Update: More Sudbury Travel Expenses Surface from Ross Romano
In a previous edition of the newsletter, I took a closer look at the controversy involving local MPP Ross Romano and allegations that he lived in Sudbury.
I promised to investigate further and let you know what I found.
Specifically, I wanted to fact check some public statements from Romano in a SooToday story from May of 2022 (just a few days before the Ontario general election).
What I found raises more questions than it answers.
Politicians often spend a considerable amount of time outside of their ridings, which limits their responsiveness to constituents.
More controversially, they sometimes have a primary residence outside of their ridings.
A couple years ago, the Mayor of Brockville resigned after purchasing what was described as his ‘dream home’ outside city limits, a move that disqualified him from office under municipal rules.
Things get even more controversial when politicians use public resources to travel in between residences outside of their riding and their workplace.
Around a decade ago, Senator Mike Duffy ignited a political firestorm when it was revealed that he was living outside of the province he was representing.
At the time, he was a Senator for Prince Edward Island, the alleged location of his ‘primary residence,’ but he was nonetheless claiming living expenses for his residence in Ottawa.
The plot thickened when several other of his claimed expenses raised red flags, in addition to the claimed expenses from several other Senators.
The investigation culminated in 31 criminal charges for Duffy. During a trial, he was found not guilty of four charges and 27 were dismissed, but the saga led to both a tightening of transparency and much greater scrutiny placed on politicians.
More recently, a politician in Alberta was caught renting out his downtown Edmonton apartment while claiming living expenses there.
In sum, residency and claimed expenses are politically significant.
They raise all sorts of questions about public accountability and transparency because politicians enjoy financial benefits directly linked to their employment and the representative functions they perform.
But the applicable rules and regulations aren’t always clear cut or what you might expect.
For example, Ontario MPPs can live anywhere, and there’s no requirement that they reside within the riding that elected them.
Arguably, limiting residency might infringe upon personal freedom, and it’s possible that robust representation can happen without proximity to one’s riding.
So, the major question is: What do a politician’s constituents think?
The problem is that constituents can’t have an informed decision on the matter if they don’t first have all the facts.
Three things from the SooToday story merit further investigation.
First, Romano told SooToday this: “I absolutely do not live in Sudbury. I state unequivocally that I have never lived a day of my life in Sudbury” [emphasis added].
Given the fact that Romano has claimed travel expenses involving Sudbury on several occasions and he once owned a house there, that’s a strong claim.
According to him, the only time he spent in Sudbury was using the city as a conduit for returning to work at Queen’s Park, because his family lived in Sudbury, and he realized he could spend more time with them if he flew out of Sudbury instead of Sault Ste. Marie.
But there’s an inconsistency here and one can’t have it both ways.
If you have a residence in Sudbury, then claiming travel expenses to or from the city is non-controversial.
Staff at the Ontario Legislative Assembly tell me that representatives can claim travel expenses to or from their riding or their residence.
They also ask MPPs to have a current ‘primary residence’ on file, and update it if they move.
Put simply, you can’t claim travel expenses to or from anywhere.
Second, and more importantly, what does the paper trail of Romano’s travel expense claims actually look like?
Here’s what the SooToday story says: “In a long invoice of expense payments between Queen’s Park and Romano’s principal residences in the Sault, [the provincial NDP] found one that recorded his home as being in Sudbury.”
But is that the only travel expense claim that includes Sudbury?
Romano wasn’t just an MPP.
He’s also held two cabinet portfolios, first as the Minister of Colleges of Universities (2019-2021) and then the Minister of Government and Consumer Services (2021-2022).
A freedom of information request made to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities reveals that Romano has claimed travel expenses that include Sudbury on several other occasions.
Here’s the list:
· Friday, July 15, 2019: Taxi in Sudbury
· Monday, July 15, 2019: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Monday, October 14: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Wednesday, September 4, 2019: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Wednesday, September 18, 2019: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Sunday, September 15, 2019: Staff Member Flies to Sudbury to Drive Romano to North Bay (both fly out of Sudbury on Wednesday, September 18)
· Monday, October 14, 2019: Taxi in Sudbury
· Monday, January 13, 2020: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Monday, January 13, 2020: Taxi in Sudbury
· Sunday, January 26, 2020: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Monday, February 3, 2020: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Monday, February 3, 2020: Taxi in Sudbury
· Monday, February 10, 2020: Flight from Sudbury to Toronto
· Monday, February 10, 2020: Taxi in Sudbury
· Monday, March 15, 2021: Drive from ‘Residence’ in Sault Ste. Marie to ‘Residence’ in Sudbury
The last travel expense claim is particularly interesting (see below).
Source: Ministerial Travel Expense Claim from Romano in March of 2021
The paperwork clearly refers to Romano’s house in Sudbury as a ‘residence.’
The expense claim is also signed by a Chief of Staff, which might reasonably lead one to believe that Cabinet was fully aware of travel that included Sudbury.
Nonetheless, there’s a slight difference in the travel expense rules for MPPs and Cabinet Ministers.
Expenses for the latter are legitimate if they’re reasonably “incurred while travelling on official duties or functions.” They don’t stipulate that expenses need to include a Minister’s riding or residence.
Another thing to mention is that the allowable expense rules for Cabinet Ministers have this to say about taking taxis: “Taxis and ride-hailing services should not be used to commute to work or home except under exceptional circumstances” [emphasis added].
Lastly, did Romano rent an apartment between the time he sold his previous house in the downtown of Sault Ste. Marie and moved into his current one (a span of several months), which constituted his ‘primary residence’ during that time?
When reached via phone, the person who purchased Romano’s house refused to confirm that the agreement included Romano renting an apartment.
According to him, rental agreements are “managed by [his] property manager.”
“I have to talk to him because he does all the paperwork,” he said.
He also said “it’s not fair that [I’m] going through [a] third-party.”
“If you know Ross, you can talk to him straight. You’re putting me in a very bad spot.”
I never heard back.
When asked about these details, Romano declined comment, offering only this:
As you know, I have repeatedly provided an extremely detailed account of mine and my family’s personal living arrangements in response to these false and harmful allegations. I have nothing more to add.
In conclusion, it’s difficult to reconcile Romano’s public statements with the paper trail.
Nonetheless, it’s up to his constituents to decide whether that’s a problem.
And it’s up to local media to inform the public so they can make that decision.