Video – ‘When Are You Going to Stop Electioneering?’ Brian Darling Blasts Mayor Cleveland in Heated Council Showdown

Pete Fisher
3 hours ago
• Categories: City Hall, Local

‘Dog and pony show,’ ‘bullying’ and ‘ramble’: Councillor unleashes on mayor as questions about Cobourg’s troubled finances ignite a bitter confrontation over accountability, transparency and political motives.

---

“When are you going to stop electioneering here?”

That was the blunt question Councillor Brian Darling fired at Mayor Lucas Cleveland during a heated October 13 council meeting, as a discussion about Cobourg’s troubled finances descended into accusations of bullying, political theatre and a refusal to let the public hear answers.

Darling did not mince words.

“You’re asking hypothetical questions. You’re a week away from this whole dog and pony show that you’re putting on,” he told Cleveland.

“I don’t know about the audience, but my personally I’m just about fed up with it. The audience can interpret what they want to interpret.”

The councillor’s frustration was unmistakable. He accused Cleveland of putting Chief Administrative Officer Tracey Vaughan on the spot, behaving disrespectfully and continuing to press questions after she had already answered.

“The CAO has answered your questions and you may not think you’re bullying, but you are,” Darling said.

“You’re putting the CEO on the spot, which is very difficult, and she’s handled it quite professionally. And you’re being very disrespectful.”

Then came another warning.

“You know what? You and I have agreed and disagreed over the years, but at this point, um I think you’re pushing the limit.”

Darling wanted the discussion stopped and a vote taken on receiving the financial report for information.

But Cleveland refused to accept the councillor’s characterization of his questions as electioneering.

The mayor argued that he was attempting to bring important information about the municipality’s financial history into the public domain, not stage a political performance.

What followed was a remarkable exchange in which Darling accused Cleveland of rambling, Cleveland accused council members of avoiding questions, and the underlying issue — whether financial recommendations made to previous councils had been acted upon — remained a central point of contention.

CAO admits recommendations were not implemented

The confrontation began with Cleveland questioning Vaughan about the financial problems that had developed over a period of years.

Vaughan, who became CAO in October 2020, had just delivered a detailed presentation about the town’s financial history, the review of historical records and the work undertaken to strengthen financial management.

Cleveland asked whether every recommendation she had made to the previous council had been followed.

Vaughan’s answer was direct.

“There are recommendations I have made that have not been implemented.”

The mayor then asked whether her concerns about the corporation’s financial health had emerged during the service and organizational reviews conducted after she joined the town.

Vaughan explained that the reviews examined municipal processes, policies and performance.

“Working through both of those reports, there were issues that were identified that were reported publicly and there were measures that were taken um in an implementation plan that I recommended,” she said.

“Those two processes together and then time at the organization did leave me with some concerns around our financial capacity.”

Cleveland wanted to know whether her recommendations had been made publicly or in closed session.

“The majority of my recommendations were made in open domain,” Vaughan replied. “There were some that were made in closed.”

When asked whether the recommendations made in closed session had been followed, Vaughan said:

“For a variety of reasons, not all of my recommendations were implemented.”

That admission raised an obvious question: could the town have addressed its financial problems earlier if the recommendations had been acted upon?

Cleveland asked whether the municipality would be in the same position today or whether it might have had a two-year head start.

The question immediately triggered objections from Deputy Mayor Nicole Beatty, who accused the mayor of moving into speculation and interrogating staff.

Cleveland then asked Vaughan whether she felt she was being interrogated.

“If I’m interrogating, I’ll cease and desist immediately,” the mayor said. “I’m trying to understand because I don’t really get it. So, if I’m interrogating, I’ll cease and desist immediately.”

Vaughan responded:

“I’m happy to answer questions of council.”

That response did not end the dispute.

Darling’s ‘dog and pony show’ accusation

Cleveland continued questioning the circumstances surrounding the financial problems, drawing a comparison with concerns raised earlier about the Cobourg Police Service Board.

He said he wanted to understand whether problems had gone unaddressed under the previous council before he became mayor.

“Today we learned that for three years the Cobourg Police Board didn’t make any decisions to fix problems until Mr. Leather showed up,” Cleveland said.

“And I’m asking if that’s the case in the police board, is that also the case here in the term of council before I have the opportunity to sit as mayor.”

That was when Darling delivered his electioneering accusation.

