1989, p. A5. 39 Richard Mackie, “Ontario promotion of bilingualism assailed,” Globe and Mail, 7 Feb. 1990, p. A10. A Canadian Press report of early February 1990 listed 26 communities (including the Sault) that by that time had declared themselves unilingual English. 40 Byrne, “Soo English-language”; and Jackie Hoffman, “Project Harmony chairman still wants to meet with Sault mayor,” Sault Star, 12 Feb. 1990, p. B1. 41 Dowling, “City defends”; and Joe Warmington, “‘Thrown rock’ created tidal wave, not predicted ripple — Pearman,” Sault Star, 2 Feb. 1990, p. B1.

235

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

42

Mike Lewis, “sapelr members urged to describe their ‘vision of Canada,’” Sault Star, 21 Nov. 1990, p. B1; Statistics Canada, 1986 Census Catalogue cs 95–155, Census tracts, Sault Ste. Marie, Part 1, p. 1–1, and 1991 Census Catalogue 94–320, Population Estimates by First Official Language Spoken, 1991, p. 79. 43 Adrien Cantin, “Sault’s francophone community fears assimilation,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C12. 44 David Olinger, “French education linked to separate school system,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C3; and “Board approves changes for admission to French separate schools,” Sault Star, 29 May 1987, p. B2. 45 A measure of how badly split the Francophone community was is that by February 1990, sapelr had about 400 Francophone members, more than the number who belonged to the city’s Francophone centre. Canadian Press, “Technology plays role in sapelr charge,” Sault Star, 7 Feb. 1990, p. B2. 46 Warmington, “‘Thrown rock.’” 47 “‘Continual erosion’ prompts formation of English rights group,” Sault Star, 12 Jan. 1989, p. B1. 48 Dowling, “City defends.” Mrs. Pearman’s remark echoed the sentiment of Libby Lassner, president of apec’s Cornwall chapter, who told another reporter in mid-1989 that, “This equality bit doesn’t hold any water. They’re a minority. Why should they have equality?” Gene Allen, “Language legislation spurs antiFrench talk in Eastern Ontario,” Globe and Mail, 15 Aug. 1989, p. A11. 49 Joe Warmington, “Former mp warns Canadians being ‘francophonized,’” Sault Star, 15 Mar. 1989, p. B1. Stewart picked up some unwanted publicity in April 1990. He had written a letter on behalf of an American English-rights group warning the 100,000 Americans it was mailed to that they would be forced to speak Spanish unless the U.S. declared English its official language. His problem was that in order to give the letter a little extra cachet, he wrote it on House of Commons letterhead, some time after he had ceased to be an mp. Darcy Henton, “Commons’ letterhead used in English-rights bid,” Toronto Star, 18 Apr. 1990, p. A14; and “Ex-mp’s letterhead use questioned,” Toronto Star, 19 Apr. 1990, p. A13. 50 Warmington, “Former mp.” 51 “‘Enough’ author attracts 600,” Sault Star, 17 May 1989, p. A2. 52 Sid Benwell, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 29 Apr. 1989, p. A4. 53 John Campbell, interview with the author, 1 Feb. 1999. 54 Michael Valpy, “Looking at leaders of anti-bilingualism,” Globe and Mail, 7 Feb. 1990, p. A8. 55 Fred Loader, Sault Star, 23 Dec. 1989, p. A4, and 27 Jan. 1990, p. A4. 56 Debates, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 8 June 1989, p. 1057. 57 Nancy Wood, “Bilingualism foes stand their ground,” Toronto Star, 26 May 1990, p. A8. 58 Margaret Bruineman, “Bilingual bill faces boycott by new group,” Examiner, 26 June 1989, p. 3. 59 David Olinger, “Sault English-language rights backers join provincial body,” Sault 236

NOTES

Star, 26 June 1989, p. B1, and “English rights supported,” Sault Star, 2 Aug. 1989, p. B1. 60 Charlotte Gray, “Soo Language Wars,” Chatelaine, July 1990, pp. 35–37 and 64–67, p. 67. 61 Joe Warmington, “‘Tidal wave’ reaction startles man who led Sault petition drive,” Montreal Gazette, 3 Feb. 1990, p. A10. 62 Sault Association for the Preservation of English Language Rights, Petition. 63 Warmington, “‘Tidal wave.’” 64 Michael Bennett, “They see an enemy in red tie,” Toronto Sun, 2 Feb. 1990, p. 24. 65 Richard Pearman, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 16 June 1992, p. A4. See also Gray, “Soo Language Wars,” p. 66; Thomas Walkom, “Soo Hullaballo not as simple as it looks,” Toronto Star, 3 Feb. 1990, p. D4; and the local report by Mike Lewis, “sapelr members pack Korah to celebrate moment in spotlight,” Sault Star, 14 Feb. 1990, p. B1. One occasion on which it did not suit Pearman to stress the importance of the French language schooling fight was when, shortly after the resolution passed, he drafted a letter to all heads of councils and municipal councillors in Ontario to explain what had prompted sapelr’s petition. This letter argued that the petition and the subesequent resolution were purely preemptive strikes to prevent Bill 8’s being extended; it did not mention the battle over French language education. Richard Pearman, 12 Feb. 1990. 66 Several friends and acquaintances have made this point to me. 67 See the correspondence and telephone logs relating to the English-only resolution kept in the city clerk’s department, Civic Centre, 99 Foster Drive, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. 68 Warmington, “‘Tidal wave.’” 69 Linda Richardson, “I’m ‘one of the people,’ not strong-fisted mayor — Fratesi,” Sault Star, 8 Nov. 1991, p. B1; and Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 27 Jan. 1996, p. A4. 70 Hoffman, “Project Harmony.” 71 James McIntyre, interview with the author, 27 Jan. 1999; and Joe Warmington and David Olinger, “Francophones demand council reverse position, Fratesi quit,” Sault Star, 5 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 72 Hoffman, “Project Harmony.” 73 McIntyre, interview. 74 Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, 29 Jan. 1990, videotape. 75 John Campbell, interview with the author, 21 July 1998; and Simpson, Faultlines, p. 236. 76 Simpson, Faultlines, p. 236. 77 “Rights motion to be considered,” Sault Star, 27 Jan. 1990, p. B2.

CHAPTER THREE Meeting of the Council, 29 Jan. 1990. Ibid.

1

2

237

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

3

Ibid. Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Simpson, Faultlines, pp. 240–41. Examples of editorial reaction include: Norman Webster, “No harm? Sault must be kidding,” Montreal Gazette, 3 Feb. 1990, p. B3; Jeffrey Simpson, “The prejudice below the surface,” cited above; “The sad resolution of Sault Ste. Marie,” Globe and Mail, 7 Feb. 1990, p. A6; and Jean-Claude LeClerc, “Le langage du Sault-aux-racistes,” Le Devoir, 1 Feb. 1990, p. 8. 7 Joe Warmington, “Translator suspended after ‘racist comments’ in weather report,” Sault Star, 1 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 8 The Meech Boys, “Bye Bye Soo,” cjrc 1150 Radio am, Musica Monette. 9 Fred Loader, Sault Star, 3 Feb. 1990, p. A4. 10 Dan Iannuzzi, “Sault situation is ironic because it involves Mayor Joseph Fratesi,” Corriere Canadese, reprinted in Sault Star, 16 Feb. 1990, p. A4; and John R. Abbott, “Ethnicity as a Dynamic Factor in the Education of an Industrializing Town: The Case of Sault Ste. Marie, 1895–1914,” Ontario History, Vol. lxxix, No. 4, Dec. 1987, pp. 327–52, p. 330. 11 See Rob Bostelaar’s three illuminating Sault Star articles, “3000 saw local Ku Klux Klan ceremony,” “Sault was divided at Gore Street,” and “Klan tarred and feathered one man,” Mar. 18–20, 1976. 12 Brian Vallée, “A Tough Cookie,” cbc’s the fifth estate, 28 Oct. 1997. 13 Iannuzzi, “Sault situation.” 14 Ibid. 15 Among them radio broadcaster John Campbell (interviews with the author, 21 July 1998 and 1 Feb. 1999) and Sault Star editor Doug Millroy (Sault Star, 3 Feb. 1990, p. A4). 16 Simpson, Faultlines, pp. 239, 253. 17 Joe Fratesi, “The Facts on the Recent City Resolutions,” open letter published in the Sault Star, 24 Feb. 1990, p. A7. 18 Simpson, Faultlines, pp. 247–48. 19 Star Staff and News Services, “Francophones tell Queen’s Park they’re ‘under siege’ in Sault,” Sault Star, 27 Apr. 1990, pp. A1-A2. 20 David Olinger, “Resolution draws national attention to Sault Ste. Marie,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C2. 21 Gray, “Soo Language Wars,” p. 67. 22 Olinger, “Sault English-language”; and Fred Loader, Sault Star, 8 July 1989, p. A4. 23 Joe Warmington, “Politicians who condemn council should listen to voters — Fratesi,” Sault Star, 1 Feb. 1990, p. B1. 24 This is clear from his 1987 letter of application to provincial Attorney General Scott, plus the disappointment he expressed periodically as no federal appointment for him materialized. See below. 25 Debates, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 18 Nov. 1986, p. 3407. 4

238

NOTES

Michael Valpy, “Finding scapegoats during hard times,” Globe and Mail, 9 Feb. 1990, p. A8. 27 Francis R. Guth, letter to city council, 5 June 1990. 28 Marriott Edgar, “The Lion and Albert,” in The Oxford Book of Narrative Verse, eds. Iona and Peter Opie (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 363–65. 29 Julie Rouleau, “Hullaballoo in the Soo, Council decision puts us on the political map,” Sault This Week, 7 Feb. 1990, pp. 1A–2A. 30 Gray, “Soo Language Wars,” p. 36. 31 Simpson, Faultlines, p. 243. Then Sault mpp Karl Morin-Strom, a New Democrat, represented the Sault at Queen’s Park from 1985 to 1990. While Fratesi was not interested in meeting regularly with Morin-Strom on local/provincial issues because he was not a member of the governing Liberals, Morin-Strom saw enough of him to assess his views and outlook. He was convinced that Fratesi saw the petition and the resolution as entirely local issues, his endorsement of which would bring him a lot of credit in the Sault, and would not be picked up nationally. Karl Morin-Strom, interview with the author, 30 Sept. 1998. 32 In Morin-Strom’s words, Fratesi had made himself an anathema at Queen’s Park. Morin-Strom, interview. 33 Star Staff and News Services, “Mulroney calls Sault resolution on language ‘deplorable,’” Sault Star, 1 Feb. 1990, p. A1. 34 Canadian Press, “Peterson won’t go out of way to have discussion with Fratesi,” Sault Star, 2 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 35 John Fraser, “Frying French in the Soo,” Saturday Night, May 1990, pp. 11–12. 36 Joe Warmington, “Premier says he’s ‘deeply disappointed’ by resolution,” Sault Star, 1 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 37 “Taking Sides on Language,” Maclean’s, 19 Feb. 1990, pp. 14–15. 38 Warmington, “Premier says.” 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Matt Maychak, “Premier slams Sault stance over French,” Toronto Star, 31 Jan. 1990, p. A12; and Canadian Press, “Premier slams English-only Soo.” 42 Warmington, “Politicians who.” 43 Joe Warmington, “Fratesi, Peterson clash offstage at Brier opening,” Sault Star, 5 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2, and “Angry Mayor says Peterson ignored him and language issue,” Sault Star, 5 Mar. 1990, p. B1. 44 Star Staff and News Services, “Premier offering to help Fratesi get out of jam on language rights,” Sault Star, 3 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 45 Ibid. 46 Joe Warmington, “Leaders dismiss criticism of how Bill 8 passed,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C18. 47 Jackie Hoffman, “‘Time for healing, not recriminations,’” Sault Star, 3 Mar. 1990, p. A1. 26

