One of the more curious developments of modern public life is the growing tendency to treat allegations as conclusions rather than as the beginning of an inquiry. This tendency, which is by no means a creation of the digital age, although social media in particular has definitely exacerbated it, is not confined to politics and journalism. Increasingly, it shapes how people evaluate public officials, corporate leaders, and senior administrators. And in a great many cases, long before the relevant facts have been fully examined by independent bodies.
Municipal governments offer a useful case study in why this phenomenon can be particularly problematic.
The responsibilities entrusted to senior municipal executives are substantial. They oversee large taxpayer-funded organizations, manage public resources, guide long-term planning initiatives, and advise elected officials on matters that affect entire communities. It follows that municipalities have a strong interest in selecting capable leaders while minimizing risk. So, the pertinent question is how they go about doing so.
Contrary to the perceptions of some, municipal executive recruitment is not a casual exercise, entered into with the same level of thought as hiring a contractor from a flyer stuck on a car windshield wiper. Senior appointments are typically preceded by extensive due diligence. That means background checks, reference verification, stakeholder consultations, professional assessments, and reviews of prior performance. All of these measures and safeguards are standard features of the process.
The purpose of such intense due diligence is not to determine whether a candidate has ever attracted criticism. Any senior public official who has spent enough time in leadership will almost certainly have done so (making decisions that ruffle the feathers of one party or another are practically a part of the job description). Rather, the purpose is to determine whether any concerns that have been raised are supported by evidence, contradicted by evidence, or ultimately unresolved. Only then can hiring committees make informed decisions based on the full factual record.
This distinction is not subtle. And it’s important because public controversy and real-world misconduct are not the same thing.
The David Barrick Example
The career of Ontario municipal administrator David Barrick serves to illustrate this point well. Over the years, Barrick has been the subject of several public allegations and some measure of media scrutiny stemming from his work in municipal government and public-sector administration. Among these are claims relating to his time in Brampton and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA).
Depending on which account of events one reads in which news outlet, Barrick can appear either as a controversial figure or as an experienced municipal executive whose record has been the subject of multiple independent reviews that found no wrongdoing.
The responsible observer should be interested in neither characterization alone. What matters most is the evidence, where it leads and what it reveals.
The same applies to Barrick’s employment history. Although some media outlets have characterized his departures from positions as dismissals, the available facts don’t support that. For example, when Barrick left Thames Centre, that municipality described his departure as voluntary and credited him with several notable accomplishments during his tenure in a widely circulated press release.
What the Investigations Found
And in Barrick’s case, allegations of misconduct were not simply ignored. They were investigated. A review conducted by Deloitte, one of the largest business services providers on the planet, concluded that he acted in compliance with applicable municipal policies, procedures, and bylaws. Following that review, the City of Brampton issued a public apology acknowledging that the allegations were unfounded and that his professional reputation had been negatively affected.
Organization-wide allegations connected to the NPCA were reviewed by the Ontario Provincial Police, who found no wrongdoing. A separate review by the Auditor General also identified no issues with Barrick.
Reasonable people may disagree about decisions made during his tenure in these roles. Such disagreement is common in public administration. Municipal executives frequently oversee contentious projects, make disputable budget decisions, champion modernization initiatives that alienate certain parties, and make organizational changes that create divisive reactions. Criticism simply comes with the territory.
But criticism and misconduct are not interchangeable concepts.
Indeed, if allegations alone were sufficient to establish professional unfitness, there would be little need for investigations, audits, recruitment reviews, or due diligence processes in the first place. One could simply count up all the accusations and then just dispense with the evidence as an unnecessary element in the equation. But no serious institution operates that way. Municipal governments do not. Executive recruitment firms do not. Nor should they.
The Broader Lesson
This brings us to a broader lesson about governance.
The purpose of due diligence is not to shield leaders from accountability. It is to provide accountability based on a factual foundation. A recruitment process that ignores allegations would be irresponsible. But to that same end, a recruitment process that ignores the findings of independent investigations would be equally irresponsible.
It’s worth noting that David Barrick has successfully continued to undergo executive recruitment reviews conducted by independent firms like Feldman Daxon, SelectPath, and Legacy Search Partners even long after the original allegations against him surfaced. Such firms exist precisely because organizations require an objective, third-party assessment of risk and candidate suitability. Their role is to examine the available evidence, speak with relevant stakeholders, verify references, and arrive at a professional judgment. The fact that an individual continues to receive consideration through such processes does not prove perfection. What it does suggest is that experienced professionals have reviewed the record and reached conclusions that differ from the noise and political controversy.
Something else worth considering is that municipal leaders, such as Chief Administrative Officers (Barrick served as CAO in Brampton, Thames Centre, and Interim CAO at the NPCA), unlike elected officials, are frequently constrained by confidentiality obligations and employment-related privacy requirements. These limit their ability to publicly divulge details on employment and legal matters, and the result is that narratives can sometimes become detached from the formal findings that emerge through official review processes.
Following the Evidence
None of this diminishes the importance of journalism. Public scrutiny remains essential to democratic governance. But scrutiny achieves its highest purpose when it follows evidence wherever that evidence leads, including when the findings challenge the assumptions that preceded them, or the agenda-driven narratives promoted by some online outlets.
And though the David Barrick example is illustrative of the problem here, the larger issue extends well beyond any one single administrator. Municipal governance depends upon institutions capable of distinguishing allegation from proof, controversy from misconduct, and narrative from fact.
Executive recruitment, at its best, serves precisely that function. In a world increasingly inclined to render verdicts first and examine evidence later, that may be one of its most valuable contributions.