“When are you going to stop electioneering here?” he asked.

“You’re asking hypothetical questions. You’re a week away from this whole dog and pony show that you’re putting on.”

Darling said he was fed up with the exchange and believed the CAO had already answered the mayor’s questions.

“I don’t know about the audience, but my personally I’m just about fed up with it,” he said.

He then accused Cleveland of bullying Vaughan.

“The CAO has answered your questions and you may not think you’re bullying, but you are.”

Darling argued that the mayor was placing the senior municipal official in a difficult position.

“You’re putting the CEO on the spot, which is very difficult, and she’s handled it quite professionally,” he said.

“And you’re being very disrespectful.”

The councillor then called for a vote on the motion to receive the report for information.

‘We’re just unwilling to listen to you ramble on about it’

Cleveland pushed back, arguing that the public deserved answers about what had happened to the town’s finances and the recommendations made before the current council term.

The mayor said the objections were preventing a meaningful discussion.

“It’s not surprising that we’re not diving into this subject. It’s not surprising that we all just want to move on,” Cleveland said.

“This is a council meeting, guys. If you don’t want to talk about what you don’t want to talk about, it’s very clear we don’t have to talk about.”

Darling responded with another pointed remark.

“What we don’t want to do is listen to your opinion over and over and over and over.”

Cleveland insisted that he was asking questions rather than delivering an opinion.

“I’m not I’m not giving my opinion. I’m actually asking CAO and you’re preventing me from doing so.”

He then addressed the electioneering accusation directly.

“I would argue that I’ve been actively trying to get the public information into the public.”

Cleveland turned the accusation back on his critics, suggesting that their reluctance to continue the discussion was itself politically motivated.

“And I would suggest that this unwillingness to discuss really important financial matters heading into an election is actually like the definition of electioneering.”

Darling immediately rejected that characterization.

“We’re not unwilling to discuss it,” he said.

“We’re just unwilling to listen to you ramble on about it.”

The councillor then argued that the financial problems were longstanding and could not fairly be attributed to one person or one council.

“The public’s quite aware there’s problems with our community. We’ve had some things that have gone back decades,” Darling said.

“They’re trying to put the blame on other councils. There’s no one person, no council, no anybody in particular to put the blame. This is a thing that’s happened over decades.”

Darling returned to the procedural issue, insisting that the vote should proceed.

“The question my is I asked for a vote. I think in accordance with our procedures, when a vote is called for, it is to be taken.”

The supplied transcript does not record the outcome of that vote.

Cleveland fires back over accountability

The mayor acknowledged Darling’s criticism but responded with a pointed reference to the councillor’s own words.

“I understand. We don’t want to actually answer the questions,” Cleveland said.

“Okay. Again, this is a democracy and if the former members of the returning council don’t want to have this conversation, by all means, uh, we’ll call the vote and I’ll make it recorded.”

Cleveland then added:

“I’ll stay very stately and then I’ll keep my mouth shut, you know, so I’m not rambling on to use your words, sir.”

He said he would not continue the back-and-forth.

“I’ll I’ll just say this. There is nothing theatrical, there is nothing about electioneering, about trying to bring facts to light.”

Cleveland defended his approach by arguing that questions about accountability should not automatically be characterized as bullying.

“Asking questions of accountability and transparency is not bullying,” he said.

“Asking people if they’ve done their job is not bullying.”

The mayor maintained that his intention was to understand the town’s financial history and make information available to the public.

Darling, meanwhile, continued to argue that the discussion had gone on long enough and that the mayor was repeating himself rather than advancing the issue.

The exchange left council members openly divided over whether Cleveland’s questioning was a legitimate exercise of accountability or an inappropriate confrontation with the town’s senior administrative official.

Beatty also accuses mayor of interrogation

Darling was not the only councillor to challenge Cleveland.

Earlier in the exchange, Beatty raised a point of order after the mayor asked whether Vaughan’s recommendations made in closed session could have given the town a two-year head start if implemented.

Beatty argued that Cleveland was entering an area of speculation and had already acknowledged that legal advice and closed-session matters could not necessarily be disclosed.

“You are now getting into an area of speculation and this is exactly why I’m very uncomfortable with this motion and I look to my colleagues on council to take a stand against this interrogation of staff,” Beatty said.

