Wednesday, July 3, 2013

My position on a bloated administration

After my last post http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.ca/2013/06/june-30-tax-deadline-where-does-our.html I have been asked by some of the comments on my blog and people on the street what my position would be if I was elected has a councilor in October regarding the structure of the municipal bureaucracy.

I will speak from my own experience sitting in that position for six years.  I would request the following information immediately:
1. Copies of all contracts between the municipality and it’s administrators.
2. Comparisons of each positions salary from 2010 to 2013, I certainly have a good idea on what was in place in 2010.
3. I would also ask for a break down of what area’s each administrator is responsible for today compared to 2010.
4. I would ask for a copy of each administrator’s qualifications, certifications and back grounds in the areas that they are currently administrating.
5. I do not believe a community of our size needs a three tier management structure (CAO, Directors, Managers) you can switch the titles around and name them what you wish but we do not need three tiers of management.
6. I also do not believe we need three people running the Protective Services area that is a luxury we can not afford.


Hopefully that provides some sense of the direction I will take regarding the issue of what I feel is a bloated administration. Keep in mind that to achieve any of the above will require a minimum of three other members of council that feel the same way I do about the municipal bureaucracy.   

Note: Cost of administration $4325 per day      

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

The three tier system was needed for job classification to justify the higher salaries. Plus, each position needed an assistant/secretary who in turn needed a few helpers. Classic structure where meetings become the focus. I doubt if these guys would even know if their outside people quit until the public started to holler. It all revolves around them and their inside people. Bib, big mistake for a "town" of our size.

Anonymous said...

#2 would very quickly show how many dollars were attached. To being higher in the structure and the additional responsibilities required.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that legally any citizen has the same access to information as a councillor (with limited exceptions as described in #21 below).

(Yes, I know, that's not how it works in "open and transparent" CNP).

So the info you want is either already available to you through FOIP or should not be disclosed to a councillor.

I think most of it should be available, although #20 indicates that contracts may be partly confidential.

EMPLOYEE AND COUNCILLOR INFORMATION
19. If a municipality receives a FOIP request for the salaries of all employees and councillors, does the information have to be released?
•Under section 217(3) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the salaries of councillors, the chief administrative officer and designated officers of the municipalities must be released on request. This section prevails over the FOIP Act.
• Section 217(3) of the MGA remains in force. Section 216, the remainder of section 217 and section 218 of the MGA were repealed on October 1, 1999.
• For the remaining municipal staff, under section 17(2)(e) of the FOIP Act, disclosing the salary range and discretionary benefits of employees is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The exact salary could be released only with an employee's consent.
20. If a municipality receives a FOIP request for the severance package given to an employee, does the information have to be released?
• In Order 2001-020, the City of Calgary received a request for all information related to a buy-out for managers since 1999.
• The Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the City’s decision to release standard clauses from the severance agreements, the individual’s job title or position, and the amount of severance paid. This information could be released in accordance with section 17(2)(e) of the FOIP Act.
• The City withheld the individuals’ names and signatures (section 17(4)(g)(i) of the FOIP Act), and employee numbers, and termination and retirement dates as employment history (section 17(4)(d) of the FOIP Act).
• It is not clear how the Order would apply if the applicant had asked for the severance package information of a named individual. However, it appears that the same considerations of sections 17(2) and 17(4) may apply and the outcome may be the same.
21. Can the municipality disclose personal information of employees, such as salary, benefits, or home address, to council members?
• Personal information of employees can be disclosed to a council member if the information is necessary for the performance of the duties of the council member (section 40(1)(h)of the FOIP Act).
• Only the information which the council member needs to know can be disclosed (section 40(4) of the FOIP Act).
• For example, in a municipality with a small number of employees, council members may need to receive information on individual employees' salaries as part of the budget process, depending on how the budget is normally prepared.
In a larger municipality, budget decisions may be made on summary information, so in that case individual salaries would not need to be disclosed.

http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/documents/faq-municipalities.pdf

Anonymous said...

