I don’t normally write a Council Blog about proceedings at HRM’s standing committees since most of what happens at Committee eventually rolls up to Regional Council, but today wasn’t an ordinary Audit and Finance Committee meeting. HRM’s Auditor General presented an audit into spending in the Mayor’s Office, and what the AG found is troubling. On multiple occasions, the Mayor’s Office didn’t follow HRM’s procurement rules regarding external legal fees and contracting. This included consultants for the reorganization of the Mayor’s Office and the Mayor’s State of the Municipality speech last year. The AG has referred the matter to police to investigate, telling Committee that “this was a little too past my comfort zone.” Halifax Police felt they were too close to the situation and passed the matter onto Nova Scotia RCMP who have initiated an investigation. Serious stuff. So here’s what’s in the Audit:
Legal Fees:
HRM requires that all legal fees be approved by HRM’s Chief Solicitor. In June 2025, the Mayor’s Office submitted a legal invoice for $1,425 that hadn’t been authorized in advance. This was ultimately approved as a one-time exception to policy and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff was reminded of the rules. What I read into this is the bureaucracy was trying to cut them some slack! It didn’t work because a few months later in November 2025, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff submitted a second legal invoice for $6,272. This also hadn’t been authorized by the Chief Solicitor. The Mayor’s Office classified the November invoice, however, as “Other Goods and Services” and so the non-compliance was initially missed by HRM’s finance staff and paid by HRM. In February 2026, HRM’s senior staff became aware of this second invoice and the Mayor ultimately agreed to pay HRM back for both legal bills with his own money.
At Audit and Finance, the Mayor offered that “legal fees” weren’t an available option in HRM’s financial software so his Chief of Staff coded it as other. Also at Committee, I asked what these legal expenses were, whether they were personal or not, but the AG wasn’t able to publicly identify them. While being scrummed by the press, however, the Mayor has since said that they were related to code of conduct investigations launched against him. Legal fees related to code of conduct complaints are considered personal expenses and not something that HRM pays for.
This sequence is very troubling to me as the Mayor’s Chief of Staff was told that this kind of legal expense wasn’t allowed unless authorized by the Chief Solicitor. Rather than gain that authorization and despite being advised that the expense wasn’t something that HRM would pay, the Chief of Staff coded the second invoice as Other and submitted it anyway. This raises the question as to whether there was a deliberate intent to skirt HRM’s rules for the Mayor’s own financial benefit. I’m glad the police are investigating.
Contracting:
Beyond the questionable legal fees, the Mayor’s Office didn’t follow HRM’s procurement procedures regarding two contracts: one for the reorganization of the Mayor’s Office and the other for work on the Mayor’s 2025 State of the Municipality speech. Both contracts were sole-sourced to vendors that the Mayor’s Office wanted to hire.
With the office reorganization, senior HRM staff in the municipality’s procurement section pushed back, arguing that the work should be competitively tendered. The Mayor’s Office ultimately got their way though as the then CAO approved the sole source under the grounds of needing confidentiality. The AG’s report indicates that confidentiality wasn’t a valid reason to sole source this kind of contract. That a brand new Mayor was seeking to reorganize the office wasn’t really a secret! The AG indicates that this was standard HR type work and there were no justifiable grounds to sole-source. The $50,000 contract was awarded without a competitive tender and then, when the scope of work increased and costs grew to $90,000, the contract wasn’t properly amended.
The second contract can barely be called a contract. The Mayor’s Office spent $14,000 for help in drafting the Mayor’s 2025 State of the Municipality speech. There was no contract or scope of work for the services provided. The Mayor’s Office approached the vendor directly and there was nothing more in terms of contract documentation than an email to engage the speech writer and an eventual cheque request. The Mayor’s Office indicated they approached the vendor because he had previously done work for Mayor Savage. The AG didn’t test the validity of this statement, mainly because, true or not, it doesn’t change the basic fact that HRM’s procurement rules weren’t followed. What the last mayor arranged wasn’t part of the AG’s scope and isn’t justification for the current mayor not following the rules. Still, I’ll note that Savage has indicated publicly already that he and his Chief of Staff wrote his speeches and that they didn’t spend HRM money on a speech writer.
In both contracts, the Mayor’s Office didn’t follow HRM’s procurement rules. They decided in advance who they wanted to hire and then didn’t manage the contracting process.
What Does It All Mean?
This whole thing is very worrisome in many ways beyond the basic reality of stewardship over public funds. During budget deliberations, the Mayor emphasized the need to be prudent with every tax dollar. His stance now sits uneasily beside the fact that, in his own office, the procurement rules that are designed to ensure that HRM gets good value for work and actually receives what has been contracted have regularly not been followed. It reminds me of the same inconsistency during budget deliberation where the Mayor pushed for lots of cuts, but not when it came to his own office, where he instead wanted to grow the budget to hire more staff! The legal expenses are doubly problematic as the timeline raises the possibility that there has been a deliberate intent to skirt the rules for the Mayor’s own personal benefit. A police investigation is obviously not a sign that things are going well!