She then told the mayor:

“Mr. Mayor, if you want to interrogate someone, look to your members of council. CAO Vaughan has done enough now and you can stop.”

Beatty also questioned the timing of the discussion.

“You are also asking questions on one of our last few days on council when you knew this information in 2023 and could have raised these questions,” she said.

Her position was that Vaughan had answered the questions and that the mayor was pushing beyond what was appropriate.

Cleveland rejected the point of order and again asked Vaughan whether she felt interrogated.

Vaughan repeated that she was prepared to answer questions from council.

Councillor Adam Bureau subsequently raised his own point of order, saying the meeting was no longer turning into a regular council discussion.

“This is not turning into um a regular council meeting,” Bureau said. “This is turning you into interrogating the CAO.”

Cleveland responded that he wanted to continue examining what had happened under the previous council.

The objections, however, reinforced the sharp divisions at the council table over how the town’s financial history should be discussed.

Financial problems stretch back decades

While the political confrontation dominated the exchange, Vaughan’s presentation outlined the extensive work required to understand the town’s financial position.

The review examined historical practices involving unfinanced capital, reserves and reserve funds, development charges, other obligatory funds and debt.

Vaughan said the work was complicated by incomplete, scattered or manually maintained records.

The review traced relevant matters back to 2012 and found that some problems predated that year.

She explained that the findings were consolidated in a November 2024 financial update.

“It was a significant milestone because it brought concrete findings together in one place; and provided the information we needed to understand the financial position,” Vaughan said.

“But as mentioned, it was not the starting point of the work.”

The town also experienced significant turnover in the finance department around the time Adam Giddings became treasurer in October 2023.

Vaughan said the departure of several employees left the department short of resources and capacity.

“Not every single member of that team left — a good chunk of that team left,” she said.

“So it really left us low on a resource perspective and a capacity perspective. So we did need to bring in some additional help.”

An experienced retired municipal treasurer was brought in during 2024 to help examine historical records and identify corrective measures.

Vaughan also acknowledged that the town’s audited financial statements for 2023, 2024 and 2025 remained behind schedule.

“I want to be direct about the audit delay: staff and council agree that it is not acceptable,” she said.

The 2023 statements were submitted to council for approval in May 2026, while the 2024 statements were presented to the Audit and Risk Committee on October 6.

External fieldwork for the 2025 audit was scheduled to begin the week of November 23, with draft statements anticipated in the first quarter of 2027.

The political question remains

Darling’s accusations added another layer to an already difficult debate over the town’s finances.

His position was clear: he believed Cleveland was using the discussion for electioneering, treating Vaughan disrespectfully and repeating questions that had already been answered.

Cleveland’s position was equally clear: he believed the public had a right to hear answers about the town’s financial history and the decisions made by previous councils.

Vaughan’s testimony provided a concrete fact at the centre of the dispute: some recommendations she made to previous councils were not implemented.

But the discussion did not publicly establish which recommendations were left unaddressed, why they were not followed or whether implementing them earlier would have materially changed the town’s financial position.

Those unanswered questions matter to taxpayers.

Darling argued that the problems developed over decades and should not be pinned on one person or one council.

Cleveland argued that the history of those decisions needed to be examined rather than left unexplored.

The October 13 meeting demonstrated that Cobourg’s financial challenges are not merely an accounting issue. They have become a test of how far elected officials are willing to go in questioning the past — and how much disagreement they are prepared to tolerate while doing so.

For Darling, the mayor had crossed a line.

For Cleveland, asking difficult questions was part of the job.

And for residents watching the dispute, the central issue remains unresolved: what recommendations were made, which were ignored, and what difference might it have made if action had been taken sooner?

 

CAO Tracey Vaughen’s comments

I want to begin by acknowledging residents’ concerns about the Town’s finances, particularly the delay in audited financial statements. I am deeply committed to transparency, accountability, and financial sustainability.

To that end, I also want to address information circulating publicly that is either incomplete or inaccurate. These are serious matters, and they deserve a response that is candid, factual and clear about what is known, what action has been taken and what work remains. Staff welcome the opportunity to provide factual information, correct the record where necessary, and help ensure residents have an accurate picture.

The Town’s progress on financial matters is documented across various reports and financial updates provided to Council and the public issued at different times and for different purposes. While the November 2024 Financial Update has understandably received significant attention, it was not the only action taken or the only financial report that has been presented in the public domain. Bringing the vast amount of information that has been publicly reported together in one summary report will help both Council and residents understand the chronology, the actions taken and the work still underway.

