The Draft Strategic Plan of June 2009

C.22. The Wolfville Strategic Planning Exercise

The Draft Strategic Plan of June 2009

As I said and wrote before our Wolfville has survived for decades and maybe even a century without a Strategic Plan. All of a sudden and with no reasonable explanation our Councillors and the Town Administration seem to need guidance and direction from a Strategic Plan. What is all the rush? I really wonder how they all could do their “jobs” in the past.

To make a point, I am very much in favour of the birth of a Strategic Plan for Wolfville’s citizens. However, such a plan needs to be phrased clearly and realistically, focussing and taking into account the citizens’ position and perception and not just - as done in the draft - the one of the Town Administration. In summary I am very disappointed with the content of this current draft. It does not seem to be worth the time and effort being put into this exercise.

The Draft Strategic Plan is the outcome of three sessions at the Irving Centre at Acadia University. These sessions were held during day-time hours when regular citizens were out for work and unable to attend. Obviously, there was no intention to involve the public into the drafting process. I even attended a public Council meeting where the Draft Strategic Plan became discussed amongst the Councillors, the CAO and an outside consultant who used Laptops while the audience was unable to follow and or understand what was going on. This was before the draft was made available on the Town’s website and as a hardcopy. To this Administration it still seems to be inconceivable to involve the public and “provide a better communication link”.

In the Introduction is stated “The plan provides an overview of the existing situational analysis of the Town of Wolfville..”. I could not find it. In the business literature you will find the SWOT approach determining the presence and standing in for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Where is an analysis of the current situation in Wolfville and when was this done?
The near future may hold immense tax increases to pay for upgrades (without federal and/or provincial grants) of our streets and the water and sewer pipes below the surface plus the upgrade of our sewage plant to the level requested by the government. All this would have to be paid by the citizens of Wolfville, which I regard too small a property-tax base. Have there ever been given some thoughts to the idea to surrender the municipality status of Wolfville to become like New Minas a part of Kings County? This might benefit all citizens of Wolfville at least from the point of view that future financial threats will be based on the much broader platform of Kings County.

Under Council Objectives I disagree with the content of some points and how they are phrased. In general, Goals and Objectives should follow the SMART approach in the business literature standing in for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. I do not want to go into details here and now. Firmly, I believe that this whole part does not belong in a Strategic Plan.

The Vision statement “A vibrant and sustainable small university town which enriches our lives” is a very poor one. I have a major problem to clearly understand and grasp the only definitions of the parts “vibrant”, “sustainable” and “enriches our lives”. I have asked several people about those and each time I got a different answer and meaning. What enriches my life may and/or will not enrich the life of my neighbour.

A Vision Statement in general should be a high-level and more abstract statement, but still provide a clear and realistic picture with no ambiguity. Funnily and all of a sudden the perception of the citizens and not the one of the Town Administration was taken in this statement into consideration. I hope the “enrichment of our lives” was meant to address all Wolfville citizens and not just the lives of the members of the Town Administration and that this was not done by oversight or mistake. This part of the statement is phrased that nebulous that it would cover and/or excuse any poor and/or even stupid decision as well while trying to enrich the life of one or the other citizen but not the lives of all of them.

The Mission statement “To excel in the provision of effective and efficient government and work creatively with the community to achieve the vision” deserves the same critique. Where is a clear understanding and definition of “effective” and “efficient” government and what could actually be done or changed to become these adjectives excelled?

The Core Principles of Governance and Service Provision are not phrased as measurable goals and objectives and I could go through each of them with a very critical pencil. To take the first one as an example we could have endless discussions on the definitions and clear understandings of “ Wolfville aims to ensure ecological, social, cultural and economic integrity ..”. All these principles read well on paper. But I would like to have at least a clue on how the Town Administration is going to administer these principles with concrete actions.

The part Goal1: Enrich our Community with the Sub-Goals 1 to 4 I can live with despite the fact that the Objectives under each Sub-goal are phrased poorly, are incomplete and do not belong in a Strategic Plan, but may fit as measurable ones an Operational Plan and/or an Implementation Plan.

The Goal 2: Engage and communicate is the one everybody in the Town Administration talks about but nobody seems to understand its meaning and/or consequence. The Sub-Goal 1 sounds good to me but the Objectives under it do only partly tickle - if at all - this important goal. And they do not belong in a Strategic Plan. In the definition of the Sub-Goal 2 “Build on our existing working relationship with Acadia University” I would like for reality reasons to have the words “on our existing” being replaced by the word “a”. The Objectives here have to be rephrased as well and as measurable ones put into different plans.

The third goal Enhance the Organization seems to be phrased as the poorest of the three goals. I can accept the Sub-Goals 1 without the text in brackets (“living within our means”) and Sub-Goal 2 (with the add-on of accountability) as strategic goals but disagree with most of the Objectives here. As before, these Objectives should be put somewhere else. Just as one example, I doubt very much that the Objective “Develop a multi-year financial plan ..” will have any direct impact on Sub-Goal 1: “Achieve fiscal health of our Town”.

To summarize my comments:

• As in the past the much more important, valuable and short-term Operational and Implementation Plans are missing. A Strategic Plan without these add-on plans is worth nothing. Personally, I would have liked to see the development of an efficient Operational Plan first with an outlook for the next two to three years as a solid platform for the derivation of a Strategic Plan, if really necessary. Not the other way round. This Town only goes through a sped-up budget process each year where too many directors present their wish lists in rounded thousands of dollars. This process cannot be regarded as a representation of an Operational and/or Implementation Plan with top-rank, second-rank and third-rank objectives etc. Nothing is measurable here. The directors are not measured of having done or doing a poor, average or good job and there is no accurate measure or even understanding of related and/or changing service levels under an assumption that certain budget positions are partly or entirely reduced.
• Almost all of the attempted statements and definitions in the current draft fail to achieve clarity.
• A Strategic Plan does not predict the future but it should give an answer to the questions:
  Where do we want to be in 5 or even 10 years?
  What actually has to be changed in our Town in order to get there?
  Does this current draft give answers to these questions? No, it does not!
• My prediction is: A Strategic Plan in whatever version and detail will become implemented and nothing will change for the citizens of Wolfville. A real pity!
• At this time and with the current content I regard the presentation of the Draft Strategic Plan of June 2009 a futile exercise. An implementation of a realistic and clearly defined Strategic Plan is a very good idea. The execution of this idea by the Town Administration has so far been a very poor one including the attempt to involve Wolfville citizens after the drafting process was done without them and expecting the public to sanction the whole exercise later on.
  
  
  Lutz E. Becker / August 23, 2009
  
  To be published on any kind of media!

CONTENT / INDEX

CONTENT / INDEX

Please scoll down to subject of interest and then click on letter/number under "Blog Archive" on the right side of your screen


A. The Brideau Issue

• A1. Wolfville and the Roy Brideau Issue (08/15/2008)
• A2. Update 1 on the Brideau Issue (10/27/2008)
• A3. Bob Wrye’s 2 comments on Wolfvillewatch responding to my article (11/01/2008 and 11/02/2008)
• A4. Mr. Daniels’ letter to Mayor Stead (11/04/2008)
• A5. My response to Wrye’s comments (11/13/2008)
• A6. Update 2 on the Brideau Issue (06/05/2009)
• A7. MyLetter to the FOIPOP Review Board in Halifax (06/29/2009)
• A8. My fax to the president of the Right-to-know Coalition Nova Scotia {RTKNS} (07/13/2009)
• A9. The answer of the president of the RTKNS (07/13/2009)

B. The Wolfville Police Issue

• B1. My Fax to Paul Kennedy, Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP (06/02/2008)
• B2. My Letter to Amnesty International Canada (08/26/2008)
• B3. Police Practices affecting the Wolfville Community (01/02/2009)
• B4. Shortened one-page version for distribution (01/03/2009)
• B5. No Contract between the Town and the local RCMP? (Letter to the Town Clerk Turner 06/06/2009)
• B6. The Town Clerk’s answer: no response at all (08/02/2009)