239

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

48

Warmington, “Fratesi, Peterson,” and “Angry Mayor.” Linda Richardson, “Minister, mayor talk of ‘healing wounds,’” Sault Star, 21 Apr. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 50 Linda Richardson, “Four months after . . . Fratesi standing firm on language issue,” Sault Star, 26 May 1990, p. B1. 51 Linda Richardson, “Mayor still waiting for The Call,” Sault Star, 24 Aug. 1990, p. B1; and Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 31 Aug. 1990, p. A5. 52 David Olinger, “Support of Bill 8 ‘is where we come from’ — Peterson,” Sault Star, 24 Aug. 1990, p. B1; and Linda Richardson, “Mayor meets Peterson — after Sept. 6,” Sault Star, 27 Aug. 1990, p. B1. 53 Jackie Hoffman, “Mayor’s cancellation disappoints Bob Rae,” Sault Star, 12 Mar. 1990, p. A3. 54 Linda Richardson, “Council won’t let Butland give talk,” Sault Star, 13 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 55 Debates, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 18 Nov. 1986, p. 3405. 56 Lynne Olver, “Chrétien ‘out of tune’ with how Canadians feel,” Sault Star, 13 May 1991, p. A1. 57 Ibid. 58 John Campbell, interview, 1 Feb. 1999. 59 Ibid. Other evidence of Fratesi’s belief that he was still in the running for a judgeship is in Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 11 Jan. 1992, p. A4; John Campbell, “It’s Mayor Joe that language resolution opponents are after,” Sault This Week, 27 Nov. 1993; Fred Loader, Sault Star, 16 July 1994, p. A4; and Simpson, Faultlines, p. 260. See also the Examination of Mary Borowicz, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 17 Nov. 1995, pp. 54, 69–71. 60 Special to the Globe and Mail with Canadian Press, “Soo council sticks to resolution despite francophone protests,” Globe and Mail, 6 Feb. 1990, p. A13. 61 Linda Richardson, “mpp tells mayor to resign over language stance,” Sault Star, 2 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 62 Linda Richardson, “Protests fizzle — English resolution untouched,” Sault Star, 6 Feb. 1990, p. B1. 63 Dowling, “City defends.” 64 Warmington, “Politicians who.” 65 Ibid. 66 Fratesi, “The Facts.” 67 Ibid. 68 Valpy, “Finding scapegoats.” 69 Star Staff and News Services, “Peterson angry at Sault vote on language,” Sault Star, 31 Jan. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 70 Walkom, “Soo Hullabaloo.” It certainly was the wrong impression, which Fratesi did little to dispel. Of the 350 jobs which were coming to the Sault with the Ontario Lottery Corporation, only about a dozen were classified as bilingual. Linda Richardson, “Few Ontario Lottery jobs here considered bilingual — 49

240

NOTES

Neilson-Jones,” Sault Star, 8 Feb. 1990, p. B1. Suzanne Steel, “Soo reaffirms unilingualism,” Winnipeg Free Press, 6 Feb. 1990, p. 14. 72 Fratesi, “The Facts.” 73 Warmington, “Politicians who.” 74 Joe Warmington and Robert Bousquet, “Visions of Canada may have been ‘on thin ice,’” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C16. 75 Darcy Henton, “English-only move a hit in Sault,” Toronto Star, 3 Feb. 1990, p. A2. 76 A point made at the time by, among many others, an angry Premier Peterson. “This argument that he has been putting up after the fact; don’t expect me to respond to that,” he told one reporter. Warmington, “Leaders dismiss.” 77 “Want action?” 78 Star Staff and News Services, “Peterson angry.” 79 “Want Action?” 80 Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley nailed this issue squarely at the annual conference of the rural section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario held in early February 1990. Denouncing those communities that had declared themselves unilingual as “intellectually dishonest,” Bradley said that, “These communities are pretending [Bill 8] is going to affect them when it doesn’t. They are taking advantage of the linguistic tension in the province to play politics.” Canadian Press, “Prince Reeve and Premier clash on French,” Sault Star, 8 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. This meeting of the rural section of amo voted down a motion asking the provincial government to review Bill 8 by a wide margin. As one delegate who had read Bill 8 observed dryly, “Municipalities aren’t affected.” “Concern about French,” Sault Star, 8 Feb. 1990, p. A4. 81 In his open letter to the Sault Star on February 24, 1990, justifying the resolution, Fratesi listed six factors which ostensibly had given municipalities “real concern” about the province’s possible next moves on the language front. Conspicuously absent from the letter is a reference to any attempt on his part to discuss Bill 8 with the premier or any other cabinet minister prior to January 29, 1990. See also his comments to Michael Valpy about his difficulties in getting Queen’s Park to listen to him about other matters. Had he tried to discuss Bill 8 with provincial officials and failed to get a hearing, it seems more than likely that he would have told Valpy about it. Valpy, “Finding scapegoats.” 82 Joe Warmington, “Hundreds hold vigil for ‘sick’ Sault Ste. Marie,” Sault Star, 27 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 83 Gray, “Soo Language Wars,” p. 67; and Richardson, “mpp tells.” 84 Sault Star, 5 Feb. 1990, p. A3. 85 Linda Richardson, “Mayor Fratesi gets vote of confidence on English issue,” Sault Star, 6 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 86 Ibid. 87 Richardson, “Protests fizzle,” and “Four months after”; and Jackie Hoffman, “Hospitality jobs ‘jeopardized’ by English-only stance,” Sault Star, 9 Mar. 1990, p. B1, and “Group lobbies against resolution,” Sault Star, 9 Mar. 1990, p. A1. 88 Richardson, “Protests fizzle.” 71

241

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Johanne Messier-Mann, telephoned comments to Mayor Fratesi, Feb. 1990, telephone logs; Adrien Cantin, “Resolution means ‘humiliating times’ for Sault francophones,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C21; Chris Hall, “Constitutional group encounter hurdles during Northern trip,” Sault Star, 11 Feb. 1991, p. B1; Joe Turbide, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 29 Feb. 1992, p. A4; Noel H. Fortier, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 25 Nov. 1993, p. A4; Brent Case, interview with the author, 1 Oct. 1999. 90 Denise Martel, Huron Broadcasting interview, Feb. 1990. 91 David Olinger, “Francophones report letters carry threats,” Sault Star, 15 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 92 David Olinger, “Board downplays departure of 13 French teachers,” Sault Star, 7 June 1990, p. B1; “Another francophone leaving Sault over language resolution,” Sault Star, 3 Dec. 1990, p. B1; “flac vacancies continue: LeFrancois leaving area cas,” Sault Star, 12 Oct. 1990, p. B2; and Lawrence Lizotte, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 4 June 1992, p. A4. 93 Henton, “English-only move.” 94 Linda Richardson, “mp says Sault ‘now painted with that intolerant brush,’” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C23. 95 John Campbell, “Editorial comment,” 13 Nov. 1991; Linda Richardson, “Language resolution was key issue — former mayor,” Sault Star, 13 Nov. 1991, pp. A1–A2. 96 Derek Ferguson, “Peterson out of touch, Sault mayor says,” Toronto Star, 5 Mar. 1990, p. A2. 97 Correspondence and telephone logs; and Linda Richardson, “City hall deluged by phone calls, telegrams,” Sault Star, 3 Feb. 1990, p. B1. Fratesi received over 200 calls of support at his home in that first post-resolution week. Sepkowski, “Soo language.” 98 For example, Dr. G.O. McLay, letter to the Mayor and Council, 12 Feb. 1990; and letters to Mayor Fratesi from Frank Southern, 12 Feb. 1990, and Janet Barnes, 5 Feb. 1990. 99 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from Henry Gaines, 5 Feb. 1990; Jacquie Huckson, 20 Feb. 1990; Marjorie Garside, not dated; and Gordon Merrifield, not dated. 100 E. Yaxley, letter to Mayor Fratesi, 9 Feb. 1990. 101 W.G. Wright, card to Mrs. Fratesi and letter to Mayor Fratesi, 6 Feb. 1990. 102 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from Muriel Colyer, 12 Feb. 1990, and Mabel Gibson, 9 Feb. 1990; and Ellen Butler, letter to Premier David Peterson, 8 Feb. 1990, copied to the Mayor and Council of Sault Ste. Marie. 103 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from Wayne and Nancy Adams, 2 Feb. 1990; Jack Barker, 11 Feb. 1990; Raymond Dagis, 4 Feb. 1990; Gary F. Robertson, 9 Feb. 1990; Roy Youngson, 1 Feb. 1990; and an anonymous Sault Ste. Marie secondary school teacher, 16 Mar. 1990. 104 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from the anonymous secondary school teacher cited in the previous note, 16 Mar. 1990; Dave Caufield, 7 Mar. 1990; 89

242

NOTES

James S. Ferguson, 8 Feb. 1990; Terry Kearns, 1 Feb. 1990; Roberta J. Marzetti, not dated. 105 Roy Youngson, letter to the Mayor and Council, 1 Feb. 1990. 106 Ron Young et al., fax to Mayor Fratesi, 13 Mar. 1990. 107 The letter from the anonymous secondary school teacher cited above. 108 R.D. Hamilton, letter to Mayor Fratesi, 8 Feb. 1990. 109 J.L. Graham, letter to Mayor Fratesi, 5 Feb. 1990. 110 M.C. Fee, letter to Mayor Fratesi, 7 Feb. 1990, reporting the reaction of him and his fellow General Motors workers to the resolution. 111 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from Mario DeVuona, 13 Feb. 1990; Shirley Genys, 11 Mar. 1990; Cecelea and Len Rosmus, 21 Feb. 1990. 112 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from Darlene and Carol Artuso, 2 Feb. 1990; and Bert Williams, 5 Feb. 1990. 113 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from James F. Ferguson, 8 Feb. 1990, cited above; and Ed Pearce, 10 Feb. 1990. 114 Richardson, “mpp tells.” 115 For example, letters to Mayor Fratesi from Don Edwards, 5 Feb. 1990; Stanley D. Fisher and Arbutus Fisher, 15 Mar. 1990; M. Fournier, 3 Feb. 1990; J. Mraud, 8 Mar. 1990; and Joyce West and Carol King, 9 Apr. 1990. 116 Morin-Strom, interview. 117 Rouleau, “Hullabaloo in”; and Star Staff and News Services, “Peterson angry.” 118 Star Staff and News Services, “Peterson angry.” 119 Richardson, “mpp tells.” 120 Henton, “English-only move.” 121 Morin-Strom, interview. 122 Canadian Press, “Learn from Sault experience — Morin-Strom,” Sault Star, 21 Mar. 1990, p. A1. 123 Mike Lewis, “uswa 4509 cuts ndp ties over Morin-Strom’s language stand,” Sault Star, 25 Apr. 1990, p. A1. 124 Morin-Strom, interview. 125 Ibid. 126 Jackie Hoffman, “Jimmie John’s owner repays those who helped with his start,” and “Warmth, beauty attracted Hilsinger,” Sault Star, 12 Oct. 1989, p. B2; and “7.5 million hotel expansion shows faith in future of city,” Sault Star, 14 Oct. 1989, p. B1. 127 Canadian Press, “Peterson won’t”; and Adrien Cantin, “Chamber president urges dialogue on language,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C24. 128 Michael Valpy, “Soo’s unilingualism carries a price tag,” Globe and Mail, 28 Feb. 1990, p. A8. 129 David Olinger, “City venues hurt as events moved over English ruling,” Sault Star, 15 Feb. 1990, p. B1. 130 Mike Lewis and David Olinger, “Council offers ‘olive’ branch to francophones,” Sault Star, 20 Feb. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 131 Fratesi, “The Facts.”

