In a recent letter to the community, Councillor Hebert responded to the Integrity Commissioner’s report, which found her in violation of the code of conduct and recommended a 90-day suspension of pay. The report was serious, but the real question isn’t whether a conflict of interest existed—clearly, one did—but whether there was intent behind her actions. To me, and seemingly most on council, it’s evident that there was no malicious intent, which is why the decision was made not to suspend Councillor Hebert’s pay.
Public office demands transparency and accountability, and Councillor Hebert has been forthright in acknowledging the conflict. Her actions were guided by her understanding of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) and a sincere belief that she was following its guidelines.
The crux of the matter to me is intent. Councillor Hebert’s involvement in situations deemed problematic by the Integrity Commissioner was rooted in her deep commitment to the Social Development Council (SDC) and the broader Cornwall community. Circumstances show that her decisions were made with the community’s best interests at heart, not for personal gain.
While it’s true that her position may be at risk without funding, I have no doubt that Hebert would quickly secure another, possibly better opportunity if the SDC were to close. However, the real loss would be felt by the community, which would be left with many gaps and unfilled needs due to the SDC’s absence. This is what Hebert was trying to avoid.
When soliciting letters of support, she acted in her role as Executive Director of the SDC to secure necessary funding. Although she now understands how this could be seen as an attempt to influence council, her intent was to support the SDC, not manipulate decisions.
Similarly, during a Town Hall meeting, when a question arose about staffing, she sent a text message to someone in the audience to correct misinformation, not to sway the discussion. Her actions, while perhaps inappropriate in hindsight, were driven by a desire to ensure accuracy and transparency.
The council’s decision not to suspend her pay reflects their understanding that intent matters. They recognized that while the Integrity Commissioner raised valid concerns, there was no intent to deceive or gain personally. This decision also highlights the importance of considering context when evaluating actions that might seem questionable.
Councillor Hebert has been a dedicated public servant, committed to Cornwall’s well-being. Her actions, though not perfect, were driven by a genuine desire to help.
Yes, rules are essential, and they exist to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in our governance. However, it’s equally important that we apply these rules with wisdom and compassion. When individuals step up to serve our community, often with the best intentions, we must be careful not to stifle their efforts with rigid enforcement that overlooks the human element of their service. If we begin punishing those who are genuinely trying to do good because of a technicality or a misinterpretation of intent, we risk discouraging others from taking on the responsibility of leadership. Who will want to step up to the plate if they fear being penalized for a well-intentioned mistake?
While it is true that if we, as civilians, committed a crime, a judge would have little to no patience for a defense claiming we simply “didn’t know”, it is also true that when coming up with a sentence, said judge would take other factors into consideration. Whether it is our first offense or not, our likeliness to re-offend and our intent are some of those factors.
In this particular case, the city council demonstrated sound judgment by recognizing the difference between a deliberate breach of rules and an honest effort to serve. By opting not to suspend Councillor Hebert’s pay, they made it clear that they value dedication and service to the community, acknowledging that intent matters. This decision not only supports the councillor in continuing her work but also sends a message to others that the council is fair and considerate in its rulings. Ultimately, this approach helps maintain trust in our local government and encourages more people to engage in public service, knowing that they will be treated with understanding and respect.
But perhaps, more importantly, a valuable lesson was learned by all.
About the Author
PASSION SHOULD NOT “TRUMP” REASON.
Cornwall Council set a disturbing precedent allowing passion to “trump” reason.
Veteran Councillor C. Hebert broke the rules even though she had the opportunity to consult with the Integrity Commissioner before she acted.
As a representative of the City of Cornwall and the head of a not for profit organization, Ms. Hebert’s actions go towards establishing community standards. To say that Ms. Hebert did not understand the difference between personal gain and seeking organizations and individuals to lobby Councillors to support the Social Development Council, which she heads, is splitting hairs to say the least. As the Director of a not for profit organization, lobbying is one of her prime responsibilities. This should be evident to even people without ten years experience at the head of such an organization. Ms. Hebert’s work is valuable to the community, and she is very skilled at what she does, and she obviously understands the dynamics of how not for profits and Council work, which makes it all the more difficult to understand her actions and Council’s decision not to censure her.
Councillor Hebert has a regular pay cheque from her full time position as director of the organization she spearheaded a lobbying campaign to influence Council. Suspending her Council stipend for three months would have only been a “slap on the wrist. Council’s decision not to censure Ms Hebert, however, sends a completely different message, which in effect potentially allows any Councillor off free from transgressing Council’s ethics policy by saying “Oh my!” (roll their eyes) I am sorry, I meant something else.”
