Chatham-Kent councilor handed maximum penalty for violating code of conduct

“Democracy, I think, failed today.”

That was the sentiment of Chatham-Kent councilor Rhonda Jubenville after a majority of council voted Monday night to suspend her pay for three months after municipal integrity commissioner Mary Ellen Bench found she violated council’s code of conduct. Jubenville was found to have engaged in behavior, including social media posts, that used her position as a public official to bully and intimidate, according to Bench’s findings.

A three-month pay suspension is the maximum penalty an integrity commissioner can recommend. Council can’t change the independent findings of the integrity commissioner, but it can decide to impose a different penalty or no penalty at all.

Jubenville believes this decision will create a big division on council.

When asked how she will move forward as a councilor, she said: “I’m going to continue to show up and take part in the democratic process and vote and vote as my constituents would want me to.”

More than 100 of her supporters arrived in front of the Civic Center in Chatham before Monday’s council meeting began as a show of support.

The commissioner’s investigation stems from social media posts after council defeated a motion by Jubenville last April to have Chatham-Kent fly only government flags. Deciding which organizations could fly flags on municipal property became a hot button issue when council refused a flag-raising request from the group Life in Motion, described as the educational arm of Right to Life Kent.

Discussion followed about other flag-raising requests from other groups, such as Pride, LGBTQ and Black Lives Matter.

When asked if she will do anything differently when expressing an opinion on social media, Jubenville said, “Probably not.”

She said she expressed her opinions, which match thousands of Chatham-Kent residents.

She said no comments would be found on her social media that she’s directed a comment to any community in Chatham-Kent.

Jubenville’s lawyer Michael Alexander addressed council before it imposed a penalty against her to cite concerns over anonymous complainants, whose identities have not been revealed.

He also noted the case violates Jubenville’s right to freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Alexander said a problem with the report is there are allegations, but “we don’t know who the complainants are so we can’t ask them. . . and find out what they did, what they perceived. . . and we have no factual background for these allegations.”

When asked if Jubenville will pursue legal action, Alexander said that will be discussed.

“I think we have a right of action,” he said.

Chatham-Kent’s integrity commissioner Mary Ellen Bench told council she is not identifying complainants, because, “I continue to remain concerned for the safety of the individuals if I were to make their names public.”

Citing comments directed at her personally through emails and phone calls after it was learned she was investigating Jubenville, she said, “I have to be honest and tell you . . . I was concerned enough about my own safety that I asked for police to be present at tonight’s meeting.”

Bench’s report cited copies of social media posts that raised concerns about Jubenville’s comments and positions, as well as potential retribution from her supporters, online and in-person.

Wallaceburg Coun. Carmen McGregor said individuals supporting Jubenville have spread false rumors and engaged in character assassination of other councilors.

“Personally, I’ve faced threats and intimidations that have led to concerns about my own personal safety, due to my stance on vaccination policy, flag policy and now the integrity commissioner’s recommendations,” McGregor said.

She said supporters of Jubenville have made her feel, at times, “unsafe in my own community.”

However, Jubenville received support from some councilors.

“Frankly, I don’t think it was really that offensive,” Chatham Coun. Michael Bondy said of Jubenville’s social media posts he saw. “I didn’t see anything threatening or anything that was terribly misguided.”

Bondy expressed concern that, if Jubenville receives the maximum penalty, council will be intimidated about saying anything.

“What I saw were things that were her opinion,” he said. “If we’re not allowed to do that, I think we’re in trouble.”

Bench referred to the training she gave council on this issue.

“What you have to say is, ‘This is the council’s decision.’ You can say you disagree with it, but you can’t disrespect that decision,” she said.

Bench told council their code of conduct is a “limitation on free speech that members of council have determined by themselves is an appropriate limit” and have agreed to abide by it.

The issue of Jubenville being bullied was raised.

South Kent County. Ryan Doyle said he told Jubenville another councilor – whom did not want to name – called him and tried to convince him Jubenville’s flag motion was because she is anti-Black and anti-LGBTQ.

“To me, that councilor was trying to bully and intimidate other councilors,” Doyle said.

Jubenville also raised this issue, citing a conversation she had with Bench about her following up with Doyle regarding the unnamed counselor’s allegations about her views on Blacks and the LGBTQ community.

Bench said during council and in her report she asked Jubenville to make a formal complaint, which she hasn’t received.

Jubenville said Bench told her she would call Doyle to confirm the story.

“Those were your words, but you did not call Coun. Doyle,” she said.

Bench denied that conversation happened.

Chatham County. Marjorie Crew brought the motion to accept the recommendation to suspend Jubenville’s pay for three months.

“I’m not alone in feeling that this is absolutely an awful position to be put in, to have to make a decision like this against a fellow councilor,” she said.

Crew said she initially felt the three month pay freeze was “pretty harsh.”

However, after reviewing everything, including the commissioner’s report, Crew said, “I realized there was no acknowledgment . . . about the harm that’s been caused through this.

She said everything had been discussed, but the message: “That if we do nothing, what does that do to our community?

“This is not OK. This is not who we are. This is not who we want to be,” Crew said.