243

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

132

Joe Warmington and David Olinger, “Resolution costing city jobs, revenue, Hilsinger says,” Sault Star, 10 Mar. 1990, p. C25. 133 Hoffman, “Hospitality jobs”; and Sault Ste. Marie Citizens For a Progressive City, News Release, 9 Mar. 1990. 134 Ibid. 135 Sault Ste. Marie Citizens for a Progressive City, News Release. 136 Joe Warmington, “Hilsinger criticized for airing language concerns during Brier,” Sault Star, 12 Mar. 1990, p. B1. 137 Ibid. 138 Linda Richardson, “sapelr hears call for boycott of hotel,” Sault Star, 14 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 139 Joe Warmington, “Hotelier growing worried about cancellations, boycott,” Sault Star, 17 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 140 Letter from K. Morrar et al. to J.J. Hilsinger, 16 Mar. 1990. 141 Warmington, “Hotelier growing.” 142 Joe Warmington, “Gr. 8 graduates switch; hotel blames mayor,” Sault Star, 20 Mar. 1990, pp. A1–A2. 143 Telephone logs. 144 Warmington, “Gr. 8.” 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid. 148 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 149 Warmington, “Gr. 8.” 150 Bruce and Betty Campbell, letter to Mayor Fratesi, 20 Mar. 1990. 151 Joe Warmington, “sapelr member apologizes to Water Tower for boycott suggestion,” Sault Star, 21 Mar. 1990, p. B1. 152 Telephone logs. 153 “Punishment for speaking out,” Sault Star, 16 Mar. 1990, p. A4; and “Jim Hilsinger steps aside,” Sault Star, 31 Mar. 1990, p. A4. A friend who had run a successful business in the Sault for many years told me recently that after seeing what happened in Sault in the early 1990s, he was much better able to understand how democracy has been eroded in other places at other times. 154 Richardson, “I’m ‘one.’” 155 Ross Marowits, “Santana challenges voters to make candidates deal with issues,” Sault Star, 24 Oct. 1991, p. B1. 156 Harry Hurdon 1991 mayoralty campaign. 157 See his attacks on local dentist Mark Santana (who argued that citizens needed to deal with the real issues during the campaign, and hosted his own “Visions of Excellence” Forum), on Algoma University College President Doug Lawson (when he criticized the city-controlled Economic Development Corporation), and on Kathy Brosemer (for ranking Hurdon’s views on environmental issues more highly than Fratesi’s). Marowits, “Santana challenges”; and Simon Tuck, “edc strangled by council, resigned member says,” Sault Star, 26 Oct. 1991, pp. 244

NOTES

A1–A2, and “Coalition leader charges ‘intimidation’ by Fratesi,” Sault Star, 5 Nov. 1991, p. B1. 158 Simon Tuck, “Fratesi makes clean sweep after ‘dirty’ campaign,” Sault Star, 13 Nov. 1991, p. B1. 159 Sault Star, 13 Nov. 1985, p. B1. The particular circumstances of the 1988 mayoralty race make it more meaningful to compare the 1991 results with those of 1985. 160 “Election Special Questionnaire,” Sault Star, 8 Nov. 1991, pp. C4–C6. 161 “The 1991 election,” Sault Star, 13 Nov. 1991, p. A4. 162 Linda Richardson, “Some rescind language resolutions but Fratesi says bylaw here to stay,” Sault Star, 25 Apr. 1992, p. B1; and Dianne Wadden, “Not so, Fratesi says about Le Droit francophones story,” Sault Star, 24 Dec. 1992, p. A1. 163 Francis R. Guth, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 12 Dec. 1990, p. A4. 164 Joe Warmington, “Foreign business not worried by Sault language stand — edc,” Sault Star, 1 June 1990, p. A2. 165 David Olinger, “Hearst urges boycott of convention in Sault,” Sault Star, 10 Apr. 1992, pp. A1–A2; Simon Tuck, “cupe shuns Sault for convention over language resolution,” Sault Star, 2 June 1993, p. B1, and “Francophone boards say they won’t come to Sault,” Sault Star, 24 Oct. 1991, p. B1; Linda Richardson, “Year-old language debate continues,” Sault Star, 28 Jan. 1991, pp. A1–A2; Ron Comeault, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 1 June 1992, p. A4; and Canadian Press, “Thunder Bay likely to remain English-only, says the mayor,” Sault Star, 11 Aug. 1999, p. A3. 166 “Mayor Fratesi figures Sault in position to overcome hardships,” Sault Star, 22 Feb. 1991, p. C1. 167 Derek Ferguson, “English-only city requests Ontario favor,” Toronto Star, 23 Jan. 1991, p. A12. 168 “English-only bylaw hurt — Martin,” Sault Star, 22 Feb. 1991, p. C7. Former mp Butland confirmed in 1999 that the resolution did the city no good with the federal government: “This issue caused me nothing but grief when I was in Ottawa.” Elissa Gray, “City council overturns Sault’s 1990 English-only resolution,” Sault This Week, 11 Aug. 1999, p. 13A. 169 Linda Richardson, “Hilsinger calls for free vote on language motion,” Sault Star, 30 Jan. 1991, p. B1, and “Thunder Bay ‘stupid’ to re-open talks,” Sault Star, 13 Feb. 1991, p. B1; and Fred Loader, Sault Star, 20 Nov. 1993, p. A4, and 16 July 1994, p. A4. 170 Tuck, “cupe shuns”; and Elaine Della-Mattia, “‘Frivolous,’ mayor says of application,” Sault Star, 17 Nov. 1993, p. A1. 171 Della-Mattia, “‘Frivolous’, mayor.” 172 Loader, 20 Nov. 1993. 173 Elaine Della-Mattia, “City prepare[s] for court fight over resolution,” Sault Star, 22 Nov. 1993, pp. A1–A2. 174 James L. McIntyre, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 18 Nov. 1993. 175 Joe Fratesi, card to James L. McIntyre, not dated. 176 Elaine Della-Mattia, “Judge reserves decision on English resolution,” Sault Star, 14 June 1994, p. B1. 245

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Yvon Renaud, letter to the author, 27 Sept. 1999. Ibid. 179 Ross Marowits, “Mayor urges no appeal in language case,” Sault Star, 6 July 1994, pp. A1–A2. 180 Ross Marowits, “Pardon our French!” Sault Star, 2 July 1994, pp. A1–A2, and “Mayor urges.” 181 The Law Society of Upper Canada, Professional Conduct Handbook, as amended to 17 Mar. 1989, Rule 11, p. 30. 182 Marowits, “Pardon our.” 183 Linda Richardson, “Full ahead main engines: we ain’t changin’ course,” Sault Star, 15 Nov. 1994, pp. A1–A2; and “Rowswell foils Fratesi’s ‘deserved’ acclamation,” Sault Star, 15 Oct. 1994, pp. A1–A2. 184 John Campbell, editorial comment, ez Rock Radio, 14 Nov. 2000. 185 Order-in-Council P.C. 1995–1129, signed July 26, 1995 and gazetted on August 19, 1995 (Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 129, No. 33, p. 2859). 186 Borowicz, Examination, p. 54. In this book I make extensive reference to the transcripts of examinations for discovery carried out prior to the two conflict of interest cases involving Joe Fratesi. In the first reference to a transcript, I have provided a full description of the document (see for example note 59 of this chapter which gives the full description of the transcript of Councillor Borowicz’s testimony). Subsequent references are shortened in the interests of space, as this particular note illustrates. 177

178

CHAPTER FOUR Starr and Sharp, Ethical Conduct, p. 139. Rick O’Connor, “Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Legislation in the Nineties,” article based on a seminar given by O’Connor at a joint meeting of the Ontario Regional Soliciters and Regional Clerks Associations in May 1991. 3 Forbes v. Trask, 1991, cited in O’Connor. 4 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, CM. 50, S. 5. 5 Declaration of Elected Office, Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, CM. 45, S. 94(1), Form 3. 6 Ibid. 7 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 8 The Municipal Conflict of Interest Consultation Committee, Municipal Conflict of Interest Review (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1991), pp. 68–69. 9 Ibid., p. 69. 10 Quicklaw files. These 35 cases were the relevant ones I was able to find. 11 Campbell v. Sachs, 1991. 12 Quicklaw files. 13 Ibid. 14 Municipal Conflict of Interest Review, p. 69. 15 Linda Richardson, “When in doubt, get out? Aldermen puzzle over conflicts,” Sault 1

2

246

NOTES

Star, 4 Nov. 1989, p. B1. Fred Loader, Sault Star, 16 Sept. 1989, p. A4. 17 Richardson, “When in doubt.” 18 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 19 Municipal Conflict of Interest Review, p. 59. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., pp. 59–60. Ms. Sue Heffernan of the Sudbury office of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing more recently confirmed this point (conversation with the author, 9 June 2000). 22 Municipal Conflict of Interest Review, p. 59. 23 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 24 Allan A. Jackson, “Re: City’s Early Retirement Incentive (eri) Program,” memorandum to Mayor Joseph M. Fratesi and members of city council, 25 Sept. 1995, p. 2. 25 “Jackson charges Fratesi shelved downsizing report, ordered new plan,” Sault Star, 7 Nov. 1997, p. B3. 26 Jackson, “Re: City’s,” pp. 3–4; T.H. Ackland, letter to A.A. Jackson, 1 Sept. 1995, p. 2. 27 Examination of Allan Jackson, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 10 Nov. 1995, p. 38; Examination of Ed Szczepaniak [sic], Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 9 Jan. 1996, pp. 29–30; Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, 25 Sept. 1995, partial transcript of the videotape prepared by the author. 28 Meeting of the Council, 25 Sept. 1995. 29 Charles Swift, letter to the editor, Sault This Week, 3 Jan. 1996, p. 7. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Jackson, Examination, pp. 40–41. 33 Ibid., p. 41. 34 Ibid. 35 Examination of Charles Swift, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 10 Nov. 1995, pp. 12, 37–38. 36 Meeting of the Council, 25 Sept. 1995. 37 Affidavit of Joseph M. Fratesi, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 29 Jan. 1996, paragraphs 21–22. 38 Swift, letter, 3 Jan. 1996. 39 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 23. 40 Jackson, Examination, p. 3. 41 Ibid., p. 4. 42 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 43 Jackson, Examination, pp. 7–8. 44 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 30 Sept. 1995, p. A4; and Special Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, 31 Jan. 1996, transcript of the videotape prepared by the author. 45 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 16