The much, much larger issue on number one will be the severance clauses in those contracts.
Typically employees removed from a management position receive one months wages for each year of service with the employer. This would not be overly onerous on the municipality, in light of the fact that the majority of the management team have very short tenures with the municipality.
That is unless they have contracts in place that have a fixed term of employment or a lucrative severance package.

Paul

Anonymous said...

By my math if we reduced the cost of admin by even a paltry 10% we could have put the $100,000 into the Seniors reserve this year.

Anonymous said...

This appears to be the precedent:

http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/commissioners-decisions/order-2001020-summary.cfm

The Commissioner decided that disclosure of the job titles or positions of the third parties was not an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy, since job titles or positions fall within "employment responsibilities" (section 16(2)(e)). The Commissioner noted that, although such disclosure might reveal the identity of an individual, the accountability dimension of section 16(2)(e) would be seriously undercut if benefits to higher-paid employees in unique positions escaped scrutiny.

The Commissioner considered the other personal information in the agreements and, after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, found that it would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy to disclose each third party's name, signature, employee number, employment end date and retirement date.

The City was ordered to disclose the amount of severance paid to each of the applicants and their job titles or positions.

Anonymous said...

Why would you want an employee's home address. No, I would not want that information disclosed????

Anonymous said...

Nobody should have a right to an employee's home address. That I agree with but it is not the issue here what is the issue? The amount of money people will be entitled to if they leave the employment of the municipality. That is the issue.

Anonymous said...

No one will be leaving, no matter what when it is all said and done, new council or not.

Anonymous said...

5:49

Why would you say that. Do you feel all these people are necessary? Do you feel we can afford them? Or is a belief that nobody will have the back bone to change things?

Anonymous said...

No I do not feel all the people are necessary. But it is really hard to get rid of government people. Usually they have iron clad contracts, or you must pay a fortune to get rid of them.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:49 I think with the right new council 2 or 3 positions will be eliminated. It will not happen as soon as they are elected, but it will happen. It must happen or our taxes are going way up. This council has managed to keep taxes somewhat in check by kicking the can down the road. There are many things that should have been replaced or repaired that have been shelved in order to save money. We also are yet to have a full year with the new administrative team. Also this council has raised municipal fees, user fees and franchise fees to try and feed the mess they have created. They also have chose to eliminate a 100k commitment to the seniors lodge. I think if we stay the course we are looking at a 20- 25% tax hike in the not to near future.

Anonymous said...

It is time to shake the jar filled with all of the admin and outside employees AND UNFILLED POSITIONS, then start picking the ones we really need to operate efficiently and effectively. Those that are not needed are gone. If there are other positions needed, likely outside jobs, them hire them. When all is said and done, there will be quite a few positions not needed, and the employee budget will surely be less.

Then, the salaries/wages off those positions for the work load needed, should be set, being fair and competitive.
That is a good start. ( A Zero Base employee budget can also be done but we have what we have, and should start there.) The moving companies should be given an heads-up once the procedure starts.

Anonymous said...

I agree, we have more people sitting around in the office, than we have people in the field actually WORKING. Most of the time when you ask a question at the office, no one can give you an answer. Time to empty some chairs in the office.

Anonymous said...

09:28:00 AM 2013


You have no idea how much taxes could increase or decrease. Quit pulling numbers out of your hat.

Anonymous said...

3. I would also ask for a break down of what area’s each administrator is responsible for today compared to 2010.

Would that be satisfied by "job descriptions" and organizational charts?

Anonymous said...

11:36

Organizational charts only show where a position sits in the overall structure.
Job descriptions would be adequate if there were real comparisons from 2010 to 2013.
Where would these descriptions be found I have checked the municipal web site numerous times over the last two years. I can not find job descriptions.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:20 I actually have a very good idea how much taxes will increase. And do not even bother with the word decrease. Even with some severe cuts to administration the next council will be raising taxes. Once we pay for the added cost of protective services and catch up on everything that this council kicked down the road the next council will look pretty bad paying for all of this councils mistakes. You can only use creative accounting for so long.

