On April 26th six members of Council — sans Mayor Fraser Tolmie — met in-camera during Executive Committee where, in total secrecy, one of the major topics likely discussed had to deal with their compensation.
Compensation which, although approved by the budget, was discussed in secrecy.
The entire episode though goes deeper than what was discussed but rather delves into how business is discussed and decided at the old post office at the corner of Fairford Street West and Main Street North.
It is a benign issue that should have and could have easily been discussed publicly but for some sort of insane reasoning ended up being discussed in secrecy.
So what is the big issue here?
It has to deal with Council receiving compensation by way of being paid their per diem for attending virtual meetings involving the Municipalities of Saskatchewan (former Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). Something they would receive if they made a physical appearance at the actual conventions that have moved to virtual affairs because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The issue here is not their receiving the extra funds for attending virtual versus the real world conventions but rather how they came about discussing and then formulating their final decision to pay themselves the extra funds, not only in a pandemic year where budgets are tight, but also in a year they all received record high raises.
Could it be there were those on Council who did not want to face the political heat for picking up some extra pocket change by publicly debating the entire issue? It is something we will not know.
Now you might ask how can I say this issue was discussed in private?
Well it is all in the minutes of the April 26th Executive Committee meeting.
The Minutes
According to the minutes at 4:36 p.m. on April 26th, 2021 Executive Committee opened their meeting back to the public and voted on the following motions:
- Executive Committee voted to re-open to the public
- Councillor Heather Eby moved the motion to approve the per diem for virtual events
The minutes show two votes taken at 4:36 pm - source April 26, 2021 Executive Committee minutes. By Submitted via Robert ThomasAnd yes I know that there could have been public discussion of some sort on the issue but it would have been really short because of the next vote taken at 4:37 pm at that meeting:
The minutes show adjournment vote taken at 4:37 pm - source April 26, 2021 Executive Committee minutes. By Submitted via Robert ThomasThe entire public debate — if it occurred at all — was at best 120 to 150 seconds long.
Why The Concern???
Now here are the two problems with the entire issue — the first being it looks like the debate and discussion was hidden from public eyes and the question needs to be asked as to why?
We will never know the true justifications for Council’s final decision.
We will never know if there were calls that this was unjustifiable in some councillors’ minds.
We will never know if Council asked for more — such as also receiving their meal allowance — or less, or nothing at all because putting the extra cash in their pockets was unjustifiable in at least one councillor’s mind.
We won’t hear any argument that optically this move does not look very good in a pandemic year when Council received major raises to be back at the public purse for some spare change. A year when Council was preaching a zero percent budget increases as well as spending constraints.
Also a year there are those on Council saying they understand the financial impact business and individuals have suffered or are suffering from the because of the pandemic.
That potential discussion and debate is forever lost.
The issue could have been re-visited at the May 10th, 2021 regular Council meeting when it was asked if anyone on Council had any issues to raise from the April 26th Executive Committee meeting but it wasn’t. And in a unanimous vote it was approved and adopted.
The second and more important issue involves the justification for discussing the matter in- camera or secretly to begin with.
It is the manner in which they put some extra change in their pockets with as little as possible public oversight as possible which is the problem here.
Was it budgeted? Yes it was — so what is the justification for the in-camera discussion?
To justify the discussion Executive Committee, or rather Administration in the agenda of the actual Executive Committee meetings, claimed the right to discuss the issue in-camera under provisions — one or more of the exemptions in Part III of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, in particular, Section 15 and 16.
Now here is the question how can you legally justify discussing your own compensation — whether budgeted or not — in secret discussions when in the end the final decision is yours to make to change a policy to put that extra cash in your own pocket?
In my opinion it leads me to ask the following question: What else are they discussing behind closed doors which seemingly should be publicly discussed?
Now I realize there are going to be detractors who say “Give it up Mr Thomas there is no scandal or anything to hide here they would have been entitled to the money if they were physically able to attend the conferences.”
But here is the problem with that statement and that is “If there is nothing to hide then why discuss the issue of cash flowing into their pockets in-camera to begin with?”
And that is the entire problem here — it is opaque, there is no transparency and accountability in the decision.
https://www.mjindependent.com/opinion/2021/5/28/rhinos-ramblings-per-diem-is-a-silent-word
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