247

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Ibid.; and “Former cao taped conversation with Fratesi, cbc program reveals,” Sault Star, 29 Oct. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 47 “Former cao.” 48 Jackson, Examination, p. 8. 49 Ibid., p. 7. 50 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 51 Ibid., p. 11. 52 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 53 Ibid., p. 13. 54 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 34. 55 Had the first conversation occurred in mid-September, the city’s new commissioner of personnel John Luszka, who started work on September 11, would have been involved in Kates’ transfer/promotion from the beginning. Jackson’s evidence was that he involved Luszka only at a later stage in the process, after Luszka had begun his new job. Jackson, Examination, p. 10. 56 Joe Fratesi, “Re: Reorganization and Early Retirement,” memorandum to all members of city council, 25 Sept. 1995, p. 1. 57 Sandra Paul, “‘Recollections’ between Fratesi and cao differ,” Sault This Week, 11 Oct. 1995, p. 1A. 58 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 35. 59 Ibid., paragraph 36. 60 Jackson, Examination, pp. 13–14, 58–62. 61 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 39. 62 Jackson, “Re: City’s,” pp. 3–4; Ackland, pp. 2–3; Meeting of the Council, 25 Sept. 1995. 63 Meeting of the Council, 25 Sept. 1995. 64 Fratesi, “Re: Reorganization,” p. 1. 65 Ibid., p. 3. 66 Examination of Udo Rauk, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 8 Jan. 1996, p. 10; Examination of Michael Sanzosti, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 9 Jan. 1996, p. 5. 67 Richardson, “Fratesi quits.” 68 Examination of Rick Niro, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 9 Jan. 1996, p. 5; and Swift, Examination, p. 9. 69 Borowicz, Examination, p. 22. 70 There is some conflicting testimony on the sequence of events. Councillors Trembinski, DeLuca, Cameletti, Solski, Niro, Rauk, and Swift were clear that council approved the Jackson package before the issue of replacing him was taken up. (Examinations, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, repondent: Gary Trembinski, 9 Jan. 1996, p. 7; Wayne DeLuca, 9 Jan. 1996, pp. 16–17; Jack Cameletti, 8 Jan. 1996, pp. 6–7; John Solski, 9 Jan. 1996, pp. 14–15; Niro, p. 5; Rauk, p. 13, and Swift, pp. 9–13.) This is consistent with what Fratesi said in an interview the day after the meeting. 46

248

NOTES

(Richardson, “Fratesi quits.”) But he remembered differently when he swore his affidavit some four months later. At that time, he said, “To the best of my recollection, there was no vote taken and the presentation had not yet concluded on this matter [Jackson’s retirement],” and because of a question asked by a councillor, “it was not going to be possible to deal with Mr. Jackson’s retirement fully without dealing with how or who would replace him.” Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraphs 52–53. 71 Examinations, Solski, p. 15, and Rauk, p. 11; and Richardson, “Fratesi quits.” 72 Joe Fratesi, “Re: Chief Administrative Officer Position,” memorandum to all members of city council, 25 Sept. 1995, p. 3. The quotations in the next five paragraphs in the text are all drawn from this document. 73 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, Oct. 14, 1995, p. A4. 74 Joe Fratesi, “Re: Chief.” 75 Niro, Examination, p. 6. 76 Borowicz, Examination, p. 20. 77 Examination of Jack Moore, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 8 Jan. 1996, p. 8. 78 Examination of Walter Chisholm, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 9 Jan. 1996, pp. 17–18; Examinations, Rauk, pp. 18–19, and Borowicz, pp. 20, 52–53. 79 Rauk, Examination, pp. 33, 44–45. DeLuca, Examination, p. 54, also recalled reference while Fratesi was present to the possibility of council’s contacting the city solicitor; Niro, Examination, p. 39, had no such recollection. 80 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 21, Trembinski, pp. 28, Niro, p. 34, and Moore, p. 32. DeLuca alone, Examination, pp. 22–23, suggested that Fratesi may have said that the package could be split apart. 81 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 21, and Niro, p. 34. 82 Borowicz, Examination, p. 21. 83 Swift, Examination, p. 16. 84 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 42, and Solski, p. 44. 85 Solski, Examination, p. 44. 86 Examinations, DeLuca, p. 51, Rauk, p. 47, Swift, p. 19, and Trembinski, p. 32. 87 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 21, and Chisholm, pp. 9, 12, 18. 88 Examinations, Borowicz, pp. 20, 52, Swift, pp. 18, and Trembinski, p. 11, recalled “vulnerable”; Rauk, p. 14, remembered “exposed.” 89 DeLuca, Examination, p. 48. 90 Examinations, Borowicz, pp. 19–20, Solski, p. 45, Szczepanik, p. 36, and Trembinski, pp. 27–28. 91 Sanzosti, Examination, p. 38. 92 Examinations, DeLuca, pp. 48–49, 60, Moore, pp. 25–26, and Rauk, p. 14. 93 Borowicz, Examination, pp. 20, 52–54, 70. 94 Ibid., pp. 54, 69–71. 95 DeLuca, Examination, pp. 47–48. 96 Trembinski, Examination, p. 27. 249

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Szczepanik, Examination, pp. 36–37. Ibid., p. 35. 99 DeLuca, Examination, p. 19. 100 Ibid., pp. 19–20. 101 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 49. 102 Solski, Examination, pp. 9–11, 31–32; and Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 49. 103 Solski, Examination, p. 14, although he also testified that, “If I did vote on it, I’m sure I voted in favour of it.” 104 Examinations, Solski, pp. 19–20, and Swift, p. 22. 105 Solski, Examination, p. 20. 106 Ibid., pp. 22, 33. 107 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 20, and Swift, p. 15. 108 Transcript of comments made, p. 26. 109 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 31, Cameletti, pp. 12–13, DeLuca, p. 20, Niro, p. 8, and Trembinski, p. 9. 110 Examinations, Borowicz, p. 32, and Trembinski, p. 10. 111 Trembinski, Examination, p. 30. 112 DeLuca, Examination, p. 24. 113 Ibid. 114 Sanzosti, Examination, p. 41. 115 Ibid., p. 40. 116 Niro, Examination, p. 36. 117 Mike Sanzosti, letter to Allan Jackson, Sept. 27, 1995, p. 2. 118 Examinations, Cameletti, pp. 27, 32, and Sanzosti, pp. 42–43. 119 Sanzosti, Examination, p. 43. 120 In their examinations, Borowicz, pp. 55–56, DeLuca, pp. 25–26, Niro, p. 37, Rauk, p. 49, Solski, pp. 24–25, Szczepanik, p. 16, and Trembinski, p. 13, all indicated that the mayor was present for at least part of this discussion, and several indicated that he participated actively in it. Sanzosti alone, p. 10, testified that he was not in the room when this discussion occurred. 121 Council would also have needed to pass a bylaw in respect of the pension buyback, although it seems unlikely that councillors would have been aware of that particular requirement that night. 122 Solski, Examination, pp. 24–25. 123 Examinations, Szczepanik, p. 18, and Rauk, p. 48. 124 Examinations, Borowicz, pp. 56–58, 64, Cameletti, p. 37, Rauk, pp. 49–50, Sanzosti, pp. 9–11, Szczepanik, pp. 38–39, and Trembinski, pp. 12–13. 125 Szczepanik, Examination, p. 39. 126 Examinations, Swift, pp. 25–26, and Szczepanik, p. 16. 127 Chisholm, Examination, pp. 10–12, pp. 18–19. 128 Jackson, Examination, pp. 30, 68. 129 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 68. I interpret this as referring to the initial discussions of the subject, not to the entire process which ended on September 25. Otherwise, it is inconsistent with Fratesi’s other statements. 97

98

250

NOTES

Ibid., paragraph 44. Ibid., paragraph 69. 132 Transcript of comments made, 26 Sept. 1995, p. 4. 133 Richardson, “Fratesi quits.” 134 See also Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 69. 135 Ibid., paragraph 44. 136 Ibid., paragraph 70. 137 Ibid., paragraph 45. 138 Ibid., paragraph 46. 139 Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, 19 Feb. 1996, partial transcript of the videotape prepared by the author. 140 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi dismissed campaign manager as ‘nuts’ for suggesting he take over cao position,” Sault Star, 22 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Sanzosti, Examination, pp. 31–32. 144 Jackson, Examination, p. 28. 145 Richardson, “Fratesi quits.” 146 Councillor Borowicz alone initially thought that the savings to fund Jackson’s eri would come through council’s hiring his replacement at a lower salary. Obviously, this did not happen. Borowicz, Examination, pp. 67–69. 147 The estimate of the cost of an election which surfaced immediately after council announced Fratesi’s appointment was $100,000. Patti Murphy, “No shortage of successors waiting in the wings,” Sault Star, 27 Sept. 1995, pp. A1–A2. It later escalated. 148 Cameletti, Examination, p. 27. 149 Borowicz, Examination, p. 54. Caputo was sworn in on August 30, 1995. Sault Star, 31 Aug. 1995, p. B2. 150 Millroy, Sault Star, 27 Jan. 1996. 130 131

CHAPTER FIVE 1

Richardson, “Fratesi quits.” See for example “Fratesi will be missed,” Sault Star, 27 Sept. 1995, p. A4; Doug Millroy and Fred Loader, Sault Star, 30 Sept. 1995, p. A4; “Mayor must be elected,” Sault Star, 3 Oct. 1995, p. A4; Robert Roth, “Councillors betray the public interest,” Sault This Week, 4 Oct. 1995, p. 5A; and John Campbell, mix–100 Radio commentary, 1 Oct. 1995. 3 Sault Star, 4 Oct. 1995, p. A3; and 12 Oct. 1995, p. A3. 4 Linda Richardson, “Council withers under Fratesi furore,” Sault Star, 3 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 5 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 6 Richardson, “Council withers.” 2

251

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Loader, Sault Star, 30 Sept. 1995. I base this observation on some of the letters which the newspapers received after Fratesi’s appointment was announced, and on conversations in which either I, or friends and family members, participated during the days and weeks following September 26, 1995. As well, reporter Karl Sepkowski told cbc Radio’s Morning North on October 17, 1995, that there was no doubt that Fratesi was the city’s most popular mayor ever, thanks to the English-only resolution to a considerable extent. He was still very popular, but people in the Sault were shaking their heads and saying that this time he’d gone too far, according to Sepkowski. 9 Murphy, “No shortage.” 10 Ibid.; Linda Richardson, “Filling mayor’s chair likely won’t be done behind closed doors,” Sault Star, 28 Sept. 1995, p. B1; and “Chamber says election call option to take,” Sault Star, 29 Sept. 1995, p. B1. 11 Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce, “Chamber of Commerce Strongly Supports an Election for Mayor,” News Release, 28 Sept. 1995. 12 Brian Kuchepera, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 2 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 13 The source of Linda Richardson’s October 3 story was likely a councillor or someone close to one. During the caucus session on September 25, Sanzosti copied out by hand Fratesi’s eight-point set of job demands so that he could give the mayor’s personal and confidential document back to him at the end of the meeting, but still have a record of what Fratesi had asked for and council had decided. Using his notes as a guide, Sanzosti then drafted a letter to Allan Jackson describing the terms council had agreed to — i.e., Fratesi’s demands virtually unchanged. The letter was faxed to all councillors on October 2 (Sanzosti, Examination, pp. 13–16). Substantial chunks of that letter appeared verbatim in Richardson’s story (“Anatomy of a Deal,” Sault Star, p. A1) the next day. 14 Jackson himself confirmed this on September 26. See Chapter 4. Then in his September 30 column, Doug Millroy questioned how there could be any savings at all, concluding, “I simply see another person [Fratesi’s legal secretary] added to the payroll which to me relates to an increase rather than a saving.” Exactly. See Chapter 4 again. Millroy followed this up with a column further demolishing the savings argument two weeks later (Sault Star, 14 Oct. 1995, p. A4). 15 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi decision ‘stinks,’” Sault Star, 30 Sept. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 16 Paul, “‘Recollections’ between.” 17 Leesa Parlow, “Fratesi posting raises questions about conflict,” Sault This Week, 4 Oct. 1995, pp. 1A–2A. Szczepanik told Parlow that Fratesi answered “questions,” as is very obvious from the councillors’ collective sworn testimony reviewed in Chapter 4. 18 Linda Richardson, “Mayor hires ‘loyal’ law firm aide,” Sault Star, 29 Sept. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 19 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 7 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Sandra Paul, “City councillors explain their closed-door decision,” Sault This Week, 7