C. This Mayor and his Administration

• C01. PCB Clean up in Wolfville? (04/10/2008)
• C02. Wolfville’s Political Climate in the Spring of 2008 (05/18/2008)
• C03. The “Clock-Tower Park” Issue (06/03/2008)
• C04. Some comments on Council Meeting on June 09, 2008 (06/10/2008)
• C05. Impressions regarding the PSPAC meeting June 19, 2008 (06/23/2008)
• C06. E-mails to the Mayor and Councillors: Wolfville and a present PCB issue? (07/22/2008 and P.S. 06/30/2009)
• C07. Dear Wolfville Resident: VOTE FOR CHANGE (10/09/2008)
• C08. The Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008
  a) The Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008
  b) A necessary response to the Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008 (10/09/2008)
• C09. The Wolfville Municipal Election “Soap Opera” (11/02/2008)
• C10. My Post-Election Reflections (11/30/2008)
• C11. Wolfville and the new “Fiscal Sustainability Task Force” (12/17/2008)
• C12. “Bargain Booze” and one local bar responsible for Wolfville’s social problems? (01/05/2009)
• C13. Is Wolfville governed by a Tyrant? (02/01/2009)
• C14. Editor Calder’s request for an interview (02/11/2009)
• C15. The Pending Budget-Draft Process Meetings in 2009 (01/19/2009)
• C16. The Mayor’s reply to The Athenaeum’s request for an interview (02/21/2009)
• C17. The Town’s violation of the Municipal Government Act (06/06/2009)
• C18. The Town’s deceptive Budget-finding Process 2009 (06/09/2009)
• C19. Are Wendy and Bobby playing the same tune? (06/30/2009)
• C20. Mr. Sanderson’s reply to my article “Wendy and Bobby” (07/03/2009)
• C21. E-mail to the Town (Ms. J. Boyd) on Strategic Plan (07/20/2009)

D. The Morrison Mystery

• D1. My acquaintance with Mr. Gregg Morrison started on the wrong foot in 200.….. (in progress)

E. The Wolfville “Buy Local” Gimmick

• E1. My article published 02/12/2009

F. The “idiotic” Court case: Town of Wolfville versus Lutz E. Becker

• F1. The Town lost its case entirely and the Honourable Judge seemed to have a problem to understand why such a case made it to his Court chambers and “steal” his valuable time. …..” (in progress)
  

A1.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A1.:

Wolfville and the Roy Brideau Issue

Background and Introduction

Running concerns with Roy Brideau in his position as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Town of Wolfville and the information provided by a credible source that a date and a time - June 16, 2008, 7 to 9 p.m. - were set for an “in camera session” with the personnel matter subject “Roy Brideau and his work performance” inspired me to look a little closer into his Employment Contract and his salary and benefit records.

My running concerns reflect his handling and decision making in a court case - Town of Wolfville versus Lutz Becker - about an alleged violation of the Dog By-law which the Town lost entirely, the damage to my parked car by a snow plow of the Town and some long and stupid haggle and power play on Brideau’s side about $8.73 interest charged to my property tax account which I had refused to pay for very good reasons.

Details on these concerns with Roy Brideau are available on request.

On May 21, 2008 I filed an application with the Town under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get Roy Brideau’s records. Some documentation was mailed to me delayed on June 25, 2008. Due to the fact that I regard this documentation incomplete, with a blacked-out section as well, I appealed to the Review Officer on July 09, 2008. I was told that it may take 4 to 6 months to get the answers from the Halifax office.

I guess there is not enough reason to wait that long with my report.

The original Employment Contract of Roy Brideau

The original employment contract between the Town and Roy Brideau is dated May 27, 1996. The term of this contract is three (3) years beginning June 01, 1996 and ending May 31, 1999.

Checking the files at the Town office I was able to find in the minutes of the Council meeting on May 21, 1996 that with the “Motion 10-05-96 Richardson/Martens” Roy Brideau was appointed as CAO for the Town of Wolfville as per Bylaw Chapter No. 59.

I shall not go into every little detail of the Employment Contract and restrict myself to the sections I regard important and/or questionable.

The section REMUNERATION states that Roy Brideau’s salary will be $58,500.00 for the first year of the contract and that his salary shall be reviewed annually by the Council before the anniversary date. “That review shall include ….. the appraisal of Roy Brideau’s performance during the previous year ….. and the level of salary increments granted to other similar positions in the Municipal Government field in Nova Scotia.” “At its sole discretion the Council of the Town of Wolfville, on the basis of this review, may increase the salary for Roy Brideau for the then following year of this Employment Contract.”

The section EVALUATION adds further that “… Council agrees to carry out a full performance evaluation of Roy Brideau as Chief Administrative Officer under the employee performance evaluation system in place from time to time. This evaluation shall take place no less frequently than once a year.”

Regarding BENEFITS the contract entitles Roy Brideau to participate in the Town’s insurance benefits package and in the Town’s employee pension program, where the Town pays 5% of Roy Brideau’s annual salary as a registered retirement savings plan payment to the plan directed by Roy Brideau.

Furthermore, the Town provides Roy Brideau with a credit card for his use only for authorized business expenses and/or shall reimburse him for those authorized ones. And under “Professional Responsibilities” is added “Roy Brideau is expected to attend such meetings, conventions, workshops and seminars held in the province as are appropriate to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Town and are approved by the Mayor or Council.” And further down in this section it states “… Town Council at its sole discretion will consider granting Roy Brideau a leave of absence to pursue studies relating to local government and his function as Chief Administrative Officer. Town Council at its sole discretion may agree to pay all fees and expenses in connection with such studies.”

Under the headline TERMINATION it reads: “Roy Brideau may terminate employment under this Employment Contract by giving at least three (3) months advance notice in writing to the Town. If Roy Brideau so requests, the Town may waive such notice, in all or in part and if the Town does so, Roy Brideau’s entitlement to remuneration and benefits under this Contract ceases on the date the Town waives such notice.”
“The Town may terminate Roy Brideau’s employment under this Contract without notice or payment in lieu of notice, for cause.”
“In addition the Town may terminate Roy Brideau’s employment under this Contract at its sole discretion for any reason, without cause, by providing six months notice of termination, or at the Town’s option, pay in lieu of that notice.”

And in the DISCUSSION FOR RENEWAL section it is written: “Roy Brideau and the Town agree that at least six months before the end of the term of appointment under this contract, discussions shall begin on the possible renewal of this Employment Contract. If those discussions have not been concluded before the end of the term of appointment under this contract, Roy Brideau and the Town agree that this Employment Contract shall continue in force on a month to month basis until discussions are concluded by the parties agreeing to renew this Employment contract with agree revisions or to allow this Employment Contract to terminate without being renewed.”

Despite the fact that I could not find in the minutes of Council meetings or in the minutes of the Committee of Council meetings any reference to this contract or to an “in camera session” dealing with personnel matters at the time the contract was originated and indicating that the specifics and content of this contract had ever made it to the Council table for approval, I do regard the contract and its specifics within the range of a “normal” employment contract neither favouring Roy Brideau nor the Town.

The Amendment to Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract

The Employment Contract Amending Agreement was signed by both parties on August 18, 1997 and less than one year and a quarter into the duration of the three years contract with Roy Brideau.

As an outsider I have a problem to understand any logical reasons and the rush for this amendment while there were more than 21 months left with a month-to-month add-on before the original contract might become void and a different CAO might become appointed.

All this was done two months prior to pending new elections and the Mayor was quoted in the minutes of the Council meeting on July 21, 1997 that she would not run for an additional term.

In the minutes of the Council meeting on August 18, 1997 (not signed by the Mayor) it reads that the amendment to Roy Brideau’s contract was carried in “Motion 19-08-97 Stead/Martens” “in the same form as considered at its Committee of Council meeting in August”.

When I then checked the minutes of that August 1997 Committee of Council meeting there was no reference and/or indication that the amendment to Roy Brideau’s contract and its form was presented and discussed at all. Furthermore, these minutes do not show any break into an “in camera session” discussing personnel matters.

A mystery that could not even become clarified by asking a staff member that had signed the minutes of the Council meeting on August 18, 1997 as a note taker.

Miraculously, these minutes state as well that the Town’s solicitor, who signed the Amendment as a witness had left the meeting at 9:53 p.m. and had returned to the meeting at 9:50 p.m. He must have gone through a “time machine”. The Council meeting became adjourned at 10:48 p.m. This means that the amendment was prepared and signed by the parties and the witness at almost midnight. In my opinion this is possible but out of line after such a long Council meeting.

This Amendment states that after less than 15 months into the contract “Roy has described his employment relationship with the Town after its first year as successful and has requested amendments to the Agreement to remove the short three year term and revise the notice of termination provisions.”

In recognition of possible benefits the Amendment states as well: “It provides longer term benefit to the Town from Roy’s services as Chief Administrative Officer as he gains experience in that position.” Obviously, he was not experienced at that point in time.

Under TERMS the amended sections of the Contract are stated.
The three-year term of Roy Brideau’s contract is deleted and the following is inserted in its place: “The Town agrees to continue to employ Roy and Roy agrees to continue to work for the Town as Chief Administrative Officer under the terms of the Employment Contract for an indefinite time.”

