By: Pam Wright, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Chatham Voice
Chatham-Kent council will be asked once again if North Kent Coun. Rhonda Jubenville should be penalized for breaching council’s code of conduct.
Expected to be brought forward at the Dec. 1 meeting, the return of the matter comes on the heels of a revised report from former integrity commissioner (IC) Mary Ellen Bench.
Bench was asked to revisit the issue to reconsider “appropriate” penalties for the events that transpired in 2023 regarding the flying of flags on municipal property.
In April of 2023, Jubenville brought an unsuccessful motion forward to council that only municipal, provincial and Canadian flags be flown at municipal sites. At the time Jubenville argued that Chatham-Kent should take an “all or nothing” approach, ruling out all special interest flags. She made the request after the pro-life Life in Motion group, did not receive a response to its request to fly their flag.
However, the matter caught fire on social media when Jubenville questioned the flying of Pride flag at Blenheim District High School. Subsequently, complaints were made to the IC who commenced an investigation.
Bench’s investigation found the councillor had violated two sections of the code, relating to bullying and the improper use of influence.
Council ended up docking Jubenville three’s month’s pay, but the councillor challenged the integrity commissioner’s recommendation in court.
This past summer, a judicial review “quashed” Bench’s report and council’s penalty. Jubenville was also awarded $20,000 in costs from the municipality but has not been paid.
The three-panel judicial review determined that Jubenville had not violated Section 10 of the code, but found it was “reasonable” that she did breach Section 15 of the code relating to discreditable conduct through bullying and harassment. Bench was asked to address penalties for the Section 15 violation.
In her new report, Bench recommends council suspend Jubenville’s pay for a two-month period.
But ultimately, it’s council’s decision.
“My role at this time is to reconsider my recommendations on penalty in view of the divisional court’s decision,” Bench wrote. “The purpose of this report is only to provide recommendations of appropriate penalty. The decision on penalty is ultimately in the hands of council.”
When contacted by The Voice about the issue after she posted the report on social media, Jubenville said she wanted the flag policy to be fair for all.
“I don’t regret making the motion,” Jubenville stated. “I still stand by it…let’s keep in simple and eliminate the division in the community.”
