Another Chatham-Kent councillor could have her pay suspended after another investigation by CK's Integrity Commissioner.
Two of the most outspoken councillors against a proposed community hub (CK Hub) in downtown Chatham were investigated by Chatham-Kent's Integrity Commissioner following a couple of complaints in early 2025, but only one could be reprimanded and have her pay suspended.
Councillor Alysson Storey is accused of making disparaging comments at a Town Hall meeting in Dresden on October 20, 2024, and a subsequent council meeting undermining the community hub.
In a report, Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig is recommending a formal reprimand for Storey and suspension of her pay for 10 days after finding that Storey engaged in conduct that breached rule 14 (Conduct Respecting Staff) and 15 (Discreditable Conduct) of the municipality's Code of Conduct by making statements that undermined the credibility of municipal staff and the integrity of council decisions. Those remarks included "unsubstantiated allegations" regarding service closures and accessibility failures at the CK Library.
However, she did not breach Rule 10 (Improper Use of Influence) of the Code of Conduct with respect to improper use of influence regarding allegations at the Dresden meeting that a private citizen was harassing her in order to silence her about the issue.
Craig's report showed that Storey falsely claimed that libraries in rural areas would close, taxes would increase, and there were accessibility issues with the CK Hub.
Storey said the complaint was “baseless and vexatious” and “an abuse of the integrity complaint process”.
Storey stated that she was only advocating on behalf of constituents who have brought these concerns to her attention and that the complaint was brought forward because the complainant disagreed with her and the constituents who opposed the CK Hub and the move to the old Sears location.
"I continue to share the concerns of the AAC (Accessibility Advisory Committee) that despite providing feedback on accessibility issues of the old Sears proposal for the past two-plus years, many of those concerns have not yet been addressed by staff or the consultant. I believe raising these concerns in a constructive and professional way is part of my role as Councillor to represent the Committee/s of Council I represent and my constituents," wrote Storey. "I have no interest nor desire to falsely injure, disrespect, or impugn the integrity of any staff member. I have never knowingly said anything to that effect. I have raised questions about the lack of information provided to legitimate questions from constituents and Committees of Council I represent. I believe I followed proper protocol by bringing these concerns to the Council floor for public discussion through Notices of Motion."
The Integrity Commissioner said a councillor may not disparage or call into disrepute staff by making comments that are injurious to the professional reputation of staff or by suggesting that the contents of staff reports are false or misleading.
"[Storey's] conduct cannot be reasonably characterized as protected political expression immune from review under the Code. It amounts instead to a pattern of conduct that undermines staff expertise and public confidence in Council’s governance, and is therefore a breach of the Code," wrote Craig.
The commissioner also reported that Councillor Rhonda Jubenville made an allegation at the Dresden meeting about her Ward 4 council colleague Jamie McGrail that called into question McGrail's support for her community and suggested she did not work or want to work with her on behalf of the community.
McGrail was not at the meeting because of travel and Jubenville said she was just answering public questions about McGrail's whereabouts, adding she was not there as a municipal councillor.
The commissioner said Jubenville did not contravene any of the code rules with her conduct at the Dresden meeting, but should have concluded that the "inappropriate and disrespectful" remarks and conduct with respect to McGrail would leave the impression with those in attendance that the other councillor did not support the concerns of her constituents.