Cornwall’s City Council let the Community down and has set a very poor precedent.
And then there is the irresponsible waste of taxpayers money used to conduct this charade.
I can’t wait for the next election, can you?
Ian Bowering, Cornwall.
It is ironic, really. Just yesterday, I had lunch with a friend, and we discussed Councillor Hebert’s issue. At that time, I was pretty stern in my belief that intent didn’t matter—that rules are rules, and if I were to commit a crime, “I didn’t know” wouldn’t suffice as a defense. Despite her good intentions, I thought she needed to face the consequences of her actions, as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” My opinion piece reflecting this stance was written and ready to be published.
However, when I got home, I dug deeper into the matter and spent well over an hour watching the council meeting live stream. I listened to every councillor share their thoughts and feelings. I heard Councillor Bennett take responsibility for suggesting that the letters of recommendation be sent to the council separately. Councillor Hollingsworth expressed that the bottom line is that she broke the rules and should face more consequences than just issuing an apology. Councillor MacIntosh mentioned that while he recalled the comment, “If we don’t get funding, I’m out of a job,” he felt that “in no way did Councillor Hebert try to influence me.” By that point, his mind had long been made up. Many councillors alluded to Hebert holding a very unique position as being the sole paid employee of the SDC who is also a sitting councillor. Ultimately, one by one, councillors and Mayor spoke about Ms. Hebert’s character, her selfless dedication to the community and how she is well respected around the council table. How she constantly declares conflicts of interest even when not necessary.
I heard the integrity commissioner stating that “90 days is the maximum penalty that council could impose,” and the concensus from Ms. Hebert’s colleagues that this was too harsh a penalty. I trust they know her intent much better that I do.
It was also mentioned that there is no way to know who lodged the complaint—Councillor Hebert cannot face her accuser. While I understand why complaints are protected by anonymity, that brought me pause.
I started reflecting on how important it is to strike a balance between being flexible and firm when dealing with people. If we impose harsh punishments for unintentional actions, what kind of message does that send to those who might be thinking about stepping up to serve? On the flip side, if we’re too lenient, it can set a precedent that undermines accountability and encourages careless behavior. Finding the right middle ground is crucial.
I concluded that the public scrutiny and humiliation Hebert faced as a result of her actions, along with the legal costs she incurred were punishment enough.
And so, I did something that all of us should be capable of but very few do, it seems: I changed my mind.
THE REAL CULPRIT HERE IS OUR RUDDERLESS CITY COUNCIL.
I agree, Councillor Hebert and the Social Development Council she heads do valuable work, however, good intentions do not erase negligence, particularly when the person concerned is a Veteran Councillor, has the means to seek a ruling on what they plan before they do it and has had ten years experience on their job. Given these factors the committing of unintentional errors is not an excuse. In most cases such as this, the perpetrator is at the least given a reprimand, this did not happen. This is not Councillor/Director Hebert’s fault. It is the fault of our rudderless City Council, who decided to let this documented breach of ethics go for what appears to be “good behaviour. In so doing Council has created a dangerous precedent. Now all a Councillor who breaches the Code of Ethics need do, if questioned, is say, “I made a mistake, sorry,” and following this precedent can be let off without suffering any consequences. This is about accountability and responsibility, not money. As elected officials representing the Citizens of Cornwall, Councillors, hopefully guided and led by the Mayor, set an example for the community to follow. The Mayor did not lead. Instead the Mayor let Councillors make irrelevant statements about the virtues of the person in question, which with the notable exception of one, let Councillor Hebert off. If everyone believed that suspending her pay for three months was harsh they could have simply censured the Councillor in question, this would have been enough, and next election the voters could decide whether or not Ms. Hebert should represent them again. Council failed to set the example, they failed you and me.
Where is the leadership?
Let’s hope that the Integrity issue does not come up again, and that if it does, that this is not used as a precedent for letting our elected official beg ignorance, when they should or could have known better.
Once again, I can’t wait until the next election, can you?
Ian Bowering, Cornwall.
I fully agree with you Ian. In this day and age there is so little trust for our elected officials, and this is a prime example of why this is so. I have to commend Councilor Hollingsworth for his stand on this issue. I may not have always agreed with some of his decisions, but he is a man who can be trusted to act with integrity.