8

252

NOTES

4 Oct. 1995, p. 3A. Linda Richardson, “Councillors prepared to undo decision,” and “Swift offers resignation,” Sault Star, 4 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 24 Charles Swift, Press Release, 3 Oct. 1995, p. 3. 25 Ibid., p. 1. 26 Ibid., pp. 1–2. The press release expanded further on Swift’s general charge about the unsavoury nature of the eri program: In one case a 30-year employee was allowed to enhance his eri by retiring under a program that did not apply to his service record. In another, a 36-year employee was given no eri. We were told that he hadn’t asked for one, but I’ve since learned that he had indeed asked but had been denied because his leaving didn’t provide any savings to the city, even though the city ultimately downgraded the position for the incoming replacement. 27 Ibid., p. 2. 28 Joe Fratesi, “Fratesi Withdraws from Consideration for Position of cao without Competition,” Media Release, 4 Oct. 1995, p. 2. 29 Ibid. 30 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi backs out of cao deal,” Sault Star, 4 Oct. 1995, p. A1. 31 “Fratesi withdraws,” p. 3. 32 Ibid. 33 Richardson, “Fratesi backs.” 34 Ibid. 35 “Fratesi Withdraws,” p. 3. 36 cbc Radio, Morning North, 27 Sept. 1995. 37 Richardson, “Fratesi backs.” 38 Dee Patterson, conversation with the author, 10 Oct. 1995. 39 Notice of Application, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, Ontario Court (General Division), pp. 2–4. 40 Only the person or persons who sign the affidavit supporting a conflict of interest application can be examined for discovery in the course of the case. It seemed best to have only one of us sign. I drew the short straw. 41 Linda Richardson, “Joe won’t step aside,” Sault Star, 14 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 42 Ibid. 43 For example, when Kathy Broesmer of the Coalition for Environmental Priorities implicitly criticized Fratesi’s views on the environment during the 1991 election campaign, one of his retorts was that Broesmer was “part of a group that asks about the language resolution” and that this was “influencing her actions.” Tuck, “Coalition leader.” During the same campaign Fratesi attacked the motives of critic Mark Santana, and tried to link him to Jim Hilsinger, and everyone knew what Jim Hilsinger had become famous for in 1990. Marowits, “Santana challenges.” See also Fred Loader, Sault Star, 10 Feb. 1996. 44 Harvey Sims, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 29 Sept. 1995. 45 Fratesi’s lawyer made this suggestion in December 1996, in his submission on costs 23

253

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

which followed the second conflict of interest hearing. Respondent’s Submission as to Costs, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, pp. 5–6. 46 Book #47, Reference Department, Sault Ste. Marie Public Library, p. 12. 47 Look for example at Sanzosti’s glowing tribute to Fratesi on Sept. 26, 1995, reported in Chapter 1. 48 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 49 Linda Richardson, “Buoyed by public support, Swift rethinks resignation,” Sault Star, 7 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 50 Millroy, 30 Sept. 1995. Millroy was not alone in his judgement. The Sault Star’s editorial writer suggested bluntly two weeks later that all of the councillors were simply “yes people” for the mayor. “Process must not be a sham,” Sault Star, 12 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 51 Transcript of comments made, pp. 8, 21, 24. 52 “Swift: maybe gone, not forgotten,” Sault Star, 5 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 53 Ann Sarich, “Swift changes mind again,” Sault This Week, 11 Oct. 1995, p. 2A. 54 Richardson, “Buoyed by.” 55 Linda Richardson, “Mayor still ‘a natural’ for cao job,” Sault Star, 6 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 56 Linda Richardson, “Council ‘let mayor down,’ Sanzosti says,” Sault Star, 11 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 57 Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, 16 Oct. 1995, partial transcript of the videotape prepared by the author. 58 Ibid. 59 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 3 Feb. 1996, p. A4. 60 Sandra Paul, “Fratesi acknowledges that he ‘dropped a bomb’ on council,” Sault This Week, Oct. 4, 1995, p. 2A. 61 Ibid. 62 Examination of John Luszka, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 7 Oct. 1996, pp. 5–6. Luszka’s instructions could not have come from the council itself. There was no council meeting held between September 25 and October 16. 63 Meeting of the Council, 16 Oct. 1995. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Linda Richardson, “Selection process to include outside help,” Sault Star, 17 Oct. 1995, pp. A1–A2. 71 Luszka, Examination, pp. 12–14. 72 City of Sault Ste. Marie cao Selection Committee, Terms of Reference and Action Plan. 254

NOTES

73

John Luszka, “Re: Selection Process — Chief Administrative Officer,” Report to members of city council, 12 Oct. 1995, p. 6. 74 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 4 Nov. 1995, p. A4. 75 Ibid. 76 Ann Sarich, “Councillors won’t wait for court case to hire new cao,” Sault This Week, 8 Nov. 1995, pp. 1A–2A. 77 Examination of Mike Sanzosti, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 30 Sept. 1996 (hereafter referred to as Sanzosti, Second Examination), p. 35. 78 Sarich, “Councillors won’t.” 79 Jackson, Swift, and Borowicz were examined in November 1995; the other councillors early in January 1996; Fratesi and I early in February 1996. 80 Luszka, Examination, pp. 14–20; and Linda Richardson, “100 job seekers line up with Fratesi,” Sault Star, 28 Nov. 1995, p. A1. 81 Luszka, Examination, pp. 16–17. 82 Ibid., p. 17. 83 Ibid., pp. 34–36. 84 Ibid., p. 36. Luszka’s testimony was that Sanzosti “wished to go on record as being opposed to accepting this letter for legal interpretation.” 85 Ibid., p. 35. 86 Ibid., pp. 33–34. 87 Ibid., pp. 36–47. 88 Linda Richardson, “Six on short list, city expects to appoint new cao by end of month,” Sault Star, 10 Jan. 1996, p. B1. 89 Luszka, Examination, pp. 48–51. 90 Ibid., p. 49. 91 Examination of John Luszka, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 15 Oct. 1996, pp. 4–5. This was Luszka’s second examination. There is no other reference to it in these notes. 92 Luszka, Examination, p. 57. 93 John Luszka, “Notes, Meeting of the Selection Committee,” 12 Jan. 1996. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Robert Roth, “Swift urges delay re cao,” Sault This Week, 17 Jan. 1996, pp. 1A–2A. 97 Ryan MacDonald, “Council to meet in-committee to discuss cao job,” Sault Star, 20 Jan. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 98 Luszka, Examination, p. 58; Examination of Charles Swift, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 30 Sept. 1996 (hereafter referred to as Swift, Second Examination), pp. 14–15; and Luszka, “Notes,” 16 Jan. 1996. 99 Luszka, Examination, p. 58, and “Notes,” 16 Jan. 1996. 100 Luszka, Examination, p. 60, and “Notes,” 19 Jan. 1996. 101 Luszka, “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 102 Swift, Second Examination, p. 14. 255

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

103

L.A. Bottos, “Re: Filling of Chief Administrative Officer’s Position,” memorandum to John Luszka, 17 Jan. 1996. 104 Luszka, “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 105 Luszka, Examination, p. 68, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 106 Sanzosti, Second Examination, pp. 40–41. 107 Luszka, Examination, p. 69, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 108 Luszka, Examination, p. 70, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 109 Luszka, Examination, p. 70. 110 Ibid., p. 71, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 111 Luszka, Examination, p. 72, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. Luszka’s notes read: “[Fratesi] indicates his selection is a political decision and not related to legal matters.” I have interpreted this at face value — that he was talking about his selection by council and that the political decision he was referring to was council’s decision to choose him. In his testimony, Luszka was asked in what context Fratesi had made that statement, and he replied: “I’m applying for this job for — as he put it, it’s a political decision to go for this and not related to any legal —.” This statement can be interpreted as implying that Fratesi was talking about a political decision he himself had made. This makes much less sense than the other interpretation, I think. 112 Examination of Udo Rauk, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 30 Sept. 1996 (hereafter referred to as Rauk, Second Examination), p. 8; and Luszka, Examination, pp. 72–74, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. Luszka remembered Fratesi’s speaking for 15 minutes about the case pending against him and its implications; Rauk recalled his going on for about half an hour. 113 Rauk, Second Examination, p. 8. 114 Swift, Second Examination, p. 18. 115 Luszka, Examination, pp. 76–77, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 116 Luszka, Examination, p. 77, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 117 Ibid. 118 Examination of Rick Niro, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 30 Sept. 1996 (hereafter referred to as Niro, Second Examination), p. 34; and Luszka, “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 119 Luszka, Examination, p. 78, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 120 Swift, Second Examination, p. 14. 121 Luszka, Examination, p. 78, and “Notes,” 21 Jan. 1996. 122 Luszka, Examination, pp. 79–80; Swift, Second Examination, p. 50; and Rauk, Second Examination, p. 29. 123 Linda Richardson, “Cloak of secrecy shrouds marathon cao interview session,” Sault Star, 22 Jan. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 124 Luszka, Examination, p. 103. 125 Ibid., p. 104. 126 Stephen B. Kirby, “City of Sault Ste. Marie — Chief Administrative Officer,” memorandum to Clarke Wallace & Margaret Campbell, 22 Jan. 1996, p. 1. 256

NOTES

lab (L.A. Bottos), “File — Pending,” memo, 22 Jan. 1996, p. 1. Swift, Second Examination, p. 21. 129 Ibid.; Second Examinations, Rauk, p. 10; and Niro, p. 19. 130 lab, “File — Pending,” p. 2. 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid., p. 3; and Luszka, Examination, pp. 100–03. 133 lab, “File — Pending,” p. 2. 134 Ibid., pp. 2–3. 135 John Luszka, “Re: Candidate Clarification of Employment Conditions — C.A.O. Selection,” draft memorandum to council members, 24 Jan. 1996, p. 1. 136 Ibid., p. 2. 137 Ibid., p. 1. 138 Fratesi, Affidavit, paragraph 73, and Examination of Joseph Fratesi, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 5 Feb. 1996, pp. 1–6. 139 Peter Johnston was the Ministry of Municipal Affairs official whom Fratesi had called. Fratesi testified that Johnston had advised him he could apply to become the city’s cao while continuing to sit as mayor, without breaching the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Johnston denied this, telling a reporter, “No, I would not say that, because in my view, that would be crossing a line in terms of speculation on someone else’s legal opinion. I would not do that. I simply told him over the course of a minute conversation that the only advice I could give him was to seek independent legal counsel. . . . At no time was there any discussion of the circumstances of his case and at no time did he ask for or did I provide any legal advice.” Sandra Paul, “Ministry official disagrees with Fratesi’s recollection of phone call,” Sault This Week, 21 Feb., p. 1B. Fratesi also swore that two local lawyers — Joe Bisceglia and Gus Palombi — had given him the same advice verbally as Johnson and Rust-D’Eye did. Fratesi engaged Bisceglia to represent him on October 13, 1995, but Bisceglia withdrew from the case within days, citing his need to deal with a trial in Toronto and “other commitments.” Bisceglia and Chorney, Barristers and Soliciters, Press Release, 19 Oct. 1995. 140 George H. Rust-D’Eye, letter to Joseph Fratesi, 22 Jan. 1996, p. 1. 141 Ibid., p. 3. 142 Luszka, Examination, p. 88, and “Re: Candidate Clarification.” 143 Meeting of the Council, 16 Oct. 1995. 144 Luszka, Examination, p. 94. 145 Ibid., pp. 92–95; and Luszka, “Special Meeting of Council Called by E. Szczepanik,” 27 Jan. 1996, p. 2. 146 Luszka, “Special Meeting,” p. 3. 147 Luszka, Examination, pp. 94–95. 148 Luszka, “Special Meeting,” p. 3. 149 Ibid., p. 4. 150 Mary Borowicz, letter to Donna Irving, 30 Jan. 1996. 151 Luszka, Examination, pp. 98–103, and “Special Meeting of Council,” 30 Jan. 1996. 127

