C13. THIS MAYOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION

C13.:

Is Wolfville governed by a Tyrant?

Major suspicions started after a 1-page letter, dated February 15, 2007, to the CAO, Mr. Brideau, signed by the Mayor, Bob Stead, surfaced during my Freedom-of-Information request in 2008.

In his letter Stead provides Brideau with salary increases to more than $100,000.00 and four years in advance, while, contrary to the earlier employment contract with the Town which stated that possible salary increases have to be based on complete/full yearly evaluations of Brideau’s work performances.

Furthermore, Stead ignored the provision in the existing employment contract which states that 5% of Brideau’s yearly salary will be paid by the Town to his retirement plan. In his letter Stead increased these yearly retirement contributions up to 18%.

Stead’s letter, regarded as an amendment to Brideau’s original employment contract, can in addition even be interpreted that Brideau does not really have to work - due to the fact that work-performance evaluations have been eliminated - and the Town will have to pay Brideau up to $120,000.00 a year for just being present from time to time at Town hall.

The key question partly phrased during the council meeting on September 28, 2008 was:

• Did this Brideau amendment and its terms and conditions ever make the Council table for approval or was it a “solo trip” of Stead to do his now about 12-year Town-hall companion a personal favour?

The Stead-letter reads that the decisions were reached during an “in camera” session on February 05, 2007 and we all know that the law, the Municipal Government Act, does not allow decisions to be taken during “in camera” sessions.

The Town solicitor gave a questionable response during the Council meeting on October 20, 2008 stating in writing that “the letter was in error” regarding the four decisions reached “during the in-camera session” on February 05, 2007. The solicitor obviously does not see that there are many more parts of Brideau’s employment contract “in error” as well. If these decisions were taken outside the “in camera” session - as required by the law - these decisions would then be part of published minutes for everybody to read and based on documented motions passed with the majority of Council. But there is nothing to be found in the minutes and therefore the requirements of the law were not followed.

Even a previous amendment to Brideau’s contract did not make it into the minutes and no reference and/or indication could be found that this previous amendment and its specifics were presented to the Council and discussed and decided upon at all. According to the published minutes all the amendments to Brideau’s contract never existed.

In my article Update on “Wolfville and the Brideau Issue”, dated and published on October 27, 2008, I came up with six questions:

• Where and when did the majority of Council entitle and authorize Stead to somehow negotiate and finalize Brideau’s entire compensation package as part of his Employment Contract?
• Where and when did the majority of Council provide Stead with a “carte blanche” for these negotiations?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide 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 salaries?
• Was it the intention of the majority of Council to provide 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 Stead with “directions” to change Brideau’s Employment Contract with this 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 Wolfville tax payers and the public what directions were actually given to Stead and where and when - if at all - and by doing so re-establish the trust into the Council and a democratic process prevailing in Wolfville?

None of these questions - which can be answered by Councillors in power during the previous term only - has really been answered. The Town and the re-elected Councillors have chosen to play it the silent way.
And if Stead did all this on a “solo trip”, could this not be regarded as a breach of public trust?

A second suspicious issue - and you are all aware of - was Stead’s letter TO THE RESIDENTS OF WOLFVILLE, dated October 06, 2008 and just before the upcoming municipal election.
In my published article under the headline A necessary response to the Mayor’s letter dated Oct. 06, 2008, I wrote on October 09, 2008:

“… The letter circulated by the current Mayor defending himself, the Council and the Administration of any “right or wrong-doing” during at least this last term in power should be regarded as an act of desperation in fear of loosing at the upcoming election and should produce a bad taste in everybody’s mouth.”

“Despite the fact that this Mayor avoided any reference to the upcoming election, his letter - at this particular time - can only be interpreted as a political campaign ploy. And the Town’s Returning Officer, the highest authority during the election period and employed with the Town, saw obviously no reason to object to this letter or was ordered to disregard objections.”

“And all this then can only mean that the production of more than 2,000 copies of this Mayor’s campaign ploy and its distribution via the local postal service to more than 2,000 households in Wolfville was paid for by your tax dollars, dear Residents. …”

In his letter Stead states “I speak on behalf of the entire Council and staff”. This is either wrong or it means that the entire Council was involved in the writing of the letter.

My published and unanswered questions here are again:

• Was the production and mailing of this letter based on a unilateral decision of the Mayor (“solo trip)?
• When was this letter discussed with Council and when had Council carried a motion regarding its content and its way of distribution?
• Was this letter of the Mayor used poorly for self-serving purposes to enhance Stead’s chances to become re-elected as Mayor?

These questions address the re-elected Councillors only. And under the condition that this was another “solo trip”, could Stead’s letter not be regarded as a breach of public trust again?

The complete published article you will find further down on my blog www.voices-of-wolfville.blogspot.com.

The third suspicious issue I became aware of was partly taken from the content of an article in The Advertiser on December 16, 2008.

Its headline reads:

• “Mayor asks bar owners to forego cheap drinks”.

