Skip to content

Spray complaint rejected by Integrity Commissioner

Resident Frank Feeley alleged that Pelham failed to observe its Code of Conduct in gypsy moth matter Although Integrity Commissioner (IC) Edward T.

Resident Frank Feeley alleged that Pelham failed to observe its Code of Conduct in gypsy moth matter

Although Integrity Commissioner (IC) Edward T. McDermott rejected Fonthill resident Frank Feeley’s request, he gave the Blackwood Crescent homeowner full marks for effort.

“You clearly have adopted an intrepid approach to the cause you are advancing to council and the public,” said McDermott in his letter of judgment. “No one can question your expertise and dedication to the cause and complaints you are advancing.”

Feeley, a retired management consultant, had filed his complaint against the Pelham mayor, Town Council, and staff for allegedly failing to adopt a proper spraying program for the Gypsy Moth infestation in the Town, and for not allocating in a fair manner the cost of the program amongst the residents most directly affected.

Having read the 50-page brief in which Feeley requested that the IC intervene and conduct a full investigation, McDermott wrote that, “the bottom line is that Pelham Council and staff do not support your oft-repeated positions in this debate,” and advised that, “I have no jurisdiction or mandate to address your numerous complaints about staff on this issue.”

McDermott concluded that allegations made by Feeley against Mayor Marvin Junkin were “vexatious” (defined in the Code of Conduct as “something that is instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance, frustration or worry”).

In dismissing Feeley’s complaint, the IC determined that the case did not warrant a formal investigation.

Pelham CAO David Cribbs was pleased with the outcome, and underscored that the Integrity Commissioner serves an important function for the community, providing an accountability forum and mechanism for elected officials.

“In the case at hand, the complainant had been provided with multiple opportunities for input and participation in the public process,” said Cribbs. “In essence, this was less a complaint about the Mayor than it was about a unanimous policy decision made by council. Disagreeing with a policy decision and its implementation is a political issue clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner.”

I admire Mr. Feeley’s tenacity, but it is clearly time to move on

In a similar tone, Mayor Junkin said he was somewhat surprised that Feeley chose to go the IC route.

“Over the course of the last two years, Mr. Feeley and I have had several conversations pertaining to the gypsy moth spraying program,” Junkin told The Voice. “We had reached a point where we agreed to disagree, but he obviously wanted a third-party opinion on the situation. I admire Mr. Feeley’s tenacity, but it is clearly time to move on.”

A full house at the community centre listened to the Town's gypsy moth plans, Oct. 23, 2019. DAVE BURKET

This seems unlikely. The Voice spoke with Feeney last week, and though disappointed at the IC’s ruling, he still appeared to have plenty of fight left in him. He said he had spent some 500 hours thus far researching and defending his case, and is mulling over his future options.

At this juncture, Feeley said he will consider a presentation to the Ontario Municipal Board, going the small claims court route on his own, and engaging in a class-action suit along with the 294 homeowners in his neighbourhood who were all invoiced $260 by the Town for aerial spraying.

Feeley produced photographs, taken on his own property, which vividly illustrate the level of destruction to deciduous and evergreen trees caused by gypsy moths when they are left uncontrolled.

People can’t enjoy their pools and patios in the summer

“People can’t enjoy their pools and patios in the summer. They have frass [insect larvae excrement] on their shoes, and caterpillars on their clothes, when coming into the house. Each moth lays hundreds of eggs, and the cycle continues,” said Feeley. “They eventually kill the town’s tree canopy.”

He said he has been dealing with this issue for decades, and that the Town has badly mismanaged the gypsy moth problem. The species usually adheres to a cycle in which their numbers are high for several years, then fades to a lower level for seven to ten years.

“I have a letter on record from the Town dated 1990, saying it will require continuous spraying for several years. Well, they didn't do anything for 18 years,” said Feeley. He questioned why Pelham had not build significant-scale gypsy moth spraying programs into its annual budgets, asserting that this was common practise in many municipalities.

The disagreement which prompted the IC complaint stems from the Town of Pelham’s effort to address the gypsy moth plague in 2019 through an aerial spraying program. Feeley first made his displeasure known in April 2020, when he wrote to the Mayor and council proposing that he would pay for the 2019 spraying of his property on the basis of the size of his residential lot, which is a quarter of an acre. Feeley estimated his cost as $95.85, much lower than the $260 he and 294 other residents in the vicinity of Hillcrest Park had been billed. Junkin responded that council was not agreeable to making individual “deals.”

“Based on my research, costs to the homeowners were 50 to 60 percent overstated,” said Feeley. “The Town charged them for considerably more than what was sprayed. They have just simply refused to acknowledge the facts,” said Feeley.

A 2020 assessment produced by tree specialist consultants BioForest indicated that Pelham could expect another significant battle with the invasive species that year. The cost for an extensive aerial spray program in the town’s urban and rural areas was estimated at over $1 million, which Town staff indicated would necessitate a tax increase of over six percent ($118 for the average assessed household in Pelham). Council decided that this was too rich for the cash-strapped municipality.

At a March 2020 meeting of council—one of the last before council moved to meeting remotely by Zoom—a $150,000 budget was approved for aerial spraying of 33 hectares of municipal property and 90 hectares of private property in Pelham. An estimated cost of $880 per hectare was provided by Zimmer Air Services, covering an aerial spray area of approximately 125 hectares. BioForest’s report had recommended 1,185 hectares receive aerial spraying for the moths, given the level of risk for significant damage.

Feeley referenced a section of the Town’s Code of Conduct dealing with professional ethics and expertise, on which part of his IC submission was based. He said has over 100 emails from Town staff and the Mayor dating back a number of years.

“My point is that Town staff made recommendations to council, and provided misinformation,” said Feeley. “Council made its decision based on this faulty information. When I brought it to their attention, the Town didn't do anything. They didn’t correct the situation. They just said, ‘That's the way it is.’”

  While you’re here…consider renewing or taking out a Voice Membership to express your support for local journalism.



Reader Feedback

Don Rickers

About the Author: Don Rickers

A life-long Niagara resident, Don Rickers worked for 35 years in university and private school education. He segued into journalism in his retirement with the Voice of Pelham, and now PelhamToday
Read more