128

257

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Debra Preston, letter to John Luszka, 25 Jan. 1996. Councillors initially proposed to pass the bylaw, and once Fratesi had completed his buy-back arrangements, repeal it. Luszka queried omers staff about this and was told that, “Normally, we would not expect the bylaw to be enacted and undone to satisfy personal desires of individual mayors. Rather, it would reflect a policy of the corporation. However, there is nothing to prevent this in our regulation.” Debra Preston, letter to John Luszka, 26 Jan. 1996. 153 Luszka, “Special Meeting,” 30 Jan. 1996, and “Steps as Outlined by Mayor Fratesi — 1996/01/30.” 154 J.R. Luszka, letter to J. Fratesi, 31 Jan. 1996. 155 Special Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie, 31 Jan. 1996, partial transcript of the videotape prepared by the author. 156 Ibid. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid. 159 Bob Taylor, Betty Cloutier, and Karen Barsanti, letter to Jack Moore, 31 Jan. 1996. 160 Taylor et al., letter to Jack Cameletti, 31 Jan. 1996. 161 Taylor et al., letters to Ed Szczepanik and Charlie Swift, 31 Jan. 1996. 162 Taylor et al., letter to Wayne DeLuca, 31 Jan. 1996. 163 Taylor et al., letter to Ed Szczepanik, 31 Jan. 1996. 164 Special Meeting of the Council, 31 Jan. 1996. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 167 Ibid. This appears clear from Taylor’s early exchange with Moore, who asked whether he wanted answers to each question as he read it, or at the end of his presentation. Taylor said that the questions were “probably more of a rhetorical nature.” 168 Ibid. 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid. 171 Ibid. 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid., and Joseph M. Fratesi, letter to John R. Luszka, 7 Nov. 1995. 176 Special Meeting of the Council, 31 Jan. 1996. 177 Ibid. 152

CHAPTER SIX Dr. Sam Fratesi, letter to the editor, Sault This Week, 22 Nov. 1995, p. 8A. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Gino Parissenti, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 30 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 1

2

258

NOTES

Laila Leach, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 7 Oct. 1995, p. A5. Erno A. Gulyas, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 20 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 7 Andrew J. Lucas, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 25 Oct. 1995, p. A4. 8 Examinations, Borowicz, pp. 35–36, Cameletti, p. 15, Chisholm, pp. 15–16, DeLuca, p. 28, Moore, pp. 11–12, Niro, p. 10, Rauk, pp. 28–29, Sanzosti, pp. 11–12, Solski, p. 25, Swift, pp. 47–49, Szczepanik, p. 19, and Trembinski, pp. 11–12. 9 Examination of Harvey Sims, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, 1 Feb. 1996, p. 5. 10 Ibid., pp. 8, 12, 13, 18. 11 Records kept by Alison Patterson and the author. 12 Sims, Examination, p. 11. 13 Ibid., pp. 13–16. 14 Ibid., p. 6. 15 Ibid., pp. 8–10, 18. 16 The relationship between Roth and me throughout the Fratesi/cao issue was one which we had to manage carefully. On the one hand Dee and I had agreed not to talk to the press about matters before the court, and had also agreed to treat everyone in the media the same way — we would speak with all, or none. On the other, Roth and my sister were among the few people Janet and I could talk frankly with when we needed advice and support. In the end, we had a lot of off-the-record conversations, but Roth never received any scoops from me. He accepted this fact of life graciously. 17 Robert Roth and Sandra Paul, “Court document reveals Fratesi-cao connection,” Sault This Week, 7 Feb. 1996, pp. 1A–2A. 18 Ibid.; and Parlow, “Fratesi posting.” 19 Linda Richardson, “Anatomy of a cao deal,” Sault Star, 8 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 20 Linda Richardson, “Lawyer: Fratesi should lose cao job if guilty,” Sault Star, 8 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Applicant’s Factum, Court file 15154/95, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, p. 21. 24 Ibid., p. 23. 25 Ibid., pp. 21–23. 26 Linda Richardson, “Lawyer argues Fratesi should keep cao job,” Sault Star, 10 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 27 Statement of Claim, Court file 15530/96, Joseph M. Fratesi, plaintiff, and Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, defendants, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), pp. 7–8. 28 Ibid., pp. 5–6. 29 Ibid., p. 8. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., p. 3. 32 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi fires latest salvo: $575,000 lawsuit,”Sault Star, 10 Feb. 5

6

259

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

1996, p. A1. The Honourable Mr. Justice R.T.P. Gravely, Reasons for Motion, Court file 15530/96, Joseph M. Fratesi, applicant, and Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, defendants, 24 June 1996, p. 2. 34 Fratesi, Statement of Claim, p. 9. 35 Case Information Statement accompanying Fratesi’s Statement of Claim. 36 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 6 July 1996, p. A4. 37 John Campbell, “Fratesi Case Notes,” 12 Feb. 1996; and Robert Roth, “Judge is proceeding with Fratesi’s case,” Sault This Week, 14 Feb. 1996, pp. 1A–2A. 38 Ibid. 39 Linda Richardson, “Sims rebuts ‘conspiracy’ allegation,” Sault Star, 16 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 40 “Judge orders Fratesi document defered [sic],” Sault This Week, 14 Feb. 1996, p. 2A. 41 Linda Richardson, “Judge to hear Fratesi case without trial,” Sault Star, 13 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 42 Ibid. 43 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi ‘manipulated’ into cao deal, lawyer claims,” Sault Star, 15 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 44 ”The Fratesi verdict in full.” 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Robert Roth, “Fratesi broke law in ‘serious’ way — judge,” Sault This Week, 21 Feb. 1996, pp. 1A–2A. 53 Ibid.; and Linda Richardson, “City’s insurance policy won’t cover Fratesi’s legal bills,” Sault Star, 17 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 54 Richardson, “City’s insurance.” 55 Richardson, “Sims rebuts.” 56 Linda Richardson, “Resign now, victor urges ex-mayor,” Sault Star, 16 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 57 “A guilty verdict for Fratesi,” Sault Star, 16 Feb. 1996, p. A4. 58 Robert Roth, conversation with author, 21 Feb. 1996. 59 This was the before-the-verdict advice of the editor of the Sault Star. “The case against Fratesi,” Sault Star, 9 Feb. 1996, p. A4. 60 Richardson, “Resign now.” 61 Richardson, “City’s insurance.” 62 Richardson, “Resign now.” 63 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi’s appeal will have to wait,” Sault Star, 24 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 64 Factum of Joseph M. Fratesi, appellant, Court file D.V. 229/96, 29 Aug. 1996. 33

260

NOTES

Linda Richardson, “Sault Ste. Marie to elect a new mayor May 2,” Sault Star, 6 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 66 Linda Richardson, “City torn over Fratesi fracas,” Sault Star, 20 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2; Robert Roth, “Standing-room only crowd declares: ‘We support Joe,’” Sault This Week, 21 Feb. 1996, p. 2A; and Meeting of the Council, 19 Feb. 1996. 67 Meeting of the Council, 19 Feb. 1996. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Vincent Greco, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 23 Feb. 1996, p. A4. 71 Meeting of the Council, 19 Feb. 1996. 72 Ibid. 73 “Taylor cuts short his address,” Sault This Week, 21 Feb. 1996, p. 2A. 74 Roth, “Standing-room only.” 75 Ibid. 76 Meeting of the Council, 19 Feb. 1996. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Parker, Commission of Inquiry, p. 27. 81 Meeting of the Council, 19 Feb. 1996. 82 John Campbell, Commentary, 16 Feb. 1996. 83 Richardson, “City torn.” 84 Brendan O’Hallarn, “Guilty or not, many still think Fratesi should keep cao post,” Sault Star, 16 Feb. 1996, p. A1. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Linda Richardson, “Anti-Fratesi letter prompts scholarship threat,” Sault Star, 23 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 89 Ibid. 90 Linda Richardson, “Anonymous writer threatens Rauk with conflict charges,” Sault Star, 23 Feb. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 91 Ibid. 92 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 93 Robert Roth, “School, businesses and Rauk threatened,” Sault This Week, 28 Feb. 1996, pp. 1A–2A; and Richardson, “Anti-Fratesi letter.” 94 Bob Denham, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 19 Feb. 1996, p. A4. 95 Richardson, “Anti-Fratesi letter.” 96 Ibid.; and Roth, “School, businesses.” 97 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 98 Roth, “School, businesses.” 99 Richardson, “Anti-Fratesi letter.” 100 “Deal done: Fratesi gets top rate, 5 weeks vacation,” Sault Star, 5 Mar. 1996, p. A3. 65

261

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

CHAPTER SEVEN Winston S. Churchill, The World Crisis 1911–1918, vol. ii. (1923, 1927, 1929, 1931; reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993), p. 1061. 2 See Chapter 4. 3 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi faces new allegations,” Sault Star, 6 Mar. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 4 Ibid. 5 “Fratesi court hearing scheduled for November,” Sault Star, 1 May 1996, p. B1. 6 “Election ’96,” Sault Star, 30 Apr. 1996, p. C1. 7 Robert Roth and Sandra Paul, “Mayor hopeful says cao issue being deliberately suppressed,” Sault This Week, 20 Mar. 1996, pp. 1A–2A. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Linda Richardson, “Thibault says gag on cao issue,” Sault Star, 20 Mar. 1996, p. B3. 11 Roth and Paul, “Mayor hopeful.” 12 Richardson, “Thibault says.” 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., and Roth and Paul, “Mayor hopeful.” 16 Richardson, “Thibault says.” 17 Sandra Paul, “Mayoralty candidates avoiding controversies,” Sault This Week, 10 Apr. 1996, pp. 1A–2A; and Brian Miller, “Fratesi fracas follows mayoral candidates to debate,” Sault Star, 6 Apr. 1996, p. A6. 18 Paul, “Mayoralty candidates.” 19 Miller, “Fratesi fracas.” 20 Ibid. 21 Paul, “Mayoralty candidates.” 22 Ibid. 23 Miller, “Fratesi fracas.” 24 Paul, “Mayoralty candidates.” 25 Roth and Paul, “Mayor hopeful.” 26 Miller, “Fratesi fracas.” 27 Paul, “Mayoralty candidates.” 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Linda Richardson, “Candidates concur on roads, curfew, openness,” Sault Star, 12 Apr. 1996, p. B5. 31 Miller, “Fratesi fracas.” Ramsay had been shaken by the way the resolution had affected life in Sault Ste. Marie, and in particular by the attack on Jim Hilsinger. “It is not the Sault Ste. Marie I know,” he said at the time. Warmington, “Hotelier growing.” 32 Miller, “Fratesi fracas.” 33 Richardson, “Candidates concur.” 34 “How You Voted,” Sault Star, 3 May 1996, p. A1. 1