The paragraph you will find above under the headline TERMINATION and which starts “In addition the Town may terminate ….” is deleted and the following is inserted in its place: “In addition the Town may terminate Roy’s employment under this clause at its sole discretion for any reason without cause, by paying in lieu of notice one year of salary during the first ten years of Roy’s employment under the employment contract (commencing May 1996) and in addition one month of salary for each additional year of employment beyond ten years.”

Why does the severance payment offer commences in May 1996 while the original employment contract starts on June 01, 1996?

The entire section DISCUSSION FOR RENEWAL as above including its heading is deleted as well.
Under TERMS the Amendment reads towards the end: “In all other respects the Agreement continues to apply.”

I trust that the word Agreement here is just a substitute for Brideau’s Employment Contract.

My personal view is that this amendment does mostly favour Roy Brideau and not the Town and the tax payers of Wolfville.

The additional Amendment with monetary increases to Roy Brideau until the year 2011

In addition to the Employment Contract and the Amendment as above I received under FOIPOP a copy of an “additional 1-page Amendment” showing salary and pension increases up to the year 2011 and signed by Mayor Stead.

This amendment is dated February 15, 2007 and it states in form of a letter to Roy Brideau and to his personnel file: “Dear Mr. Brideau: At an “in camera” session as part of a Special Council Meeting held on February 5, 2007 there was discussion on your compensation package. Four decisions were reached based on a view of the next four years, i.e. 2007-08 to 2010-11, ….”

The Municipal Government Act reads in Section 22 (3) “No decision shall be made at a private council meeting except a decision concerning procedural matters or to give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality.”

Do this Mayor and this Council believe that they are over and above the law?

This additional Amendment states the decisions taken on salary (S) and pension increases (P):

• (S) June 07 to May 08 $91,000 -------(P) Town 12%, Roy 6%
• (S) June 08 to May 09 $94,640 -------(P) Town 15%, Roy 3%
• (S) June 09 to May 10 $97,479 --------(P) Town 18%, Roy 0%
• (S) June 10 to May 11 $100,403

This amendment states further: “It was further agreed that if the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) is greater than 4%, 3% and 3% in years two, three and four respectively, the salary adjustment will be increased to the COLA level. Council established the maximum Town contribution to the Pension Contribution at 18%.”

The next paragraph on this Amendment copy is blacked out and became therefore part of my Appeal to the Review Officer in Halifax. In addition I requested the missing salary and benefit records prior to the year 07/08 to be able to understand the salary increases from $58,500 to $91,000 and now $94,640 and the increases in the pension contributions from 5% as in the original Employment Contract to now 15% and 18% next year.

Talking to an officer in Municipal Relations and asking him about average salaries of CAOs in comparable municipalities I learned that the average salary would be between $80,000 and $90,000.

When I then increased in private calculations the basic salary of $58,500 in 1996 by 3% for every year he has held the position as the CAO of the Town, the result showed $83,407 as of the year 08/09. There is a difference of about $11,000 between my calculated figure and the real annual salary of $94,640.

This additional Amendment(?) raises a lot of questions and may have some legal implications as well by checking it against Roy Brideau’s original contract incl. the Amendment of August 1997 and against relevant sections of the Municipal Government Act.

Some more general questions are:

• Can a Council make binding annual salary increase decisions for Roy Brideau four years into the future while the Councillors may not even be in power during this time frame due to new elections?
• If the Council can not do this, what legal implications will this have on the Amendment of February 07 and Roy Brideau’s contract?
• Could the Mayor and the Councillors be made personally responsible?

Looking at Roy Brideau’s original Employment Contract and all its still valid parts, his “salary shall be reviewed annually by Wolfville Town Council before the anniversary date of this Employment Contract. The review shall include … the appraisal of Roy Brideau’s performance during the previous year … and the level of salary increments granted to other similar positions in the Municipal Government field in Nova Scotia. At its sole discretion the Council of the Town of Wolfville, on the basis of this review, may increase the salary for Row Brideau for the then following year of this Employment Contract.”

And under the section EVALUATION of the Contract is added: “Council agrees to carry out a full performance evaluation of Roy Brideau as Chief Administrative Officer under the employee performance evaluation system in place from time to time. This evaluation shall take place no less frequently than once each year.”

How come that this Mayor and this Council can ignore their responsibilities and obligations towards the Wolfville residents and tax payers and misuse their given powers by skipping and negating all the valid provisions of Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract and provide Roy Brideau with salary increases four years into the future without the necessary annual evaluations of his work performance?

Very questionable as well from a legal point of view are the documented and decided pension contributions. Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract states under BENEFITS “…the Town agrees to pay … equivalent to 5% of Roy Brideau’s annual salary as a registered retirement savings plan payment to the Plan directed by Roy Brideau …”.

The Employment Contract and the Amendment of 1997 do not allow for increases of the 5% of Roy Brideau’s annual salary to be paid by the Town into his registered retirement savings plan.

According to the additional Amendment of February 07 the Town does not pay 5% but 12%, 15% and 18% in the years 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10 with yearly increases of 3% while the Municipal Government Act reads in Section 45 (7) “A pension plan may provide for annual increases in the pensions paid pursuant to the plan, but the increases shall not exceed the lesser of (a) six per cent; or (b) the percentage increase in the cost of living in the preceding year, as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index for Canada prepared by Statistics Canada.”

Is it the fact of a miracle that Mayor Stead and this Council have magical skills and foresights being able to predict in advance cost-of-living indexes of 3% for the year 07/08 and the future years of 08/09 and 09/10?

It seems to be very worthwhile to check with Statistics Canada into past cost-of-living indexes and their impact on Roy Brideau’s pension contribution increases since 1996.

Taking all aspects as above into close consideration it seems to be very questionable if this additional Amendment will stand its time.

And again, could this Mayor and this Council be made personally responsible for damages to the Wolfville tax payer by ignoring the provisions of Roy Brideau’s Employment Contract and the Amendment of August 1997?

Mayor Stead at least must have been very familiar with the Employment Contract and the Amendment 1997 due to the fact that he was a Councillor back in 1996 before he became Mayor at the end of 1997. Stead and Brideau have worked close together for more than 12 years now.

Lutz E. Becker / August 15, 2008

Cc/ Mayor (hand delivered on August 15, 08)
Councillors (hand delivered on August 15, 08)
Municipal Relations
Ombudsman
Public / Media (emailed to Wendy Elliott)

A2.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A2.:

Update 1 on the Brideau Issue

On October 20, 2008 and during the official Council meeting I was provided a portion of the draft minutes regarding an answer to a question in relation to the Brideau Employment Contract raised during the Council meeting on September 02. 2008.

Finally, Mayor Stead had asked the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, to respond to this question. These part-draft minutes shed some new light on the still pending issue and make the whole Brideau Employment Contract including its Amendments and its history even more questionable and mysterious.

As it is public knowledge, Roy Brideau was appointed by Council as CAO for the Town on May 21, 1996 with the “Motion 10-05-96 Richardson/Martens”.

The original Employment Contract is dated and signed by both parties on May 27, 1996. The solicitor, Jim Dewar, co-signed and witnessed their signatures.

All the mystery starts with the fact that I was unable to find any reference to this Contract, either in the minutes of Council meetings or in the minutes of the Committee of Council meetings at the time the Contract was originated. In addition, no “in camera sessions” dealing with “personnel matters” could be found in and around May 1996.

The real question here is:

• Did this Brideau Employment Contract and its terms and conditions ever make it to the Council table for approval?

Personally, I regard this original Employment Contract and its specifics as a “fair and normal” employment contract, neither favoring Brideau nor the Town and/or the Wolfville tax payer.

The then following Employment Contract Amending Agreement was signed by Brideau and the Mayor on August 18, 1997 and less than one year and a quarter into the duration of the original three-year contract. Again the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, was involved and had co-signed and witnessed both party signatures.

As a concerned resident I have a major problem to find any logical reasons for the rush for this Amendment, while there were more than 21 months left with a month-to-month add-on before the original contract might have become void and a different CAO might have become appointed. What was all the rush?

In the minutes of the Council meeting on August 18, 1997 (not signed by the Mayor) it reads that the Amendment to Brideau’s contract was carried in “Motion 19-08-97 Stead/Martens” “in the same form as considered at its Committee of Council meeting in August”.

