Hamilton Coun. John-Paul Danko violated the city’s code of conduct when he attacked, on social media, two YWCA Women of Distinction award winners who criticized police in their acceptance speeches, says the city’s integrity commissioner.
“In my opinion, the comments fell below the level of acceptable public discourse by a member of council,” wrote David Boghosian in his report.
“They do not constitute socially acceptable, polite behaviour that shows respect and good manners.”
But Danko, who took down the April 3 post on X two hours later and apologized, will not face a penalty, said the report, accepted by council Wednesday.
Danko has already faced negative public reactions and media coverage and “there is no indication of malicious intent,” the commissioner said.
In April, CBC Hamilton reported that Jelena Vermilion, a community activist and executive director of the Sex Workers Action Program, was among five women honoured at a March gala for their “exceptional achievements.”
In her acceptance speech, Vermilion said she was proud to represent people who had experienced police violence.
“My life is valuable regardless of the work I do, regardless of the work that any of you do, except for maybe policing because that’s my personal opinion,” Vermilion said on stage.
In response to those remarks, current and former Hamilton police officers pulled their support from a YWCA fundraiser.
Code of conduct violation
Danko retweeted a link to the CBC Hamilton story with the comment: “There were two recipients that went out of their way to spit in the face of those in attendance. While I just dismiss them as ungrateful, self-righteous toddlers with a microphone, I’ll continue supporting the @YWCA.Hamilton, but certainly won’t be at future events either.”
Vermilion, who was one of the two recipients Danko was referring to, then filed a complaint with the integrity commissioner, and shared Danko’s tweet and commented, “Resignation is the most sincere form of apology.”
After Danko deleted the tweet, he posted an apology, saying it was “beneath the dignity of my office.”
Vermilion replied “thank you,” which signalled to Boghosian that she had accepted Danko’s apology.
He found Danko had violated the code of conduct by not conducting himself with decorum as a member of council.
However, he also noted Vermilion’s retweet of Danko’s original tweet remained on her page, and she has “successfully and willfully traded off” Danko’s comments to “enhance her media presence and stature in the community.”
At the meeting Wednesday, Coun. Cameron Kroetsch, who is a member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, said he disagrees with the commissioner on that point.
“Lots of times queer or transfolks are retweeting to be given an opportunity to raise their voice and make it clear to other people what’s happening … so the original context is known,” Kroestch said.
While the code of conduct governs how councillors communicate with the public generally, Kroetsch put forward a motion to add social media specifically. It was sent to a sub-committee for further consideration.
Complainant says she experienced ‘hate’
Danko declined to comment for this story, but provided CBC Hamilton with his full statement sent to the integrity commissioner, which said the office “should not be used as a mechanism to settle personal grudges or in retaliation against elected officials for their political views.”
He also wrote he regretted making a personal comment about Vermilion’s “maturity level.”
Vermilion submitted a response to Boghosian’s report after the deadline and it wasn’t included in the report sent to council, but she provided it to CBC Hamilton.
She strongly disagreed that she used Danko’s remarks to boost her own online presence and said she did so to “speak truth to power” and the “hate” she experienced from Danko’s tweet.
She’s concerned Boghosian’s comments on her social media use will discourage people from speaking out against elected officials and from filing complaints with his office.
Vermilion said retweeting Danko has “no relevancy to this report whatsoever.”
“The focus must be squarely on the councillor’s conduct and not the impugned resident and constituent,” she wrote.