The other piece to consider is the context around the civil service and the debate on Strong Mayor Powers. The only reason the AG has looked into the Mayor’s Office expenses is because senior HRM staff alerted him to financial irregularities. Initially though, there seems to have been attempts by senior staff to meet the new mayor halfway. To bend a bit without breaking. The first legal bill was signed off on with a warning and the CAO let the reorganization contract go even though, as the AG finds, there was no policy rationale to sole source the work. As the financial irregularities mounted, however, the bureaucracy ultimately performed as it was supposed to. The legal fees were rejected and all four questionable transactions were sent to the AG to investigate. The bureaucracy ultimately pushed back, blew the whistle, and the AG has now referred the matter to the police. Except for maybe the initial trepidation, this is the kind of response and ethics we want in our civil service. Still, you have to question: if in our current system there is already this much pressure on senior staff to bend to political pressure, what would have happened in a Strong Mayor system? What would have happened if the Mayor could have hired and fired any of them?
Mayor Fillmore pushed hard for Strong Mayor Powers in 2025 and, in Ontario, strong mayor powers give hiring and firing power over senior staff to the Mayor. If Mayor Fillmore could hire and fire staff would the legal fees have been rejected? Would procurement staff have pushed back? Would anyone have felt secure enough to involve the AG? Would this whole thing have just been hushed up and buried? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it seems clear that the odds of senior staff blowing the whistle on the Mayor’s Office, as has happened, would go down significantly in a Strong Mayor system where those staff would owe their jobs to the Mayor’s good will. If Mayor Fillmore had gotten his way on Strong Mayor powers, there might be no AG report today!
What’s Next?
The Audit was released confidentially to Council on Wednesday last week, but it’s only today that we were able to ask questions of the AG. This is, obviously, not a great day for the Mayor or Council. This scandal might be the Mayor’s, but it ultimately reflects badly on everyone. We live in cynical times and stuff like this only fuels more political cynicism. Council is going to need to take some time to reflect on the Audit, and the information shared today by the AG. The AG offered no recommendations (follow the rules being a basic given not a recommendation!) so Council will have to figure out its own path forward. I expect the Mayor and his office will likewise also need some time to assess what comes next.
This only confirms that all levels of government need to be held accountable for the funds that the tax payers give them to do their jobs. Clearly this is an issue at all levels of government.
At least when Peter Kelly was conducting tomfoolery with public funds, we got a couple concerts out of it…
n my opinion, it is concerning that you, Mr. Austin, chose to publicly share this information in the manner that you did. Given the political context, some may perceive this as an attempt to gain attention or advance your own ambitions rather than allowing the matter to be addressed through the appropriate channels.
This situation appears to be one that is more appropriately handled by the media, relevant authorities, or through established processes, rather than through public commentary from a politician who may be seeking the same position. The tone and approach of your post raise legitimate questions about judgment, professionalism, and impartiality.
As my councillor, I would have expected a more measured and constructive approach. Over time, it has often seemed that you have been particularly critical of the Mayor, and this latest action may reinforce that perception. In my view, publicly targeting him in this way could ultimately be counterproductive.
I encourage residents of District 5 to read the post carefully and form their own conclusions regarding the integrity, professionalism, and motivations reflected in it. After reviewing it myself, I find it difficult to identify the level of fairness and objectivity I would expect from an elected representative.
Hi ITA. I have been writing a blog on whatever is going on at City Hall since 2017. It includes, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Today was an ugly sort of day, but I’m not going to avoid the topic just because it’s difficult. And to be clear, since you’ve suggested it, I’m not running for Mayor!
Hi Ita.
I am also a resident of District 5. I am incredibly grateful that Sam put these blogs together and I read regularly.
Andy (the Mayor) is responsible for his own actions. He should prioritize following procurement laws and procedures to avoid any speculation landing on him. Andy decided not to do that. Now the consequences of his decision reflects badly on him, his municipal career, and, honestly, career politicians as a whole.
In regards to Sam’s professional honesty: Sam reported what has happened , as well as mentioned some concerning connections to strong mayor powers. Frankly, I think he was less direct here than what he could have been, because the public is starting to see a Mayor that:
– Lies to the public (Savage never used a speech writer, as Andy claimed)
– Attempts to grasp more power from our elected representatives (our district council)
– Disregards council processes and operations, even when those processes manage financial transactions
– Downplays his fiduciary duty to ensure that the city’s financial resources are used as efficiently, transparently, and responsibly as possible.
And it’s very concerning.
Some of these people should realize they will be replaced by AI sooner than they think because of this kind of crap.