And again, in checking the minutes of that particular August 1997 Committee of Council meeting no reference and/or indication was to be found that the Amendment to Brideau’s contract and the specifics of it were presented to the Council table and/or discussed at all. And as above, those minutes do not show any break into an “in camera session” discussing “personnel matters” or “contract negotiations”. This additional mystery could not even become clarified by asking a staff member who had signed the minutes as a note taker while the minutes do not show any signature of the Mayor.

And the real question is again:

• Did this Amendment and its specifics ever make it to the Council table for approval?

Miraculously, those minutes state as well that the Town’s solicitor, Jim Dewar, who signed this Amendment as a witness had left the meeting at 9:53 p.m. and had returned to the meeting at 9:50 p.m. He obviously can beat time in a kind of “time machine”. The Council meeting became adjourned at 10:48 p.m. To me this means that the Amendment was prepared, written, copied and signed by the parties and then witnessed thereafter and before midnight. In my opinion this is possible but very questionable and out of line after such a long Council meeting. Again, what was all the rush?

After less than 15 months duration into the 36-month Employment Contract its terms became changed into a Contract for an indefinite time and Brideau was guarantied a severance payment of one year of salary during the first ten years of service and one month of salary for every year thereafter starting in May 1996 (?) while his Contract starts in June 1996.

In judging this Amendment - done for no obvious reasons - at this point in time, it favours Brideau only and does not favour the residents of our Wolfville community.

The additional Amendment dated February 15, 2007 (2nd Amendment) tops all the previous mysteries and shadows regarding Brideau’s Employment Contract by far.

The Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, is quoted in the part-draft minutes (as above) as follows: “He [the solicitor] can also say that in that discussion [during the “in-camera session on February 05, 2007] Council did give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality”. He is quoted as well that the Municipal Government Act prohibits him from both repeating what was discussed at and disclosing his notes of that meeting”. Obviously, the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, sees his role in working for the Town (Mayor, Council, Staff) only and not for the best interest of the people and taxpayers of Wolfville, who actually pay for his services. Any future role of a Town’s solicitor should be revised at least under the headline transparency.

Under the assumption that Mayor Stead can be regarded as “staff”, the questions here are:

• Did the Council entitle and authorize Mayor Stead to somehow negotiate and finalize Brideau’s compensation package as part of his Employment Contract?
• Did the Council provide Mayor Stead with a “carte blanche” and when was this done?

In the part-draft minutes (as above) it is stated that “the letter was in error” regarding the four decisions reached “during the in-camera session” on February 05, 2007. There seem to be many more parts of Brideau’s Employment Contract “in error” as well. Even independent of the still open question if the four decisions were taken during the “in-camera session” or outside of it, any four decisions under the law should have been part of published minutes, based on documented motions passed.

And again a third time the question:

• Did this 2nd Amendment and its specifics ever make it to the Council table for approval?

The Amendment letter was written and signed by Mayor Stead on February 15, 2007. There were no Council meetings scheduled between February 05, 2007 and February 15, 2007, when the Council would have been able to approve the “negotiated changes” to Brideau’s contract.

Stead’s letter (2nd Amendment) has tremendous implications on Brideau’s Employment Contract. Interestingly, it shows an entirely different format, compared to the Amendment of 1997. There is no “real” agreement signed by both parties. The Town solicitor, Jim Dewar, does not seem to be involved at all. Of course, Brideau would have been a complete fool not to accept the letter of Mayor Stead.

The serious implications of this Amendment letter rise questions like:

• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to increase the Town’s yearly contributions to Brideau’s retirement plan from 5% (original contract) to 12 % and 15% and 18% of his yearly salary?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to delete the provision in Brideau’s original contract that his work performance had to be fully evaluated at least once in a year as a base for potential yearly salary increases by providing salary increases four years in advance?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to change Brideau’s Employment Contract with this 2nd Amendment that way that Brideau does not really have to work at all and the Town will have to pay more than $100,000 a year for his presence at Town hall?
• Is there no Councillor with courage to stand up and disclose to the Wolfville tax payer and the public what actual directions were given to Mayor Stead and by doing so re-establish the trust into our Council instead of hiding behind “closed doors” within the law like the Town solicitor, Jim Dewar?

To me this whole Brideau issue does not only stink, it reeks of favouritism. According to the minutes since 1996 the Brideau Contract plus Amendments never existed.

During the recent Municipal Elections the overwhelming majority of voters rejected the re-election of Mayor Stead. Perhaps, he should consider resignation?

Lutz E. Becker / October 27, 2008

Cc/ Public
Wolfvillewatch

A3.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A3.:

Robert Wrye, on November 1st, 2008 at 8:49 am (Answer to Mr. Becker on
Wolfvillewatch)

While I am reluctant to reply to Mr. Becker as he has no intentions of listening, I feel that people are entitled to the truth. All of the actions of this Council and I am sure previous Councils were in accordance with the Municipal Government Act and were in fact legal. The last set of changes made to Mr. Brideau’s contract were made legally as the Town’s Solicitor reported to Council and the public at the meeting of Oct. 6, 2008. The Solicitor was present at the in camera session which Mr. Becker refers to.

Mr. Becker has challenged Councillors to state what was said at an in camera session which would in itself be a violation of the Act so clearly I cannot comment. I can say that I am in agreement with the contents of the letter that Mayor Stead wrote to Roy Brideau. If I were not it would have been my responsibility and the responsibility of any member of Council to bring forward objections at the time the letter was sent and not two years later.

There is no mystery regarding the contract other than those who want to create one. It was legally signed and has been legally amended when in the view of both parties an amendment was warranted. If you do not believe me ask the Solicitor. Mr Becker’s interpretation of the effect of the amendments to Mr. Brideau’s performance appraisals or his need to continue the excellent work he has done are incorrect.

I have not looked through the records of the Town trying to find errors. Is there another set of unsigned minutes, it would not surprise me. Was the letter the Mayor sent worded incorrectly in the first line, yes. Did it change the intent of the letter, no. Did someone miss adding one line to a set of minutes which would only have noted that an in camera session had been concluded, yes. Did the omission of that line change what happened or the public knowledge of what happened, no. I am sure that reasonable people understand that any employer does not negotiate a contract or discuss personnel matters in public.

In the six Councils I have served on one thing has been consistent and that was the people working on them have worked in what they believed to be the best interests of this town and the citizens that we represent. Roy Brideau is a valued leader of the staff of this Town. He has a well deserved reputation throughout this province at both the Provincial and Municipal level for his skills as a CAO. He is paid a salary and benefits which are in keeping with the salaries paid for his position in this Province. He does not deserve to be treated in the fashion that Mr. Becker has and continues to treat him in the various letters that he has sent.

Mr. Becker should realize that Bob Stead was re-elected Mayor of this Town in accordance with Canadian election law by receiving the most votes. If he needs to resign because he does a have clear majority then so does virtually every MP and MLA we have in the Province. You can believe that people vote against someone or vote for someone, in either case the Mayor had the most support or the fewest in opposition of any of the candidates and that makes him our Mayor for the next four years.


Robert Wrye, on November 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am (Another answer to Mr. Becker on
Wolfvillewatch)

In response to your comments, in any business employees are paid not only in relation to their qualifications and job performance but in accordance with what the competition pays for the same position. If you do not, you can neither attract nor keep the people that you want.
Government is no different. The salaries paid to qualified CAO’s have risen sharply over the past ten years due mostly to high demand and short supply. If you look at the last three hired they are all paid more than ours and two had no previous experience as a CAO.

Employment contracts are written on the basis of the information available and the circumstances at the time they are signed. If those change amendments are needed. It is surely more responsible to react to a need for change than it is to stubbornly insist that “that’s the way it is” and potential not have something work as well as it could or lose something that is valuable.
In both amendments Council acted in what it believed to be the best interests of the Town including the financial interests. It can always be argued that we were wrong, but the changes were made after a great deal of discussion and in good faith.

A4.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A4. :

November 4, 2008

Dear Mayor Stead:

I have read the draft minutes of the October 15, 2008 Committee of Council meeting in which James Dewar, Q.C., the Town Solicitor, explains the circumstances leading to your letter to Roy Brideau, dated February 15, 2007, by which Mr. Brideau’s employment contract with the Town was revised. Unfortunately, questions remain about how your letter came to be written.

The starting point of my analysis are the following observations.

**Mr. Brideau’s employment contract with the Town was revised by your February 15th letter.

**The powers of the municipality lie with the council and not with the mayor. Municipal
Government Act (“MGA”) sections 14(1) and 15.

