The revelation that North Saanich council paid its chief administrative officer $300,000 to leave his job is further evidence of a disturbing trend.
There does not appear to have been the slightest issue of competence or performance in the decision to part company with Tim Tanton.
The new councillors simply wished to take a different approach to the community plan that their predecessors had pursued.
Regrettably, this is by no means an isolated instance.
In 2014, the newly elected mayor of Saanich, Richard Atwell, forced out the municipality’s chief administrative officer, Paul Murray, at a cost to local taxpayers of $480,000.
Atwell’s explanation? He said he had been elected to bring new ideas into the organization, and that “a new CAO will be able to implement some of those ideas that I campaigned on.”
Atwell’s colleagues on council unanimously opposed his decision to fire a manager with outstanding credentials who had been with the municipality for 13 years. And they noted that the severance package would materially impact the property tax rate.
More troubling, these departures are merely the tip of an iceberg. Over the past few years, there are reports that close to 100 municipal chief administrative officers have been fired.
Most of the dismissals occurred in communities with a new mayor or council.
By one estimate, these firings have cost municipal taxpayers $15 million in severance payments or wrongful dismissal settlements.
There are no doubt circumstances where senior managers should be let go. In 2018, Nanaimo city council fired chief administrative officer Tracy Samra, citing evidence that she had threatened to harm or kill the mayor and also that she mishandled funds.
While Samra filed a wrongful termination suit, and there are two sides to this story, it does appear that working relationships had broken down beyond repair.
But firing senior staff simply because a mayor or council wants to pursue a new direction blurs an important line.
The responsibilities of elected officials differ from those of employees. The former are elected as the ultimate decision-makers; they are the executive branch of the organization.
The latter are appointed on the basis of skill and expertise to carry out those decisions; they are the administrative branch.
Municipal staff are indeed servants — servants of the public, not cronies of the politicians, a crucial difference.
Council members, coming from all walks of life, frequently require professional guidance.
There may be legal issues, or privacy concerns, or financial implications, or a dozen other obstacles they may not be aware of.
What they promised on the campaign trail may not be doable in office. Or at least not without consequences they did not foresee.
There must be a competent, enduring group of advisers with sufficient job security to point out unpalatable truths.
Regrettably, the practice our municipalities are adopting grows closer to the American model of governance than our own.
In the U.S., the upper ranks of the public service have become totally politicized. When the governing party changes hands, these managers lose their jobs, taking whatever experience they gained with them — the classic revolving door.
The desire of incoming mayors and city councils to chart their own path is understandable.
But continuity is needed to keep multi-million dollar local governments running smoothly.
Frightening competent advisers into silence or compliance with ill-judged schemes is conceit, not public service.
And punishing staffers for the crime of having worked under a preceding administration is never acceptable.
It would be a helpful step in reversing this trend if municipal councillors displayed a greater awareness of their own fallibility, and learned where their duties begin and end.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
