Councillor / CAO dispute ends in RCMP action
By Andrew Zwicker
Based on our crime stats, Rossland wouldn’t appear to be a prime location for an episode of the television show Cops. This week’s City Council meeting, however, would have made for a good first episode of such a series. Simmering tensions came to a head and ended with Charlton being removed from council chambers by RCMP members even as he continued to question both the mayor’s and the RCMP’s authority to do so.
It all started when, seeking to move on from what has been called a “distraction” by several councillors, Mayor Greg Granstrom brought forward as an agenda item a statement claiming how, through Charlton’s actions at the February 14th regular council meeting, he had breached the City’s contract with the CAO and potentially put the City and its taxpayers at risk:
“At the Regular Council Meeting of February 14th, 2011, Councillor Charlton without prior notice to this Council read a ”Notice of Motion” to terminate the employment of the City Manager Victor Kumar. This has contravened the Community Charter and potentially seriously breached Mr. Kumar’s Employment Contract,” began the statement.
What follows is the notice of motion in question:
“Whereas Victor Kumar has issued a memo dated February 9, 2011 calling into question the integrity and conduct of two members of council, and Whereas that memo contains unsubstantiated allegations that constitute libel, and Whereas such action is contrary to the provisions of Mr. Kumar’s employment contract, Therefore, be it resolved, that the employment contract of Victor Kumar be terminated for cause effective immediately.”
Granstrom explained how potentially CAO Kumar may be entitled to compensation from the City for breach of his employment contract without cause, noting that such action could come with a price tag as high as $250,000 plus legal expenses.
Kumar noted, however, that while he may have the right to do so, he wouldn’t seek to punish the City of Rossland for the actions of one councillor; Kumar will not be seeking legal action, but rather offered to council the opportunity for an apology from Charlton.
Closing his statement, Granstrom made a motion offering council one of three courses of action on the issue.
- That Charlton to publicly withdrawal his statements at the February 14th meeting as well as the accompanying notice of motion.
- That Charlton hereby be censured by Council for his comments and for him to refrain in the future from addressing personnel matters relating to Mr. Kumar or any City staff without first offering notice in writing.
- That Charlton to be removed for the remainder of the meeting for knowingly engaging in improper conduct during his reading of the Feb 14th notice of motion.
Prior to voting on the options the mayor asked Charlton to apologize three times. Each request was answered as follows:
Granstrom: Are you prepared to apologize?
Charlton: For what?
Granstrom: So you’re not prepared then?
Charlton: Assume whatever you want.
Granstrom: I’m first trying to see if you are willing to apologize for the incident on the 14th.
Charlton Spell it out.
Kathy Wallace: It’s obvious to the rest of us.
Granstrom (after re-reading his motion): Are you prepared to apologize?
Charlton: Not at this time.
Shortly thereafter, Granstrom called the meeting to recess while asking the City Clerk to call the RCMP to remove Charlton from Chambers. During the 45 minute recess before the RCMP showed up, Charlton pulled out a book to pass the time while members of the media gallery, as well as other councillors, exchanged unimpressed looks related to the delay.
Councilor Charlton has not answered calls or e-mails from the Telegraph since the incident to get his reaction and side of the story. In that lack of clarification, the actual memo dated February 9th is a mystery to City CAO Victor Kumar. In searching back through his documents the only potential memo he notes sending to council on the 9th was one regarding the City Parcel Tax Roll committee.
“There is nothing in here talking about Councilor Charlton,” explained Kumar, in reference to his memo. “I don’t mention him by name anywhere. This is about the parcel tax roll, it is simply stating facts, and there is nothing slanderous in there, so I’m not sure what the councillor is talking about.”
If this is indeed the memo in question, Charlton may have been inferring a reference to his and Councillor Moore’s work on the parcel tax roll committee the year previous. As reported in the Telegraph, that committee (made up of Councillors Charlton and Moore along with Mayor Granstrom) breached its rules of engagement by introducing a late item. This meant that, as a consequence, the tax roll was not able to be authenticated and the process repeated the following year. While not verified, it is possible that Charlton, having been on that committee, may have taken that statement as an attack.
Both the CAO and Mayor Granstrom believe that Charlton’s introduction of the motion calling for Kumar’s termination slandered him and was thus a breach of the CAO’s contract.
“If you have issues with the CAO’s performance, you don’t do that in public,” said Granstrom. “There is a format to ask about what’s going on and that is in camera. That’s where you deal with staff issues. You don’t deal with labour issues in public, period. You are dealing with people’s lives and careers. That is, in effect, a breach of contract.”
In both the Community Charter and the City’s procedure’s bylaw, there are means for the mayor to remove a councilor via the RCMP. In this case, the mayor cited Charlton’s remarks as grounds for removal in the Charter and his alleged disrespectful conduct as grounds based in the procedure bylaw. Further, the mayor asked council for a motion to sustain the chair and this was endorsed by all but Charlton.
Council’s meeting did resume some 50 minutes after it had been held in recess. Shortly thereafter it was recessed briefly again as Council Charlton, accompanied by RCMP members, re-entered chambers flashing a large smile. While packing up his briefcase he said, “Have a good night folks,” then left for the final time.
Next, council further discussed and voted unanimously in favour of supporting an amended version of the second presented option, agreeing to censure Charlton and require written notice before discussing staff issues during public meetings.
“It’s embarrassing is what it is,” added Granstrom. “I think we have a pretty good council here, and we’re way bigger than this. I’m always optimistic things will improve in the future, but I’ll just say similar actions will get similar results in the future.”
Councillor Kathy Moore echoed the mayor’s sentiment, expressing hopes that this incident might help get the city back on track and focused on working for the public.
“I thought the incident was really unfortunate. This whole situation has been a huge distraction for council getting things done for the community. To me it’s like the tempest in a teapot. Councillor Charlton should have never said some of the things he said in public and has carried this on way too far. Spending council time and staff time–I think it’s really unfortunate and doesn’t benefit the community in any way.”
Comments