**One of the powers of the council is to make contracts. MGA section 47(5).

**I have reviewed the Town Council meeting minutes of February 5, 2007, February 20, 2007,
March 5, 2007 and March 20, 2007 and I could find no reference to the Council’s approval of
revisions to the Brideau contract.

Based upon the October 15th minutes and the above observations, the obvious questions are: Did the Council ever approve the revisions to Mr. Brideau’s employment contract? And if it did, when did the approval take place?

Mr. Dewar explains that at the Council’s In Camera session at the February 5th Committee of Council meeting “Council did ‘give direction to staff of or Solicitors for the municipality’, also permitted under that same sub section [22(3)] of the [Municipal Government] Act.” After this In Camera session you met with Mr. Brideau, who did not attend the In Camera session. You then met with Mr. Brideau a second time when Mr. Brideau accepted the contract offer which, at Mr. Brideau’s request, was set out in writing, that is, your February 15th letter.

Mr. Dewar asserts that no decision by Council was made at its February 5th In Camera session, but rather, by implication, you were directed to negotiate with Mr. Brideau. It appears from Mr. Dewar’s statements that such a “direction” was permissible based upon section 22(3) of the MGA which provides that “[n]o decision shall be made at a private council meeting except a decision concerning procedural matters or to give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality.”

It is unclear whether under this scenario you are being considered a member of Town staff.

I could find no definition of “staff” in the MGA or any other Nova Scotia statute. Common usage of the word would seem to preclude the head of the government being viewed as a staff member.

Perhaps most enlightening on this issue, and on the question of approving contracts, is the commentary found in INFORMATION BULLETIN #7 - OPEN MEETINGS of the Nova Scotia Department of Housing & Municipal Affairs - Revised March 2000 Municipal Government Act Resource Guide. It’s worth quoting from this Bulletin at length.

Decisions

The only decisions that may be made at a closed council meeting are in regards to a procedural matter (such as an adjournment) or to give direction to staff or solicitor: S. 22(3). Council cannot make a decision at a closed meeting which would bind council. Binding decisions must be made in an open meeting. Closed meetings are intended to provide a forum for council to discuss these specified items in private, prior to making a decision. An example of giving direction to staff could be in the form of requesting staff to investigate alternative courses of action, or suggesting maximum or minimum values concerning land sales or acquisitions or wage settlements. Staff can only be directed to carry out actions that they have the authority to do. For example, staff could not enter into or accept a contract on behalf of Council, except as authorized by legislation, for example S. 31 of the MGA. They could, however, negotiate within the parameters given at a closed meeting with council giving the final approval at an open meeting.

Since substantive decisions may not be made at closed meetings, council cannot simply ratify the action agreed in the closed meeting, that is, for example, council cannot "ratify the action recommended at the April 2 closed meeting." Council at an open meeting must put the specific motion on the “floor” to discuss and vote on, for example: "resolve to dismiss [name]" or "agree to purchase the Smith property for the price of $97,000". (My underlining.)

What appears to have happened was that in the In Camera portion of the February 5th Committee of Council meeting you were directed by Council to negotiate with Mr. Brideau within set parameters; that the negotiations took place between you and Mr. Brideau; that an agreement was reached within those parameters; and that for reasons which remain unclear, a binding decision by Council to approve the revised contract never took place at an open meeting.

At the October 20th Council meeting you observed that I seemed very interested in this issue. Let me make my interests clear: I hope in the future Town Council will not enter into contracts (and the Brideau contract revision obligates the Town to expend annually well over 1% of its annual budget four years running) where there is virtually no public record of those decisions and that the Town Council will in the future follow the practices set out in Bulletin #7. Democratic governments require transparency if they are to operate properly and to retain the trust of the people whom they serve.

Respectfully,


David A. Daniels

A5.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A5.:

My response to Bob Wrye’s comments

Thank you for your comments Mr. Wrye; they represent your distorted perceptions on how our Town should be governed.

Frankly Mr. Wrye, as opposed to your beliefs and feelings surrounding the mysteries and/or unanswered questions regarding Brideau’s Employment Contract I care about facts, and in particular about the missing public records in the minutes, which I should be able to find, if the provisions of the law and especially the ones of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) were followed correctly. All different “interpretations” I shall call violations.

When you then state that you are “in agreement with the contents of the letter that Mayor Stead wrote to Roy Brideau”, it means little to me and misses the point.

The questions are:

• Were the majority of all Councillors “in agreement”?
• When should this agreement have taken place?

According to the law it should have been done in an open and public session of Council and could not have been done in an in-camera one. And there were no public meetings between February 05, 2007 and February 15, 2007.

There are more “in-corrections” than the first line of the Amendment letter Mayor Stead sent to Brideau on February 15, 2007. Are you unable to see them or simply choose to ignore them?

It is amazing as well that you - after serving on six Council terms - do not understand that governing the Town of Wolfville cannot be compared with how corporate and/or private business entities run and handle employment and salary issues in a more or less secret fashion.

You - as a government official - can not apply such handling and you, the Mayor and the other Councillors are indeed accountable to the public - the residents of Wolfville - and transparency should be the key word that separates the governing of the Town from the running of a corporate and/or private business.

I do not know if Brideau “is a valued leader of the staff of this town”; I have no access to his complete yearly work evaluations from 1997 until at least February 2007. And if you try to claim that I have mistreated Brideau by asking legitimate questions about his mysterious Employment Contract, you again miss the point.

Regarding the more than $100,000 Brideau gets paid a year in salary and including the Town’s tremendous increases to his retirement funds, I had a word with government officials in Halifax some months ago. I was told that a comparable yearly salary would range from $80,000 to $90,000 in total.

In addition to the more than $100,000 I would like to have the yearly salaries of “Assistant Executives to Roy Brideau” added, to get a clear understanding of what the job function of the CAO does actually cost the Wolfville tax payer.

And I am still waiting for an answer from the Review Officer under the FOIPOP on how Brideau’s yearly salary and retirement contribution increases read between 1996 and 2007 and how the total amount paid by the Town has almost doubled.

It is almost funny that you all of a sudden become very sensitive in relation to violations of the MGA regarding the content of the in-camera session on February 05, 2007. When you write that you “cannot comment” because it would be “a violation of the Act”, are you confirming that the four decisions/directions - as stated in Stead’s letter dated February 15, 2007 - were made during the in-camera session? This for sure would be a violation of the Act, for the four decisions/directions had to be made publicly and outside the in-camera session and published in the minutes.

I can assure you that I have absolutely no interest in the discussions which might have happened within the in-camera session and which you do not have to disclose under the Act.

With this in mind I have a major problem to understand how you might violate the Act while commenting on and/or answering my questions in the common interest of Wolfville residents and tax payers, unless you see it a fact that the decisions/directions were made in-camera.

You cannot have it both ways Mr. Deputy Mayor!

Your comments seem to be “distractions” from the truth and do not provide any answers. I shall listen carefully if you have something more substantial to say. And I fully agree when you write that “people are entitled to the truth”. Reads well on paper Mr. Wrye, does it not?

The Town solicitor made it clear that during the in-camera session in February 2007 Council did give direction to staff of, or solicitors for, the municipality to negotiate Brideau’s compensation package as part of his Employment Contract.

In my article “Update 1 on Wolfville and the Roy Brideau Issue”, I had raised questions like:

• Did Council entitle and authorize staff Stead (the Town’s solicitor stated that “Council did give directions to staff …”) to negotiate and finalize Brideau’s compensation package?
• Did Council provide staff Stead with a carte blanche?
• When was this done by Council?
• With what motion brought to the table by whom?
• Carried with what majority?
• Did Council authorize staff Stead to ignore/delete important provisions of the original Employment Contract in favour of Brideau only?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide staff Stead with “directions” to increase the Town’s yearly contributions to Brideau’s retirement plan from 5% (original contract) to 12 % and 15% and 18% of his yearly salary?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide staff Stead with “directions” to delete the provision in Brideau’s original contract that his work performance had to be fully evaluated at least once in a year as a base for potential yearly salary increases by providing salary increases four years in advance?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide Mayor Stead with “directions” to change Brideau’s Employment Contract with this 2nd Amendment that way that Brideau does not really have to work at all and the Town will have to pay more than $100,000 a year for his presence at theTown hall?
• Is there no Councillor with courage to stand up and disclose to the Wolfville tax payer and the public what actual directions were given to Mayor Stead and by doing so re-establish the trust into our Council?

These questions are still unanswered!

Maybe, the whole Brideau issue reeks at least of favouritism due to the fact that Stead and Brideau have worked closely together for more than 12 years.

