The Shame of Victoria
City's first code of conduct investigation reveals rot in regime
The news started trickling through Twitter and Facebook in the afternoon last Friday. The city clerk had posted the agenda for the Committee-of-the-Whole and Daytime/Evening Council Meetings for Thursday, 27 Jun. And there it was, as the last time of new business for the Daytime Council Meeting; a code of conduct investigation report into Councillor Susan Kim.
You can find a full copy of the investigation report here, as well as a copy of the report to council from the city clerk here and a copy of the Code of Conduct bylaw here. They are all worth a good read before the council meeting this Thursday, and the inevitable avalanche of news and opinions that will follow.
The investigation stems from a letter that was signed by Susan Kim and a tweet that she liked in the weeks following the 7 Oct terrorist attack on Israel. I should not have to go into much detail regarding these events, they were all well publicized and commented on throughout social media at the time and since. The individual who submitted the complaint was Mayor Marianne Alto after she received information from a member of the public. Recall, that members of the public are not permitted to submit complaints on their own though the bylaw.
The investigator was appointed ad hoc on 5 Dec 23 by the mayor, and received the complaint on 12 Dec. Kim was informed of the investigation and provided a copy of the complaint in addition to a request from the investigator to provide a written response. Kim’s response did not come until over a month later on 22 Jan 24, when she provided her written statement through her lawyer. On 9 Feb, Kim was interviewed by the investigator with her legal counsel present. In early March, there was a determination that the formal process would be conducted in the course of the investigation. After receiving some additional factual information from Kim on 6 May, the mayor was served Kim’s written responses and opted not to reply.
Furthermore, on 6 May, Susan Kim attempted to have the entire investigation suppressed on the grounds that the submission was invalid because it originated from a private citizen, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. This is a very strict and limiting view of the spirit and intent of Code of Conduct bylaw. It is easy to deduce from this sort of defence, that Susan Kim does not feel any remorse for her actions. This type of response is considered pithy for a very good reason. In fact, from this application, it appears she feels in some way that she is being mistreated by the mayor and council through the Code of Conduct bylaw. The investigator did not find cause in this argument and continued with the investigation.
The argument from Susan Kim in her written arguments boil down to her right as a private citizen to possess an opinion and to express that opinion. She claims that the Code of Conduct bylaw is inapplicable in her case because the letter was signed and the tweet was liked in her capacity as a private citizen, not as a member of council and therefore had no bearing on her public work. Further, she argues that her actions do not constitute hate speech, include anti-Semitic speech.
These arguments were largely dismissed by the investigator over the course of the investigation. With regard to Kim’s Charter rights, the investigator is not a part of the process to determine the constitutionality of Kim’s speech, it is their role to assess whether a breach of the Code of Conduct bylaw has occurred and to make such a determination consistent with the Charter. The investigator also disagreed that Susan Kim’s communications were clearly made a private citizen, because she did not explicitly state on her profile that these were her own thoughts.
I personally find the argument from Kim on a division between private citizen and public office holder to be very weak. In her written responses, Kim makes it seem like there is a clear divide between her work as a councillor and her life as a private citizen. When in reality, that line is nowhere near as clear. It actually troubles me that this is how simple Kim seems to see her responsibilities as an elected official. As if she can just leave the City Hall building, and leave all of her council duties and responsibilities behind and become a private citizen again. I am troubled to think that if Susan Kim was a pastor of a church caught in a brothel down the road she’d probably make the argument she isn’t a pastor when not inside the church. It’s that silly folks.
I am also curious to know at which time Kim’s speech is as a private citizen and at which time it is as a councillor. I do not think a simple disclaimer on her social media accounts is sufficient. Recall, she wore a Palestinian Keffiyeh in support of Palestinian people in Council Chambers while acting as a public official. Kim is not middle eastern, this was not a traditional garb, it was and is an obvious political statement which is deployed internationally—within the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict—as a symbol of solidarity with Palestinian people. Or was Susan Kim a private citizen in that instance and thus her speech outside of the Code of Conduct? Maybe she can be both a private citizen and elected official at the same time; if that is the case, I am very curious to know more. An obvious problem here is that a private citizen does not get a reserved seat on the far end of the council chamber with a dedicated microphone to read their speech into the public record while deliberating on important local issues.
The investigator found that Susan Kim breached section 5(2) of the Code of Conduct bylaw and is recommending no further action because she calls the breach “inadvertent”. At this point in the process, the report is sent to council to be accepted and a consideration is made for any sanctions. It is important to note that it is up to council to decide sanctions but not whether a breach has or has not occured. The independent investigator has found the breach, it did occur, the question before council is what further action to take on the matter.
And this is where our shame comes in. You might think that I was referring to Susan Kim when I titled this editorial The Shame of Victoria, but I am not. Susan Kim is just a symptom of that shame, a sad story created as a result of the shame that exists within our system. There will be more Kim-like events in the future unless we do something about this rot.
The shameful rot in Victoria politics is our Code of Conduct document itself. A Code that does not permit citizens to submit complaints even though they are the receiving end of councillor’s actions. A Code that opens avenues for greasy politicians to weasel their way out of accountability by seeking procedural justifications to suppress an investigation on the grounds a citizen was engaged in the process. A Code that saw a politician add her name to a disgusting letter and promote a disgusting tweet from an organization that promotes North Korean propaganda and talking points to a breach based on not adding “opinions are my own” to a profile.
Because that is all that is alleged to have been breached here. After almost a year of angst and division within out community, that is all that has been found to be broken: Susan Kim didn’t put a disclaimer on her profile. Had she done that, and was more careful in signing the letter without adding that she was a city councillor, there wouldn’t have been a breach and this report.
This brings even more shame unto out Code of Conduct system, now there is a dangerous precident where a firewall of sorts has been created between what councillors do in public and what constitutes their private lives and private communications. I think it is nearly impossible to seperate any public communications from her role as a councillor, people will never feel that she capable of an impartial consideration of certain issues. And I think that a broad segment of the public would agree with me. There is a disconnect between that reality and what has been put into the record through this report impacting our Code of Conduct regime. That’s our shame.
This investigation is a signal that our Code of Conduct law is broken and in need of attention. This is the first investigation to come out of the new Code. That is a honour that Susan Kim will wear for the rest of her political life. But also, because it is the first, we are now looking at the bigger picture of the Code itself and how it has functioned in this particular case. So far, we’re not impressed. Victoria’s shame indeed.