The article then stated that the mayor was going to call on all six liquor outlets in his[?] town to work together to set minimum drink prices. (On December 19, 2008 the minimum drink prices became set under provincial law to $2.50)

It amazed me that neither the mayor nor the reporter was obviously able to count up to “nine”, for there are nine outlets within Wolfville’s boundaries (beside the liquor store itself) serving liquor and/or beer.

The article then pointed to the “only one liquor establishment on Harbourside Dr.” selling cheap drinks. This was a completely false statement. I experienced other establishments in Wolfville promoting cheap drinks during their “Happy Hours”.

Anyhow, the article also states that Stead wrote a letter to Premier Rodney MacDonald in early November. He tried to underline Mr. Leonard Preyra’s (NDP MLA) private member’s bill forwarded to the provincial Assembly on November 03, 2008 and by doing so he was jumping on the Halifax bandwagon instead of really trying to find a local solution for Wolfville. And all this under the pretext that “bargain booze” has been really a social or even is the social problem in Wolfville. The Advertiser wrote that Stead was calling on the Premier for help. Asking for help from the Premier instead of at least trying to find a local solution together with the Council could be interpreted as incompetence as well.

I really wondered if Stead wrote this letter on his private paper as Mr. Bob Stead. If he wrote this letter and asking for help as Mayor of Wolfville and under the official letter head of Wolfville, this letter, its content and its mailing should have made the Council table beforehand and a necessary motion should have been carried all actions.

I spoke about this letter to a Councilman in power in early November. He stated that he had not seen a copy of the letter but saw a response to the Mayor’s letter from the Premier. If nothing can be found in the minutes it will prove again - as above - that Stead obviously seems to have a very confusing understanding of the meanings of the words democracy and tyranny.

I understand the role of a mayor as the speaker of the council to the public. At the council table he has only one vote like all the other six councilmen and he can act and/or speak up about Wolfville issues only after being backed beforehand by the majority of the council.

My questions here addressing the re-elected Councillors are again:

• Where and when was the issue of “bargain booze” discussed with Council and decisions regarding actions to be taken (asking the Premier for help) in a public meeting?
• Where and when did the Stead-letter make it to the Council table where its contents and its mailing passed with a carried motion?
• Was this letter just a “solo trip” of Stead?

And as above, if a “solo trip”, could Stead’s action be regarded as a breach of public trust again?

My responding complete article to this issue you will find on my blog under the headline “Bargain Booze” and one local bar responsible for Wolfville’s social problems?

The fourth suspicious event I learned while listening to the repeated news on the local radio station (AVR) recently.
As I understood it, Stead was quoted to have said that the Capital Budget would amount $1.6 million this year, that the central parking space in front of Shoppers’ (not even owned by the Town) would get a facelift and that a hired architect would talk to business owners downtown to ask them to beautify their storefront facades. Then I heard Stead’s voice over the radio stating that Central Ave. would be closed for cars and become a walk for pedestrians only.

As above, my questions are:

• When and where were the decisions for the activities as above made by the majority of the Councillors during a public meeting?
• Was the stating of these activities another “solo trip” of Stead?
• And if the second question can be answered with “yes”, could Stead’s statements be regarded as another breach of public trust?

When I spoke to a Councilman about these statements three days ago, he answered that the Mayor gets carried away from time to time and that we [the Councillors] can stop all these stated activities.

In fact, the relevant law, the Municipal Government Act, prints in section 14(1) clearly: “The powers of a municipality are exercised by the council.”

Thereafter, the powers of a mayor are described in section 15. In subsection 15(1) it reads that the mayor shall preside at all meetings of the council. And in 15(3) it is written that the mayor may monitor the administration and government of the municipality; and communicate such information and recommend such measures to the council as will improve the finances, administration and government of the municipality.

The Act does not allow “solo trips” by the Mayor! The Mayor has the right to preside Counsil meetings but no privilege to act as he alone likes.

Our Mayor became re-elected by a minority of the given votes only and due to the fact the majority of the votes against him were distributed over three other candidates.

It might be another very useful decision to be taken by the Council in power to limit the terms of a mayor to two max., to provide new candidates and new ideas and attitudes to get into the Mayor’s position.

I have absolutely no problem with the Mayor as a person, but - under the condition of confirmed “solo trips” as above - I shall strongly object to the Mayor usurping the powers of the Council for whatever reasons.

On the other hand and in confirmed cases as above I shall strongly object to the Councilmen as well allowing the Mayor to act like this and not calling him to order.

I would have to regard this as a breach of public trust on the Councillors' side as well.

Lutz E. Becker / February 01, 2009

Comments:

ww said...

The mayor is his own worst enemy. He talks as if everything that happens is due to him. It is HIS newsletter, HIS land trust project, HIS park, HIS vision of the Town that is becoming reality. There is no room or credit for anyone else. So, naturally he sounds and looks like a tyrant. We think in truth he may be more like the wizard of OZ, a paper tiger. [Strangely it is not HIS vandalism, HIS rowdy students, HIS empty storefronts. Those things the Council can wear.]
February 4, 2009 4:58 PM