As far as the election goes, I was not disappointed that the voters of Wolfville saw fit to elect others in your place Mr. Wrye. It is unfortunate however that the “un-democratic” election system made it happen that Mr. Stead became re-elected even though the overwhelming majority of voters rejected him. He was lucky that there were four candidates campaigning for the Mayor’s office, thereby splitting the votes.

My predictions are that, without your influence and support in Council, Mayor Stead will have a challenging four-year term ahead.

Lutz E. Becker / November 13, 2008

C/ Wolfvillewatch

Comments:

st said...

thanks for your concern.

st
January 26, 2009 5:21 PM

A6.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A6.:

Update 2 on the Brideau Issue

As you know, the Municipal Government Act requires that decisions for the Town must be made by Council and in public sessions. Neither of these requirements appears to have been complied with in the Mayor Stead’s increases of Brideau’s salaries and pension plan contributions from 2007 up to 2011. If so, then these increases, outlined in a letter of Mayor Stead, dated February 15, 2007, are to be considered illegal.

In this context I have a lot of questions forwarded to the Town or published on my blog “Voices of Wolfville” since last year. None of the questions have been answered to my satisfaction by the Town or the Council yet.

Since about 11 months I am waiting for an answer from the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office where I had filed a complaint on July 09, 2008. My complaint was confirmed by the Review Office in a letter dated July 14, 2008 stating that Requests for Review are processed in the order in which they are received. In a phone call to Mary Kennedy – Intake/Administration – of the Review Office on July 30, 2008 I was told that an answer could take 4 to 6 months but could go faster as well. I intend to pursue the Brideau Isuue further as soon as I will get the requested information from the Review Office.

Due to the incomplete answer from the Town’s Administration to my application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act on May 21, 2008 I had asked the Review Office in my complaint for

• Brideau’s missing records prior to 2007/2008
• Reasons for the blacked-out part on Stead’s statement dated February 15, 2007

On June 05, 2009 I sent a fax to the Review Office asking for an explanation on the delay.

The Brideau Issue is not over yet or forgotten. After the election last year I had a word with Mr. Simpson in his function as the new Deputy Mayor about the still open questions. His answer was at least promising: “Give the three new Councillors (the minority of Council not involved in illegal actions regarding the Brideau Issue) some time to settle in and we will tackle your questions.”

I think more than enough time has passed in the meantime.

Lutz E. Becker / June 05, 2009

A7.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A7.:

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.


June 29, 2009

Mr. Robert Bay
Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Review Office
PO Box 181
Halifax, NS
B3J 2M4


Dear Mr. Bay:

Re: Your File FI-08-49(M) – My fax dated June 04, 2009 – Our phone conversations as of today and on June 16, 2009

Thank you for trying to speed up the processing of my file by forwarding it to “investigation” shortly.

As you know, I still have a major problem to understand why it took almost twelve months and my above reminder fax last month to have my file become noticed again.

When you then outlined to me today that your “rough estimate” would be an additional four to six months to receive the Review Officer’s recommendation, it did not brighten my day as well.

For sure, you have to follow the standard-procedure steps at your office but there cannot be much of an investigation about one blacked-out sentence on the document in question.

The mediation step thereafter does not make sense to me either. I want to know the wording of the blacked sentence and the Town of Wolfville does not want to provide it. To me there is no middle ground for any kind of mediation.

We both agreed that the reason the Town provided for the redaction that the sentence was “not relevant” finds no basis in any subsection of the MGA (Part XX) covering reasons for a refusal to disclose information.

You confirmed to me today that the Town provided you with the complete, unredacted version of the document approximately eleven months ago. And for sure you will have the missing yearly salaries for at least 2005 and 2006 on file as well.

Please try to help to get the Review Officer’s recommendation as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely Yours,



Lutz E. Becker

A8.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A8.:

Dear Darce:

Personally, I liked the content of your article “Freedom of Information reform” in TCH on July 09, 09 very much.

I have problems with several requests under the FOIPOP provided the Town of Wolfville with.

In one case I filed a request on May 21, 08. In a document received in return, one sentence was blacked-out. The Town’s accompanying letter stated that the severed sentence was “not relevant” to my request.

We both know that “relevance” finds no basis in any subsection of the MGA (Part XX) covering reasons for a refusal to disclose information. And in any case relevance should be judged by a neutral third party.

My request for review thereafter was received by the Review Office on July 14, 08 and in a phone call with Mary Kennedy I was told that an answer might take 4 to 6 months, but could go faster.

An insider at Town Hall confirmed a few days later that the Town had provided the Review Office with the requested information – incl. the wording of the blacked-out sentence.

All the information stayed in file FI-08-49 (M) at the Review Office for about a year (11 months) with no reaction or response at all.

On June 04, 09 I sent a fax to the Review Office asking about the situation from a timing point of view.

Thereafter, I had two phone conversations with a Review Analyst, and I sent another fax on June 29, 09 confirming what I had learned during the previous two phone conversations.

In return I received a letter, dated June 30, 09, stating that the file “has now been forwarded to the Investigation stage”.

I was told as well that the file will have to pass the Mediation stage thereafter to be forwarded to the Formal Review stage and that receiving the recommendation of the Review Officer could take another 4 to 6 months.

In my second fax last month I had made it clear that I do not see a middle ground for any kind of mediation at all. I want the wording of the blacked-out sentence (on file with the Review Office) and the Town does not want me to get it for no legal reason at all.

The whole issue could have been resolved in a day or less. Instead it may finally take about 1.5 years or more.

Do you have any ideas and/or recommendations which could help to speed up this case?
Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Lutz E. Becker / June 13, 2009

A9.THE BRIDEAU ISSUE

A9.:

Darce Fardy to me
Jul 13 Reply


Hi:

I guess you now understand what I was talking about in my TCH piece. I'm encouraged by Premier Dexter's willingness to address the long wait times... I hope the government will also heed my appeal to make the process more informal.

One piece of advice... get to your MLA and show him the contents of your email. Keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately that's about all we can do.. make noise and make nuisances of ourselves. One thing we can't do is give up.

Please keep me in the loop.

Check out our website www.nsrighttoknow.ca and find out what we are about. You might want to join our efforts by becoming a member. Although fees are voluntary we appreciate it when a new member can send a $10.00 joining fee.

My hope some day is to acquire some funding to allow us to get around the province to spread the word.

Look me up if you are ever in Halifax...

Darce Fardy

President
Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia
902 422 1481
www.nsrighttoknow.ca
darce@eastlink.ca

B1. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B1.:

Chair Paul Kennedy
Commission for Public Complaints
Against the RCMP
Western Region Office
7337 137 Street - Suite 102
Surrey, BC
V3W 1A4


June 02, 2008

Hollow-point bullets

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

Saw your name a couple of times in the news lately regarding your arguments on the use of the Taser weapons by the force. Let me assure you that you have my full support on this matter.

Personally, I believe that the force seems to have become “trigger-happy” in using the Taser.

My complaint is not the outcome of a direct confrontation with the RCMP. It is a more generalized one, and I am certain the public would be interested in this one as well.

As a citizen of the town of Wolfville in Nova Scotia I recently attended an open-door event of the local RCMP detachment.

I was received by a very nice young constable that day and we had a talk about weaponry and the use and/or misuse of the Taser. I was told that the use of the Taser had saved life, but we both know, it had cost some life as well.

In addition I was shown the common pistol of the force and - shockingly - a clip filled with hollow-point bullets. The top of the bullet was carved in several times to make it “mushroom” on impact even more. Such a bullet can and will create terrible and/or deadly wounds even if it was not aimed at a vital organ.

Having served in the Army in my younger years, I know that hollow-point bullets are prohibited for very good reasons by The Hague Convention to be used by soldiers in any conflicts of war.

The constable was unable to tell me the backing source for the use of these bullets in the federal and/or provincial legislation.

After I had mentioned the tremendous fire power of the 15 rounds of 9 mm bullets in a clip - even if it was not filled with hollow-point ones - and that a “violent” offender or criminal (e.g. being drunk and/or drugged otherwise and maybe unable to judge and control his or her actions towards a police officer at the time of being shot at) would be stopped on the spot after being hit by a regular 9 mm bullet and that he or she would have a much better chance to survive and stand trial, we became interrupted by the sergeant overhearing our conversation stating: “When I draw my pistol I do it with the intention to kill.”

This statement shocked me even more. So far I was under the obviously wrong impression that the motto of the police force reads “Serve and Protect” or vice versa, which does not include the killing part.
Furthermore, I can not accept that a police officer - a young constable after just having graduated from the Academy or an experienced senior on the force – would be allowed, entitled and empowered to play judge in a life-or-death matter in Canada’s democracy.