I became CAO in October 2020 and the first item I worked on was the council directed service delivery review. The following month, KPMG presented its Municipal Service Delivery Review Report to Council in open session, these reports identified opportunities to strengthen financial processes and reporting, reserves, user fees, procurement, risk management and long-term financial sustainability.

In response to the recommendations, I brought implementation reports and update reports forward in January and September of 2021, and March and September of 2022, all of which were presented in open session, and demonstrated the execution of the approved recommendations, and progress reporting to maintain accountability and transparency. In other words, when items were brought to my attention, I acted, I made recommendations to Council, and I reported on those items publicly.

We then began work on an Organizational Review that was endorsed by Council, and once this work was complete, Council received KPMG’s Organizational Review Reports in September and October 2021 and these reports were also presented in open session. I then brought corresponding implementation reports to Council, again in open session, that translated the findings into an implementation plan focused on organizational structure, staffing, budgets and operating processes. Again, I acted on what I knew, I made recommendations to Council, and I reported on that in the public domain.

Together, the two reviews identified significant challenges within the Finance function: limited staffing and resources, an overreliance on manual processes, and insufficient capacity for robust financial planning, forecasting, variance analysis, performance monitoring and analysis. This context matters. The reviews pointed to long standing systemic organizational and process weaknesses—not simply individual failings. Staff were working within constrained capacity and systems that required substantial modernization, leaving Finance without the consistent tools and resources needed to perform at the level the Town required.

As my understanding of the organization and its financial performance deepened and I raised those concerns through the appropriate governance channels. I am aware of my fiduciary responsibilities, and I discharged my duties diligently, while operating within the scope of my authority. While many of my recommendations were implemented, some, for a variety of reasons at the time, were not. I respect the governance process, and so I continued to operate within the scope of my authority to address the issues that were within my purview and scope of authority.

As CAO, I can speak publicly about the Town’s financial systems, organizational capacity, management actions and accountability. However, I cannot responsibly discuss the performance or employment circumstances of an identifiable employee or disclose details of personnel recommendations that Council may have considered in closed session. This is not only in relation to what is permissible to discuss in closed session, but also the municipality must safeguard employee information in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). To not remain in compliance with MFIPA does expose the corporation to both potential litigation and does create concerns from a retention and attraction perspective for staff as they would expect that those legislative protections would be in place.

Under the Municipal Act, I am responsible for the general management of municipal affairs, subject to the Town’s governing legislation, policies and delegated authorities and scope of authority I am given by Council.

That responsibility includes managing employment matters through the appropriate processes and protecting the municipality by ensuring that identifiable personnel information is not disclosed in a way that could compromise privacy, procedural fairness or the integrity of an employment process.

If Council had received a recommendation concerning an individual employee in closed session, I could not publicly disclose the employee’s identity, the evidence or allegations, or the substance of Council’s confidential deliberations unless the Clerk and the Town’s solicitor had first confirmed what could lawfully be released. These legal and ethical boundaries do not prevent accountability: they ensure that we adhere of our legal requirements.

I can confirm that I did follow up with the town solicitor on the weekend once upon receiving Mayor Cleveland’s motion on Friday and was able to speak to him today about what I have been asked to potentially disclose. The town solicitor advised that I am not to discuss any allegations of wrongdoing on the part of former employees publicly, or disclose personal information related to former employees.

I have and will continue to address the historic institutional issues, the actions we have taken to date, and are continuing to take. What I can confirm is that sustained work to strengthen financial management was underway well before the November 2024 Financial Update and has continued since, and all actions that were able to be have been reported in the public domain.

I can also confirm that at all points, when I became aware of any information of concern with respect to the towns financial position or practice, I acted. I directed staff, advised Council, made recommendations, I acted within the scope of my authority.

I recognize that all these reports and updates are confusing, and staff are happy to pull them all together in one consolidated report so that is makes it easier for the public to read and follow. It is important that the full picture is known, that misinformation is corrected, and the focus is on continuing to correct the challenges that we inherited.
With respect to timings, as mentioned, Adam Giddings became Treasurer on October 2, 2023, with the previous Treasurer remaining until October 27 to support the transition. During the same period, several other Finance staff departed, further reducing the department’s capacity. In 2024 to provide support to the finance department and offer additional municipal expertise, I secured temporary, part-time assistance from an experienced retired municipal treasurer, funded through staff-gapping dollars.

