In most cases, a retirement party for a long-time staff member is about remembering the good times and wishing the person the best for the future.
However, Erin Mayor Lou Maieron has turned a celebration into a 23-page report on the town policies regarding procurement; openness, transparency and accountability; and gifts.
Maieron’s June 6 report was followed by a seven-page staff report itemizing party costs and addressing some of the mayor’s others concerns.
He considered his report self explanatory, but questioned if the staff report should be accepted for discussion because it appeared after the agenda deadline. In his report, Maieron stated he is required to address what he considered a sensitive issue “based on concerns raised to me by the public for which I have very few answers.”
He also stated his belief that the concern needed to be debated in open council. He chose not to identify the person, but referred to a celebration in Erin for which 200 to 300 guests were invited. The report cited an April 28 party date and that it was a town-sponsored event.
The staff report later stated the party was thrown for retiring town manager Lisa Hass, an employee of the town for just under 25 years.
The mayor’s report included the statement: “Talk of the celebration has spread through the town, and the mayor has been asked questions, either by residents who attended, those who wished to attend or were not invited, or by those who just heard about the celebrations afterwards.”
For the mayor's full report of the questions asked, click here.
Part of that same report included the town’s employee long service award program that allocates costs for gifts to recognize set years of continuous service, and copies of Erin’s bylaws regarding the town policies for accountability and transparency, as well as for the procurement of goods and services.
Maieron included a resolution requesting that staff provide a full accounting of the town-sponsored celebration, including an explicit detailing of costs. He also wanted staff to detail the approval authority and where the money came from. He said as the governing body, council should consider its role and staff’s role in the party.
Further, he said council needs to decide “what accountability measures should apply, and to whom. Council please advise me in understanding how this expenditure was approved without full council participation. Other than being invited and asked to bring greetings as the mayor, head of council, I was not involved nor consulted in this at all.”
The mayor also stated “Absolutely a celebration (recognition) of some fashion should have occurred, but how this all came about without council approval is concerning on a procedure/policy basis.”
The mayor did not appear happy the staff’s report was handed out the night of the meeting without his having a chance to rebut the comments.
“It appears staff has given out a report back already answering a number of those questions.”
He added he did not think any discussion of the staff report should be considered until a following meeting. “I don’t think everyone has had enough time to discuss it.”
Councillor Barb Tocher asked him to reconsider.
“It seems to me that it would make some sense to discuss your letter and their reply in one package rather than splitting them up,” said Tocher.
She noted, “earlier in the meeting, both yesterday and tonight,” council did accept last minute items such as the estimates from Manulife Insurance and a Ministry of Transportation letter about Station Road.
Maieron argued if the staff report was allowed for discussion, “I would have some more to add in. You may want to have an opportunity to review it all.” He said his comments were submitted on time for the agenda.
“I believe this was inappropriately distributed since it was not even on the agenda,” Maieron said of the staff report.
He added he tried to not name individuals and the staff response does identify people and was “given to the press before we had a chance to review it.”
Toucher stressed council had already accepted items of information which were not on the agenda package.
Maieron argued the MNR letter was time sensitive. “If you allow this, I’m prepared to put some information forward, to rebut that submission from staff. Fair is fair. If you want to do it – let’s go.”
Tocher said the other option was to defer both until the following council session.
“There’s no point in looking at them separately,” Tocher said.
Councillor Josie Wintersinger suggested the item be deferred and if Maieron wished to respond in a timely manner, he could.
The mayor said he was agreeable to have “a chance to rebut something I’ve only had a few hours to review today.”
Tocher asked staff be given the same opportunity to respond.
If the mayor responded by the deadline for the next council package, Tocher argued that staff would not have time to respond.
“It’s a never ending circle,” she said.
Councillor Deb Callaghan recommended the item be deferred rather than discuss something councillors might currently be unaware of.
Tocher said the additional information needs to come early – so that staff can in turn respond in time for the council package.
“If you get it in Thursday at noon (the deadline to appear in the council package), staff have no opportunity to respond.”
Maieron replied, “to be fair councillor, I got this yesterday at my table, I have not had the real opportunity to rebut, but I thought it might come up.”
He suggested staff would have five days to respond. Tocher said any response would not be allowed onto the agenda because it would be considered late [after Thursday at noon].
Maieron argued, “No. It will be all together, my report, their report and my rebuttal.
Tocher asked, “Are you going to give them the chance to respond to your rebuttal.”
Maieron then seemed surprised.
“Oh, you wanted [my report] in a little bit earlier.”
Wintersinger agreed that if staff has a chance to respond, it would make the process more fair.
Maieron assured council he would provide staff time to look at the material.
The entire issue was deferred to the June 19 meeting.