Thereafter, I had a word with an Executive Assistant of a Nova Scotia MLA, who set up a meeting with a public relations officer a the Wolfville RCMP detachment. This 30-year veteran then told me stories about dangerous situations he had been in and that a colleague had been killed in a shoot-out with a criminal. But all this could not convince me that the fire power of 15 regular rounds in a clip (and one in the chamber) would have to be drastically increased by the use of hollow-point bullets to better prevent and maybe stop a “very personally judged” threat to the life of a police officer. And if the officer can not cope with a threat to his or her life without the use of hollow-point bullets, he or she should look for a different job career in an entirely different field.

My concern is not meant just to favour really violent criminals, but a “death penalty” can not be at the sole discretion of a police officer in a heated confrontation.

Looking forward for your opinion on this matter I do thank you in advance.

Respectfully,


Lutz E. Becker

B2. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B2.:

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.

August 26, 2008
Amnesty International Canada
Attn.: Hilary Homes
312 Laurier Ave. East
Ottawa, ON
K1N 1H9


Article in The Chronicle Herald on Aug. 14, 08 – My fax to Paul Kennedy on June 05, 08

Dear Hilary:

You were quoted in the article as above calling for a moratorium on stun guns for very good reasons.

In a paragraph about RESTRAINT - Risk of Death in Subjects That Resist – there was a comparison of Tasers with other methods the RCMP is using to subdue “difficult and/or mentally challenged” people.

My fax to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP fits in right there.

As of today I have not got any response neither from Paul Kennedy nor from the Commission.

I firmly believe that the public in Canada does not know that the police force is using hollow-point bullets in their handguns and maybe rifles. All the people I spoke to found that very shocking as well.

Attached you will find a copy of my fax to Mr. Kennedy.

Looking forward to your opinion on this matter I remain with

best regards,


Lutz E. Becker

1 Attachment

B3. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B3.:

Police Practices Affecting the Wolfville Community

On June 02, 2008 I sent a fax to the Commission for Public Complaints Against The RCMP attention: Chair, Mr. Paul Kennedy.

After no response, I wrote a letter on the same subject to Amnesty International Canada in Ottawa with a copy of my fax as above to Mr. Kennedy on August 26, 2008.

On September 16, 2008 I sent the two above letters under the subject Human Rights Issue as copies to the Town’s solicitor after I had informed him the previous night during the Council meeting. His answer, a day later, reads as follows: “In your two letters attached below, you raise a specific issue of police practice with firearms. My background in Human Rights has not involved any experience with the use of firearms or related policies. I therefore make no comment on how you might deal with this topic.”

Obviously, the Town’s solicitor did not understand that my issue had nothing to do with “any experience with the use of firearms” but with safety and security and even health (life/death) issues in our community.

Due to careful consideration, I have decided to inform the public and especially the Residents of Wolfville about some legitimate concerns.

What is this all about?

Prior to my fax to Mr. Paul Kennedy I had accepted a public invitation and attended an open-door event at the Wolfville RCMP detachment. I was received by a very polite and nicely talking young constable that day and after some introductory remarks we had a talk about weaponry and thereafter a discussion about the use and/or the misuse of the Taser. I got the obviously standardized answer that the use of the Taser had saved lives, but we all know that its use by the police have cost some lives as well.

In addition I was shown the common 9mm pistol of the force, which can take 15 rounds, and - most shockingly – a clip filled with 15 hollow-point bullets. The bullet at the top of the clip showed several slits carved in to make it “mushroom” even more on impact.

Hollow-point bullets are designed to spread once they enter a target to inflict more damage. They expand greatly and are designed to loose about 10% of its mass in the process and split up to hit different parts of the target. HP handgun ammo creates small entry point wounds but, on exiting, it leaves at least a fist-sized flesh wound if it will go through straight at all not hitting a bone and being broken up into pieces.

Having served in the Army in my younger years, I know that hollow-point bullets are prohibited for very good reasons by international law in any kind of warfare. Modern hollow-point bullets go back to the expanding “dum dum” ammunition created by the British in an arsenal of the same name near Calcutta, India, at the end of the 19th century. They were outlawed internationally under the “Hague Declaration” in 1899.

This means that our Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan would break international law if they used such kind of ammunition.

Why are our police in Wolfville allowed to use hollow-point bullets in their handguns?

The young constable was unable to tell me the legal backing for the use of HP handgun ammo under federal and/or provincial legislation.

Is there no legal prohibition on police use of such ammunition?

Is it at the sole discretion of Police Chief Officers to decide on whatever ammunition they consider appropriate to meet their "operational needs"?

And if these questions can be answered with “yes”, you as a Resident of Wolfville should be concerned as well and help stop our police using hollow-point bullets.

The 15 rounds of 9mm bullets in a clip provide a tremendous fire and killing and maiming power, even if the clip is filled with regular bullets only and not with hollow-point ones.

A “violent” offender, attacker (e.g. drunks, druggies, mentally challenged people - maybe unable to judge and/or control their actions towards a police officer - and even a violent criminal) would normally be stopped on the spot after being hit by at least one of 15 clipped regular 9mm bullets instead of hollow-point ones, but thereafter he or she would have a much better chance to survive and stand trial in court.

When I tried to make this point to the young constable in front of me, we became interrupted by an elderly officer in gala uniform overhearing our conversation and he said: “When I draw my pistol I do it with the intention to kill.”

This statement further shocked me. So far I had been under the obviously wrong impression that the motto of our police force reads “Serve and Protect” or vice versa, which does not include the “intended” killing part.

Is it really acceptable to our rural community that police officers - a young constable after just having graduated from the Academy or even a very experienced senior on the force - would be allowed, entitled and empowered to shoot hollow-point bullets instead of regular ones, hereby increasing the killing risks tremendously, even if there would be immediate and sufficient medical help available?

I do understand that police officers have to be able to use their handguns in specific situations and carry pepper spray, the baton and the Taser as well. To subdue any kind of attacker they have to make very subjective decisions on what weapon to use as a response. In addition they can call for back-up and even the deployment of the SWAT team. To me the use of hollow-point bullets instead of regular ones equals the use of excessive and unnecessary killing and/or maiming force.

It amazes me to learn that we, the public, seem to know nothing about the fact that the police are using hollow-point ammunition in their handguns.

After the reception at the open-door event I had a word with an Executive Assistant to a Nova Scotia MLA, who set up a meeting with the public relations officer at the Wolfville RCMP detachment. This 30-year veteran then told me stories about dangerous situations he had been in and that a colleague had been killed in a shoot-out with a criminal. But all those could not convince me that the fire and killing power of 15 regular rounds in a clip would have to be drastically increased by the use of hollow-point bullets with carved-in slits to mushroom even better to hopefully prevent and stop a “very personally judged” threat to the life of a police officer when using the handgun.

My concerns are not meant just to favour really violent criminals and/or diminish the fire power of the police in possible heated confrontations.

In the meantime I have learned that police officers are trained at the firing range (where they use regular 9mm bullets) to aim their handguns at upper parts of the attackers’ bodies (where they can score a “10”) and do not go for arms or legs. This makes the use of hollow-point bullets even more problematic and could result more likely in a kind of “death penalty” outside of our court system. And what about stray bullets in regards to innocent by-standers?

Dear Residents of Wolfville, I would appreciate your feed-back. Please let me know what you think about the use of HP ammo by our police force. You should have a say while paying more than one million dollars for the policing of Wolfville out of your tax dollars. In addition, I was told by quite some people that the drastic increase in yearly policing costs - since our local Wolfville Police became an integrated part of the RCMP - does not really match a measurable increase in police services in Wolfville. But this is a different issue and I shall try to find out why Kentville kept its Kentville Police.

Your feed-back should be addressed to leb.3999@yahoo.ca.

Thank you in advance.

Lutz E. Becker / January 02, 2009


Comments:


Comment from someone who does not want to be named

Mr. Becker,

Let me say at the outset that I am not a resident of Wolfville (I live in Greenwich), but I have the feeling that your concerns about ammunition loads extend far beyond the town's borders.
I was shocked to read your handout, available at the Wolfville post office, about the use of hollow-point bullets by the Wolfville police. Any municipal council worthy of its name should immediately disallow such a practice. Having said that, I acknowledge immediately that police forces in Canada (in contrast to those in the United States) do pretty much as they please, and the taxpayers and their representatives who pay for the police service are impotent to bring about change.
As it happens, I have seen the effect of hollow-point bullets on living flesh. A hunter of my acquaintance once shot a deer through the heart using a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5 mm sniper rifle whose ammo he had modified. The deer was basically cut in two. To use such a load on humans is nuts.
Your comments about a 15-shot magazine seem to me to be irrelevant.
I believe the RCMP is under the supervision of the Solicitor General of Canada (or the Attorney General) - I haven't looked it up. That is the office where, I think, you should begin your enquiries. The town's solicitor is, as you have already discovered, a comlete dead end.
Please, do not attribute to me anything I have said here.