The Treasurer and this experienced advisor undertook a detailed review of historical financial records and practices, tracing relevant matters back to 2012. The review looked back to 2012 not because the issues originated that year, but because the evidence had established that they were historical and went as far back as 2012, and in fact predated 2012.

Quite simply we identified long standing practices over decades that had contributed to the town’s financial position. Through this review we found that records were incomplete, dispersed or maintained manually, so balances and supporting information had to be researched, reconciled and reconstructed. This deeper review was necessary to establish whether the information was accurate and supportable before it was relied upon for decisions and reporting.

We also had to balance the historical investigation with the urgent need to develop recommendations, strengthen controls and improve current practices. Our objective was to establish a sufficiently reliable understanding of the historical position so we could report responsibly and act decisively—not to allow an open-ended examination of past records to delay corrective action.

The findings of this review were consolidated and presented in the November 2024 Financial Update and presented to Council in closed session. The update addressed matters including unfinanced capital, reserves and reserve funds, Development Charges and other obligatory funds, and debt practices. It was a significant milestone because it brought concrete findings together in one place; and provided the information we needed to understand the financial position, but as mentioned, it was not the starting point of the work.

When issues have been identified, I have brought them to Council and made recommendations, and where possible I have implemented those recommendations with Council approval. As Council and the public is aware the Town has since posted the update and related materials on its Treasurer’s Financial Updates page, however, staff welcome and fully support the idea of a further consolidated report made available to the public.

Since the 2024 report, the Town has continued to reconcile capital and financing balances, monitor capital projects against approved funding, strengthen controls over debt, reserves, cash flow and Development Charges, and improve the tracking and management of historic accrued vacation liability.

We have also enhanced quarterly and year-end reporting, strengthened budget and user-fee processes, updated financial and procurement policies, and expanded audit and risk oversight. Council has received financial information through public reports and updates, including but not limited to the 2025 Financial Sustainability Plan and the 2026 Q1 Budget Performance Statement. These reports contribute to the financial picture, but I fully recognize that they do not replace audited statements.

I want to be direct about the audit delay: staff and council agree that it is not acceptable.

The Treasurer’s October 8, 2026 report confirms that the Town has an accumulated backlog covering the 2023, 2024 and 2025 reporting periods. It identifies several contributing factors, including internal reconciliation requirements, competing year-end priorities, external-auditor availability, communication challenges and the transition to a new auditor. For the 2023 statements, the initial delay involved reconciling those historic issues as previously mentioned through the fulsome review. These were raised in the November 2024 update. KPMG could not begin fieldwork until July 2025, and further delays included auditor availability and communication issues. Given these additional delays staff recommended a change of auditor, and Council approved Baker Tilly on May 27, 2026.

The 2023 audited statements were submitted to Council for approval in May 2026. The 2024 statements were presented to the Audit and Risk Committee review on October 6; staff have completed internal preparation for the 2025 audit, with external fieldwork scheduled to begin the week of November 23, 2026, and draft 2025 statements are anticipated in the first quarter of 2027.

Staff will continue to advise Council and residents on the current status of each outstanding audit and any changes to the expected dates.

Audited statements are essential, and the delay in completing them is not excused by the work required to verify historical records or by challenges with the former auditor. At the same time, audited statements are not the only financial information Council and the public receive. Budgets, financial updates, sustainability and status reports, and reporting on reserves, Development Charges and budget performance provide information between audits. These reports serve different purposes and may have different levels of assurance; they are important parts of the financial picture, but they do not substitute for an independent year-end audit.

Finally, the practices, decisions and challenges now under examination developed over decades. They cannot fairly or accurately be attributed to one staff member or a single term of Council. This is a longstanding institutional challenge, and our responsibility is clear: strengthen financial management, complete the outstanding reporting and keep Council and residents fully informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

The work began before the 2024 report, continued after it, and remains active today.

What I can confirm is that when I became aware of any financial issues, I acted, reported recommendations to Council, implemented the approved recommendations, and acted within the scope of my authority. Our focus is on continuing the work and enhancing the financial performance and sustainability of the Town of Cobourg.

I am happy to answer any questions.