262

NOTES

Ryan MacDonald, “Former cabinet minister, 67, says this was final campaign,” Sault Star, 3 May 1996, pp. A1–A2. 36 In supporting cor, sapelr was mirroring once again the behaviour of apec, which threw its support behind cor in April 1988. Phillip Day, “cor goes national,” Alberta Report, 9 May 1988, p. 18. 37 David Olinger, “sapelr charges some candidates evasive on language issues,” Sault Star, 4 Sept. 1990, p. B1, and “cor’s older membership ‘shows its legitimacy,’” Sault Star, 5 Sept. 1990, p. B1; and “Sault Ste. Marie — Election 1990,” results of the sapelr survey of candidates’ views on linguistic matters published in the Sault Star, 4 Sept. 1990, p. B15. 38 Quoted by Fred Loader, Sault Star, 8 Feb. 1992, p. A4. 39 Sandra Paul, “Sims says no link between conflict case and language,” Sault This Week, 19 June 1996, pp. 1A, 3A. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Robert Roth, “Conspiracy theories should be dismissed,” Sault This Week, 19 June 1996, p. 4A. 45 Gravely, Reasons For Motion, p. 2. 46 “Redmond to retire June 30,” Sault Star, 3 Apr. 1996, p. B1. 47 Sanzosti, Second Examination, pp. 51–54. 48 Ibid., pp. 54–55. 49 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi ruling expected on Wednesday,” Sault Star, 5 Nov. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 50 Ibid. 51 See Chapter 5. 52 Applicant’s Factum, Court file 15603/96, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and Joseph Fratesi, respondent, p. 28. 53 Richardson, “Fratesi ruling.” 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Linda Richardson, “Judge needs more time to untangle Fratesi case,” Sault Star, 7 Nov. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 57 Ibid. 58 The decision was dated November 29, 1996, at Sudbury. 59 Poupore, Reasons for Judgement, pp. 19–22. 60 Ibid., pp. 25–26. 61 Ibid., pp. 26–27. 62 Ibid., p. 29. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid., p. 30. 65 Ibid., pp. 30–31. 66 Ibid., p. 35. 35

263

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

67

Ibid. Ibid., p. 36. 69 Ibid., p. 37. 70 Ibid. 71 Joe Fratesi, News Release, 2 Dec. 1996; and Robert Roth, “Fratesi hot potato is on council’s lap,” Sault This Week, 4 Dec. 1996, p. 4A. 72 Elaine Della-Mattia, “Nothing new revealed in latest decision, Fratesi’s lawyer says,” Sault Star, 3 Dec. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 73 This sounds fanciful but it isn’t. During the council meeting of December 6, 1996, Charlie Swift said that a number of the Fratesi supporters who phoned him believed “that there is a conspiracy, and that this activity is only a pay-back time for Mr. Fratesi because of his stand on the French language issue, and that Judge Poupore was in cahoots with the conspiracy.” Special Meeting of the Council, 6 Dec. 1996. This surfaced as well in a letter written by D.B. Smail to the editor of Sault Star (18 Dec. 1996, p. A4), who reported being told by one person that “the second judge’s review was invalid because he was French and was out to get the former mayor.” Smail then asked rhetorically, “Have we really stooped this low in our thinking?” 74 I base this on the remarks made by several councillors during the special public council meeting of December 6, 1996. Special Meeting of the Council, 6 Dec. 1996. 75 Elaine Della-Mattia, “Public will have say in Fratesi issue,” Sault Star, 4 Dec. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 76 Ibid. 77 Elaine Della-Mattia and Linda Richardson, “Council discussing Fratesi’s fate behind closed doors,” Sault Star, 5 Dec. 1996, p. B1. See also Ryan MacDonald, “Council to decide Fratesi issue tonight,” Sault Star, 6 Dec. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 78 MacDonald, “Council to decide.” 79 Special Meeting of the Council, 6 Dec. 1996. 80 This is precisely the point made by Butland following the meeting, when he told a reporter that as far as Poupore’s ban went, “We’ll work around that.” Ryan MacDonald, “City council keeps Fratesi on the payroll,” Sault Star, 7 Dec. 1996, pp. A1–A2. 81 Special Meeting of the Council, 6 Dec. 1996. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 An mp claiming reimbursement for meals when driving between Ottawa and his or her riding must be travelling at least 100 kilometres, one way. I am indebted to Mr. Allan Glenns of the staff of Parliament, who provided me with factual information on the Travel Status Expenses entitlement (Allan Glenns, letter to, and conversation with, the author, 9 Nov. 2000). I alone am responsible for the assess68

264

NOTES

ment of Mayor Butland’s comments on how he cheated the taxpayers of Canada. See for example Robert Roth, “Mayor Butland joins council old boys club,” Sault This Week, 11 Dec. 1996, pp. 4A–5A; and “Put Fratesi matter on hold,” Sault Star, 7 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 89 Sault This Week, 11 Dec. 1996, p. 4A. 90 Evelyn Bridge, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 13 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 91 Hassan N. Gardezi, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 12 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 92 Thom McDonough, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 13 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 93 Bill Toll, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 18 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 94 Frances Sewards, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 27 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 95 David Balderston, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 16 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 96 V.G. Nealis, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 12 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 97 Giselle Quesnelle, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 13 Dec. 1996, p. A4. 98 Robert Roth, “Citizens demanding more accountability,” Sault This Week, 18 Dec. 1996, p. 4A. 99 Joe Fratesi, Press Release, 6 Dec. 1996. 100 MacDonald, “City council.” 101 Special Meeting of the Council, 6 Dec. 1996. 88

CHAPTER EIGHT Linda Richardson, “Fratesi launches another appeal,” Sault Star, 4 Jan. 1997, p. A1. Linda Richardson, “Ex-mayor didn’t make promises on appeal: Butland,” Sault Star, 8 Jan. 1997, pp. A1–A2; and Sandra Paul, “Fratesi launches appeal but mayor kept in the dark,” Sault This Week, 8 Jan. 1997, pp. 1A, 3A. 3 Paul, “Fratesi launches”; and Robert Roth, “Does morality count for anything today?” Sault This Week, 29 Jan. 1997, p. 4A. 4 Paul, “Fratesi launches.” 5 Richardson, “Ex-mayor didn’t.” 6 Sandra Paul, “Mayor Butland would prefer that stw stop cao stories,” Sault This Week, 8 Jan. 1997, p. 3A. 7 Steve Butland, letter to the editor, Sault This Week, 15 Jan. 1997, p. 4A. 8 Paul, “Mayor Butland.” 9 Linda Richardson, “Judge sticks Fratesi with lawsuit tab again,” Sault Star, 16 Jan. 1997, p. A1. 10 Notice of Application, Court file 16624/97, Harvey Sims and Alison Patterson, applicants, and the Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, respondent, Ontario Court (General Division), p. 3. 11 Ibid., p. 3. 12 Ibid., p. 2. 13 Elaine Della-Mattia, “City calling on Toronto lawyers to defend latest cao lawsuit,” Sault Star, 28 Jan. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 14 Ibid. 1

2

265

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

Sault Star Staff, “Solicitor tells why outside help needed in cao affair,” Sault Star, 10 Nov. 1997, p. B1. 16 Joseph M. Fratesi, News Release, 31 Jan. 1997, p. 2. 17 Ibid., p. 1. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., p. 2. 20 Malcolm G. McLeod, open letter, Sault This Week, 6 Feb. 1997, p. 3A. 21 Ibid. 22 See for example the letters to the editor of the Sault Star of: Bill Grunewald, 30 Jan. 1997, p. A4; Anne Orlando, 31 Jan. 1997, p. A4; M.J. Haines, 5 Feb. 1997, p. A4; and Margaret Butters, 13 Feb. 1997, p. A4. 23 “Election Special,” 1991, p. C4. 24 Harvey Sims, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 12 Mar. 1997, p. A4, and an earlier interview on mix–100 radio with John Campbell. 25 Malcolm G. McLeod, letter to Lorie Bottos, 7 Feb. 1997. 26 For example, Linda Richardson, “City won’t admit guilt to settle cao case,” Sault Star, 12 Feb. 1997, pp. A1–A2; and John Campbell, Commentary, 14 Feb. 1997. 27 Brendan O’Hallarn, “Citizens group trying to recruit city candidates,” Sault Star, 13 Feb. 1997, p. B1; and “Making changes at city hall,” Sault Star, 14 Feb. 1997, p. A4. 28 Bortolussi and Palombi, Barristers and Solicitors, Press Release, 25 Feb. 1997. 29 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi, plaintiffs declare truce; both sides to drop legal appeals,” Sault Star, 26 Feb. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 30 Fred Loader, Sault Star, 15 Mar. 1997, p. A4. 31 Letters to the editor of the Sault Star of: Dorothy Caruso and Barbara Wallace, 27 Feb. 1997, p. A4; John Figures, 5 Mar. 1997, p. A4; and Edith Verdecchia, 10 Mar. 1997, p. A4. 32 Verdecchia, letter. In early 1990 I wrote a letter to the Sault Star condemning the council’s action in passing the resolution. My mother was a strong supporter of sapelr and the resolution. She replied to me with her own letter to the Star, in which she made her views very clear. 33 Butters, letter. 34 Gary Boyko, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 18 Feb. 1997, p. A4. 35 Hazel Gauley, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 20 Feb. 1997, p. A4. 36 Caruso and Wallace, letter. 37 Jim Liscumb, letter to the editor, Sault This Week, 19 Mar. 1997, p. 6A. 38 Linda Richardson, “Fratesi denies yearbook link,” Sault Star, 27 Mar. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 39 Editor’s note, Sault This Week, 19 Mar. 1997, p. 6A. 40 Robert Roth, conversation with the author, 21 Mar. 1997. 41 Malcolm G. McLeod, letter to Mayor Steve Butland, 26 Mar. 1997; and “Fratesi & Roth clash on tv,” Sault This Week, 2 Apr. 1997, pp. 1A, 3A. 42 The Sault Ste. Marie Museum Receipt for Loans Outgoing signed by Joe Fratesi on Feb. 26, 1997. 43 Richardson, “Fratesi denies”; and Rick Muncaster, “Put Fratesi issue on back burn15

266

NOTES

er,” Sault This Week, 2 Apr. 1997, p. 4A. Diane Sims, letter to the author, 28 Sept. 1999. 45 Muncaster, “Put Fratesi”; Vic Finn, conversation with the author, 27 Sept. 1999; and Cyril Morden, conversation with the author, 12 June 2000. 46 Richardson, “Fratesi denies.” 47 Ibid. 48 Udo Rauk, conversation with the author, late Mar. 1997. 49 Shaw Cable tv, Encounter, 25 Mar. 1997. 50 Richardson, “Fratesi denies.” 51 Encounter, 25 Mar. 1997. 52 Richardson, “Fratesi denies.” 53 Encounter, 25 Mar. 1997; and “Fratesi and Roth.” 54 Richardson, “Fratesi denies.” 55 Ibid. 56 Muncaster, “Put Fratesi.” 57 Ibid. 58 Rick Muncaster, “Free Speech is not the issue,” Sault This Week, 30 Apr. 1997, p. 6A. 59 Linda Richardson, “Protesters call managing editor Roth’s firing a blow to free speech,” Sault Star, 24 Apr. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 60 Ibid. 61 Craig Sloss, “Sault This Week under fire,” Sault Star, 26 Apr. 1997, p. C10. 62 McLeod, letter to Butland, 26 Mar. 1997, pp. 2–3. 63 Linda Richardson, “Lawyer demands to know city’s role in ‘Argus expose,’” Sault Star, 29 Mar. 1997, p. A1. 64 Sandra Paul, “cao Joe Fratesi’s ‘appreciation night’ not a fund-raiser says organizer,” Sault This Week, 7 May 1997, pp. 1A, 3A. 65 Ibid.; and Linda Richardson, “Appreciation night arranged by friends of Fratesi is sold-out event,” Sault Star, 30 Apr. 1997, p. B1. 66 Paul, “cao Joe”; and Linda Richardson, “Media told they’re not welcome at Joe’s party,” Sault Star, 7 May 1997, p. B1. 67 Laura A. Paci, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 14 May 1997, p. A4. 68 Richardson, “Media told.” 69 Fred Loader, Sault Star, 10 May 1997, p. A4. 70 Linda Richardson, “Time to put Fratesi matter to rest: judge,” Sault Star, 3 June 1997, pp. A1–A2. 71 Ibid. 72 Trainor, O.C.J., Reasons for Decision, Court file 16624/97, p. 13. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., p. 12. 76 Ibid. 77 “Fratesi-cao court action ends,” Sault Star, 16 July, 1997, p. A4. 44