Comments from Mr. Brian Sanderson, Wolfville

Dear Lutz,

Good to see someone is keeping an eye on things.
I find hollow-nose bullets distasteful. I'm not a big fan of the shoot for the chest/torso policy, either.
These police practices are totally out of place in Wolfville... Perhaps they are necessary out in the wild west or in Toronto --- but even then, I think they are just as likely to cause the villains to take things to the next level.

Cheers,

Brian

Comments from someone who played a cop on T.V.

Hollow Point BulletsThursday, February 12, 2009 12:52 AM
From: "Denzel Washington" dwashington1960@hotmail.com

I am appalled by your website and you comments. Do you realize that these men and women put their lives on the line everyday. I would like to see you spend a day in their shoes, having to deal with unpredictable drunks night in and night out. Most of the criminals carry a wide assortment of weapons from knives to fully automatic machine guns and they for sure don’t care what bullets the police have. These criminals carry high power assault rifles with armor piercing rounds, so the police having hollow point bullets is actually a disadvantage.
Yes these hollow points are meant to do a lot of damage, but they are also meant not to penetrate the body. The reason for this is so that the bullets don’t exit the subject and hit an innocent victim. I am sure the public would appreciate the fact the there is less likely the chance that a bullet will exit a criminal and hit an innocent person.
People like you make me glad to know that the police carry weapons.
They are there to help us in need and should be left alone to do their job. You are a person that complains about the police and anyone just to hear yourself talk. You will be the first one calling when your residence is broken into and be making a complaint because they weren’t fast enough getting to your house. And you will be the same person next week complaining that a police car was speeding down the street going to someone else complaint.
You mentioned you were in the military did you peal potatoes or were you the guy that swept the floor? Did you actually see any war time?
If not, you can’t even mention that you were in the military or talk about guns.
Simple solution, don’t point a firearm at a cop or any other weapon.
Listen to their instructions and you’ll have no issues. This is from personal experiences, when you do what they ask they won’t point their scary guns with hollow point bullets at you.
Denzel Washington (Not a Cop, but Played one on T.V.)


bxs said...

The assumption is that police are always the "good guys" and their adversary is always a "bad guy". Thus police have been given maximum killing power. Also, one can use hollow-point bullets for hunting --- so I guess the police don't like to be at a potential disadvantage since the people shooting at them may have hollow-nose bullets.On the battle field, it's not clear which soldier is the "good guy". The soldiers are just unfortunate proxies to settle a failed political dispute --- so we have rules that try to limit the damage to both sides (really these rules are a total failure in view of modern weapons).Personally, I don't trust anyone with a gun --- and neither should you. Perhaps us law-abiding citizens should be issued bullet-proof vests, Council should look into a bulk order?


Isaac said...

The issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. First, the hollow point shifts the center of gravity of the bullet to the rear, improving stability in flight. Second, hollow points do not ricochet as much, minimizing risk to innocent bystanders.I don't see what is so wrong with wanting the maximum incapacitation. Provided that the shooting is justified in the first place (e. g., there is risk of imminent death to the officer or a bystander), one wants to eliminate the target as quickly as possible so that the target can't retaliate.

B4. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B4.:

Dear Wolfville Residents:

• Do you know the police in Wolfville are shooting hollow-point bullets in their handguns?
• Do you know that hollow-point bullets are designed to spread (“mushroom”) and split into pieces once they enter a target to inflict more damage and more likely can cause death or maiming?
• Do you know that hollow-point bullets are outlawed by international law to be used in any kind of warfare since 1899 (Hague Declaration)?
• Do you know that our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan would break international law if they used hollow-point bullets?
• Do you know why the police in Wolfville are allowed to handle the use of hollow-point bullets different from any regular army on our planet?
• Do you know that the hollow-point bullets used by the police in Wolfville show carved-in slits at the top to make them mushroom and split even more on impact?
• Do you know that the police in Wolfville are carrying (besides pepper spray, the baton and the Taser) a pistol which holds a clip with 15 rounds and that these 15 rounds provide the officers with a tremendous fire/killing/maiming power even if the clip would be filled with regular 9mm bullets instead of hollow-point ones?
• Do you know that out of your tax dollars more than one million dollars a year is paid to the police in Wolfville and that you should have a say on what kind of bullets the police are using in their handguns while patrolling our streets?
• Do you want hollow-point bullets used against “attackers” (drunks, druggies, mentally challenged people - all maybe unable to judge/control their actions - or even violent criminals) thereby increasing their chances of death rather than standing trial?
  

You will find my complete article under the headline “Police Practices Affecting the Wolfville Community” on the blog: http://www.voices-of-wolfville.blogspot.com/

Lutz E. Becker / January 03, 2009

B5. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B5.:

No Contract between the Town and the local RCMP?

LUTZ E. BECKER
Wolfville, NS.



June 06, 2009

Town of Wolfville
Ms. Rachel Turner
359 Main St.
Wolfville, NS
B4P 1A1


Dear Ms. Turner:

Re: My FOIPOP request dated Jan. 23, 09 – the Town’s answering letter dated Feb. 17, 09

My request was directed at a contract or provisions of the Town with the local RCMP detachment. I had expected contractual statements regarding

· policing roles and duties, servicing goals, responsibilities of the parties involved
· number of officers on duty
· use and necessary renovations of the provided premises
· number of police cruisers (who pays for these? who maintains them?)
· details concerning the compensation for the officers incl. medical and other benefits,

overtime payments
· duration of contract (who has the authority to terminate the contract and when and under

what conditions can it be done? when did the contract begin and when will it end?)
· complaint procedures
· evaluations of police services
· services on week-ends and holidays
· amendments of the contract since 2000
· total yearly costs
· base for yearly cost increases

The material I was provided with is not this kind of contract covering any or all of the points outlined above. What I got in response to my request is insufficient and entirely different.

I would like to ask the Town to consider a re-imbursement of my paid FOIPOP fees. I may have to re-phrase my questions and maybe address them to a different public office.

I regard the provided document copy between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Town of Wolfville as a very generalized and overall RCMP framework. In it the Town was allowed to enter the existing and eight years old Nova Scotia Provincial Police Service Agreement (PPSA), dated February 27, 1992, in June 2000 with the signatures of Stead and Brideau.

None of the points as above is outlined and/or detailed in the provided framework copy. And I was not provided a copy of the PPSA.

During a recent Council meeting, when you were sitting in for the CAO, you stated publically that nothing else but this framework copy between the Province and the Town exists at Town hall governing, directing and controlling the provided RCMP services in Wolfville.

I have a major problem to believe that.

Considering the fact that the Wolfville tax payer will have to come up in this budget year with proposed costs of $1,042,425.00 (an increase of $51,318.00 over and above last year’s police expenditures) for RCMP services or 14.7% of the Town’s drafted total yearly budget figure and that these payments should become based on nothing but a framework copy between the Province and the Town is more than ridiculous.

During my investigations into the minutes of 1999 and 2000 I found entries like:
· Policing roles and Responsibilities Agreement – Request for Decision
· Changes have been made to the Agreement (as above) including addition of a title page,

disclaimer clause and sidnature page; Appendix „B“ will be added to the final document
· Policing Services Strategic Goals – Request for Decision
· Altenate Policing Services Study Group – Final Report
· RCMP proposal of August 09, 1999 passed to the Study Group

When I then had asked Annette D. for more specific information regarding these entries (additional reports, documents, notes, minutes etc.) she told me – or was ordered to tell me – that nothing would exist anymore and that it is the Town’s policy to destroy everything after seven years of storage.

In general such a rule is understandable but for sure it would not be followed through regarding living and ongoing contractual relationships like the one between the Town and the local RCMP detachment where about $1,000,00.00 and more will have to be paid yearly.

Please, revise your public statement.

Sincerely,



Lutz E. Becker

Cc/ Voices of Wolfville

B6. THE WOLFVILLE POLICE ISSUE

B6.:

No response at all from the Town Clerk as of August 02, 2009!

Lutz E. Becker / 08/02/2009