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