267

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

CHAPTER NINE Terry Lemieux, letter to the author, 10 Feb. 2000. Cathy Barnett and Terry Lemieux, conversations with the author, Apr. 1997; and Lemieux, letter. 3 So did three other friends who proposed different ways of trying to raise large amounts of money to help us with the bills, for which we were very grateful. 4 Sault Star Staff, “Overflow crowd applauds efforts of Sims, Patterson,” Sault Star, 17 Oct. 1997, p. B1. 5 Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 20 Sept. 1997, p. A4. 6 Terry Lemieux, conversations with the author, Aug. –Sept. 1997; Millroy, 20 Sept. 1997; and Terry Lemieux, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 9 Oct. 1997, p. A4. 7 Lemieux, letter to the author. 8 Ibid., and Terry Lemieux, conversations with the author, Sept. 1997. 9 Campbell, Commentary, 25 Sept. 1997. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Sault Star Staff, “City’s legal bill for cao fracas proves pricey,” Sault Star, 18 Sept. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 13 Brian Vallée, conversation with the author, July 1997. 14 Sault Star Staff, “Overflow crowd.” 15 Harvey Sims, “Remarks,” 16 Oct. 1997. 16 Sault Star Staff, “Overflow crowd.” 17 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Sault Star Staff, “Real estate firm takes Fratesi to court,” Sault Star, 3 Nov. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Sault Star Staff, “Dispute between Fratesi and local realtor resolved, mayor says,” Sault Star, 4 Nov. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 28 Udo Rauk, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 5 Nov. 1997, p. A4. 29 ”Fresh faces on city council,” Sault Star, 11 Nov. 1997, p. A4. 30 Fred Loader, Sault Star, 15 Nov. 1997, p. A4. 31 Sault Star Staff, “Two distinguished gentlemen,” Sault Star, 15 Nov. 1997, p. B1. 32 Sault Star Staff, “Voters got the shakeup they wanted, new councillors say,” Sault Star, 11 Nov. 1997, p. B1. 33 Ibid. 34 See for example Loader, and Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 15 Nov. 1997, p. A4. 1

2

268

NOTES

Millroy, 15 Nov. 1997; and Sault Star Staff, “Butland runs away with mayor’s race,” Sault Star, 11 Nov. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 36 This was Frances Sewards, running in Ward 2, the ward in which anti-Fratesi sentiment appeared to be running very strongly by the end of the campaign. 37 Sault Star Staff, “Sault voters turf 7 councillors,” Sault Star, 11 Nov. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 38 Jody Curran, conversation with the author, Jan. 1999. 39 Sault Star Staff, “Fratesi probe a ‘conflict’ for Sault police: chief,” Sault Star, 13 Nov. 1997, p. A1; and Ian Ross, “City’s woodcarver wants answers and the freedom to finish his work,” Sault This Week, 19 Nov. 1997, pp. 1A, 3A. 40 Cited by Sault Star Staff, “cao stays on the job as police probe appointment,” Sault Star, 15 Nov. 1997, pp. A1–A2. 41 Joe Fratesi, letter to Allan Jackson, 22 Sept. 1995. The attachments relating to Jackson’s eri were signed by Jackson and witnessed by Fratesi on 25 September 1995. 42 Sault Star Staff, “Fratesi probe a ‘conflict.’” 43 Ibid. 44 Sault Star Staff, “opp probe of Fratesi appointment underway,” Sault Star, 18 Nov. 1997, p. B1, and “Fratesi probe put on hold,” Sault Star, 22 Nov. 1997, p. A1. 45 Sault Star Staff, “Fratesi probe put.” 46 Sault Star Staff, “Police won’t lay charges in Fratesi case,” Sault Star, 13 Jan. 1998, p. A1. 47 Sault Star Staff, “Fratesi ‘relieved’ police won’t lay charges in cao affair,” Sault Star, 14 Jan. 1998, p. A1. 48 Ibid. 49 John Campbell, Commentary, 14 Jan. 1998. 50 Cited in Alison Patterson and Harvey Sims, Press Release, 9 Feb. 1998; and Sault Star Staff, “Judge cuts Fratesi legal bill by more than half,” Sault Star, 10 Feb. 1998, p. B1. 51 Ibid. This was Karen Pietkiewicz, the whistleblower whose complaints had finally led to sexual predator Ken DeLuca’s arrest, conviction, and imprisonment. She was being sued for defamation by the Separate School Board. 52 Linda Richardson, “Municipality bill in Fratesi controversy near $42,000,” Sault Star, 17 June, 1998; and Lorie A. Bottos, News Release, 16 June 1998. 53 ”Club honours Fratesi,” Sault Star, 14 Mar. 1998, p. B3. 35

CHAPTER TEN “An Officially English Sault,” Sault Star, 3 Aug. 1989, p. A4; Doug Millroy, Sault Star, 21 Feb. 1990, p. A4, and 14 Sept. 1991, p. A4 ; and “The end of the resolution,” Sault Star, 13 July 1994, p. A4. 2 Vallée, “A Tough Cookie.” 3 Most of Northern Ontario has been hurting economically since the late 1980s, but the Sault’s performance has been the worst among the major population centres 1

269

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

of the region. See the Statistics Canada estimates of employment and unemployment rates for the past decade. 4 For example, see his comments to Linden MacIntyre in late 1997 on “A Tough Cookie.” 5 Jeffrey Ougler, “Sault Council drops English-only law,” National Post, 10 Aug. 1999, p. A4. 6 John Campbell, letters to the author, 10–11 Aug. 1999; and “Ontario: City votes to scrap English-only resolution,” Globe and Mail, 10 Aug. 1999, p. A14. 7 Jeffrey Ougler, “Ruling stymies bid to rescind resolution,” Sault Star, 10 Aug. 1999, pp. A1–A2. 8 For example, see Globe and Mail, 10 Aug. 1999, p. 14. 9 Resolutions of the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, 13 Sept. 1999, and of the Town of Greater Napanee, 26 Feb. 1998. 10 John Campbell’s description. One spectator at the council meeting described council’s action as “an end run around the issue.” He added, “They have not dealt with the issue, they have not apologized or explained that the previous council made a mistake.” Karl Sepkowski, “Sault sheds English-only position,” Toronto Star, 10 Aug. 1999. 11 Ougler, “Ruling stymies”; and Sepkowski, “Sault sheds.” 12 cbc Newsworld, 2 Oct. 2000; and Frances Sewards, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 12 Oct. 2000, p. A4. 13 See for example Karl Sepkowski, “Court action filed to oust Sault mayor,” Toronto Star, 14 Oct. 1995, p. A9, and “Pair feels pinch in Soo city hall fight,” Toronto Star, 19 Sept. 1997, p. A24; Vallée, “A Tough Cookie”; and Jenn Goddu, “Soo voters shows [sic] frustration with councillors,” Canadian Press, 11 Nov. 1997. 14 Poupore, Reasons for Judgement, p. 37. 15 For the purposes of this analysis I discarded letters from out-of-town writers, and those from persons who I was not sure had signed the petition. My final sample consisted of 131 letters. I used the Chi-square test for statistical significance. At the 99.5 per cent level of confidence, the critical value of Chi-square is 7.88. The value of the test statistic from the sample is 18.44. This result is very robust. 16 “Big Box hearing delayed months,” Sault Star, 3 Apr. 2000, p. B1; and Jeffrey Ougler, “Council tries to smooth way for Big Box,” Sault Star, 4 Apr. 2000, pp. A1–A2. 17 Frank Dobrovnik, “Developer Tishman threatens to sell off all Sault properties,” Sault Star, 11 May 2000, p. A1. 18 Howard Tishman, letter to the editor, Sault Star, 2 June 2000, p. A4. 19 Comment made to the author in Timmins, Ontario, June 1998. 20 Comment made to the author in New Liskeard, Ontario, Mar. 1998. 21 Rosalie Mckenzie, letter to the author, 14 Jan. 2000. 22 Brian L. DeLorenzi, “Frank Greco — From Mayor to cao in One Easy Step!” The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 1997. 23 Ibid., p. 4. 24 Mckenzie, letter. 25 DeLorenzi, p. 5. 270

NOTES

26

McDonough, letter. For an example of this kind of argument, see “Drop all cao court action,” Sault Star, 27 Feb. 1997, p. A4. 28 Municipal Conflict of Interest Review, pp. 63–67. 29 Shortly after Judge Meehan’s ruling in February 1996, Rowswell set out his concerns about Fratesi’s conduct in a letter to the Sault Star’s editor (19 Feb. 1996, p. A4): In the context of debates on process and procedures we often overlook the ultimate responsibility of our generation’s leaders: that is, to manage the present so that our children might have a fair chance at a bright future in their home community. And in this context we must ask ourselves what kind of message are we sending to our younger generations when a civic leader can break the law and still retain the benefits that his actions bore him? It seems as if we’ve decided that if you put in enough time, and so do some good for the community, then you are immune from prosecution, accountability, and the laws that have been set out by the people to protect us. And as the affected parties continue to claim legitimacy for their actions, we must ask ourselves what other decisions affecting the past, present, and future of this city have been made in the same manner. We don’t know if the Fratesi incident is laid to rest, but the principles upon which the issue has been based must remain in the forefront of our civic representatives’ conduct indefinitely. 30 “Sault votes for change,” Sault Star, 14 Nov. 2000, p. A4. 27

Harvey Sims is a former senior official of the federal government who now works as a freelance writer and consultant on public policy and governance issues. After eight years in Sault Ste. Marie, he and his wife have just moved back to Ottawa

HARVEY SIMS

HARVEY SIMS was one of the Sault residents who fought Fratesi’s appointment through the court system. In The Best Man for the Job, he provides a sobering account of his hometown’s dysfunctional politics, greed, intimidation, lawbreaking, and contempt for basic standards in public office. ECW Press

THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB

What happens when the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie decides one day to become the city administrator, then breaks the law half a dozen times while getting the job? He keeps it, of course, with the full support of the majority of the community, because he is “The Best Man for the Job.” This compelling book explores the why and how of civic corruption in a Northern Ontario city. The story begins in the late 1980s, when the official languages policies of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and David Peterson collided with the Sault’s deep-rooted resistance to bilingualism. The man at the centre of the uproar over the city’s infamous English-only resolution was Mayor Joe Fratesi, whose unwavering support for the resolution made him a wildly popular local hero. Unfortunately for him, it also killed any chance of his being appointed a judge, which sent him looking in other directions for career advancement. In 1995 he spotted another job he wanted, this one under the control of the city council he had dominated for years. He went for it, breaking the law repeatedly in the process, plunging the Sault into a bitter two-and-a-half year political and legal battle over ethics in public office.

BEST MAN

FOR THE JOB

ISBN-13: 978-1-55022-454-2 ISBN-10: 1-55022-454-9

JOE FRATESI AN D TH E P OLITICS OF SAU LT STE. MAR I E

$18.95 Distributed in Canada by Jaguar Book Group

ecwpress.com

THE

ECW

HARVEY SIMS