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)
