Update 1 on the Brideau Issue
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
No comments:
Post a Comment