The court of public opinion knows no rule of law. Certainly not that of the presumption of innocence or that of reasonable doubt. Accusers can make peremptory statements without any obligation to prove them, and those placed in the dock have no forum to make their point before the verdict is reached.
Over the past two weeks, so many things have been said about me and about the institution that I led from 2014 to 2021 that I am dizzy. The Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM) is a jewel whose efficiency and sense of innovation were recognized both locally and internationally. It took only 22 minutes to overturn a credibility built patiently over 20 years and overturn the perception that the public had of it based on an incomplete and decontextualized reading.
The report that started it all definitely had its point of view. I respect the work of the media. It is their mission to question. The journalists presented a reading of reality based on the analysis of corporate credit card account statements. This seems objective. This is the gateway to asking questions. The responses, or rather the lack of responses, from the current leaders of the OCPM did not satisfy them. They then turned to me to get them.
Unlike current leaders, I did not hide. I answered their questions honestly to the best of my memory and the evidence I had. I did not leave the Office with copies of my expense accounts for the last ten years… They drew their own conclusion. They understood that the Office was a useless thing, a place of cronyism, a travel agency where the leaders pay for exotic destinations for no reason at the expense of taxpayers. They identified three culprits and fed them to popular vindictiveness. And that’s where I draw the line.
Although I said it, although it was confirmed by the City Comptroller’s office, although I provided them with all the supporting documents in my possession, it did not convince them. However, since its creation, the OCPM has been a separate entity from the City. Its employees are not City employees. Its spending policies are not governed by the same rules as those of the City. The journalists did not want to understand it. It’s their prerogative. But where I expected better from my company, which is supposed to be a legal one, it was before getting carried away and issuing a verdict that it verified the information and sources.
For two weeks, I have been prey to the anger of outraged citizens. Some even go so far as to say that UPAC should come and take me from my home so that I can spend the rest of my days in prison. That the list of my ethical violations is so long that it is not worth even beginning to list them. I’m being blamed for not apologizing. However, I did not break any rules, I did not steal anything, I did not embezzle funds, I did not give gifts to friends. I have not taken any travel initiative without a mandate that has been validated by the city administration.
“What the hell did she do in Mozambique? » Receive, in the name of the mayor at the time, Denis Coderre, the presidency of an international association that he coveted and that he had requested in writing!
I voluntarily appeared before the City Finance Commission on Friday and submitted all the supporting documents: mandate letters, memorandums of understanding, legal texts and directives which corroborate my version of the facts. I submitted letters from international partners explaining the impact of our collective exchanges and deploring the smear campaign of which the institution is the victim. I explained that it was I who asked the OCPM, on November 8, to look for the 2017 Auditor General’s report and our responses, documents which were sent to me on November 9.
Contrary to what my detractors say, I did not go to Alexandre 77 times in a year, I did not buy $900 headphones, I did not offer hockey or opera tickets by charging them to taxpayers. Given the credibility of the case filed, journalists asked me if I had been treated unfairly. It is not for me to answer this question.
But another rabbit came out of the hat… The current president, Isabelle Beaulieu, in addition to blaming me for her questionable choices, to say the least, declared that she had inherited a poorly managed organization where employees stole time.
New peremptory accusation without any supporting evidence. Just a sweeping statement to an audience hungry for sensationalism. And I see the court of public opinion getting carried away again, without once again being able to present my version of the facts.
We accept the word of the one who considered it justified to go to Chez Alexandre 77 times in a year, of the one who replaced all the furniture in the office and bought 85-inch televisions which remained in boxes for months while the OCPM does not have enough money to complete its financial year. Remember that under my presidency, the OCPM three times returned budget surpluses to the City. Why is such a person’s word more credible than mine?
With these new accusations, some are calling for my resignation as city councilor. What will I be asked next time? To cease to exist?