Anonymous said...

Google:
"job description" site:crowsnestpass.com
The only recent is the EDO.

This doc
alis.alberta.ca/pdf/cshop/employersguide.pdf
says on p. 19
"Pay administration records
Besides maintaining payroll records required by Alberta’s
Employment Standards Code, you must set up a pay
administration record for each employee that contains
■■ the employee’s job title and job description
■■ any correspondence with or related to the employee
■■ discipline reports ..."

so it seems job descriptions are specific, legally required documents.

The job description should not contain personal information and I can't think of any other FOIP issues.

Anonymous said...

No, again, you have no idea on the tax situation. Guessing...

Anonymous said...

anon 1:42 600k for fireman
300k for admin
200k for projects that have been kicked down the road
100k for seniors lodge this year
100k for senior lodge next year

These are all real numbers, not imagined. I never guess. Maybe you believe the mare that the fire department is actually saving money! When the grants stop for the fire dept. and we have a full year with the new admin and we catch up on projects to pay for it our taxes are going up 20 -25%.

Anonymous said...

1:42
The real questions are these positions necessary? both-short versus long term.
If the answer is yes can we afford to pay for them?
Is it unreasonable to think that these costs will increase every year?

Anonymous said...

If one takes the total costs in 2010 and compares them to the total costs in 2013, would that not give a good idea of how our cost of operation has increased. Then compare the taxes collected in 2010 and in 2013 to see if there is any difference.

Take the supposed delayed project costs, the maintenance needs shelved in the interim, consider the extra income -if any- and one would have a good idea where we stand for "make-up" costs.

Who knows, maybe these guys have done a good job with the books, or did an excellent job in hiding costs, or as mentioned kicked the can down the road as appears to be the case. That's the problem with the focused revenge driven mind set that this Administration has had.

Certainly, budgeting for an expenditure, then canceling it and claiming a savings is straight BS. There was likely too much creativity in the budgeting process once they found out the difference between % tax increase and % increase in the mill rate.

So yes we do not know what the % tax increase would be but we do know we are in for a long haul from the ramping up of our Administration costs while experiencing a ramping down in our tax base. Easy to see that part. Watch for the claim for flood damage to attempt to mitigate the unrelated higher cost of operations.

Anonymous said...

So how many months did it take last year to get the numbers on Rum Runner Days? Which might have been 0.001 of our municipal budget.

Anonymous said...

The oldest “BS” in the world is to claim we need to make changes now, and spend money “on the short term,” because this will bring additional savings in the future. And pigs fly.

Anonymous said...

Some info on job descriptions on p. 116 of Chapter 4 linked here:
http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/resources/guidelines-and-practices.cfm

"Employment responsibilities. Section 17(2)(e) establishes that the disclosure of information about an employee’s actual job classification and responsibilities is not an unreasonable invasion of an individual’s personal privacy.
Employment responsibilities encompasses those duties than an individual is charged with performing as an officer, employee or member of a public body (IPC Order F2005-016)."


IPC Order F2005-016 is linked here:
http://www.oipc.ab.ca/pages/OIP/Orders.aspx?year=2005

Anonymous said...

Mr Mayor, can't you enlighten us, the residents whom you represent, what you have done to make things better for us. Do we have a more efficient, effective Fire Department, and if so how are our operations staff more efficient amd effective now that you have topped up the Office staff? if not, why not? Why were we forced to call in outside help for the "flood emergency"? Where were your volunteer fire department personnel compared to the 2005 flood incident?

Have the continuing reduced property valuations for taxes been factored into the second and third year of the Triennial Budget? How do we handle the shortfall in income -- by further increasing taxes again?

Do you really think that your and the council's (and administration's) performance warrants you and them running for re-election? Or, are you going to keep your promise to be a One Term Mayor? You certainly did keep your promise that you were going to do things thatt would upset the residents.

Anonymous said...

07:02:00 AM

You are really silly.

Anonymous said...

Remember those beautiful t shirts they had left over from last rum runner days. The inventory that was going to be sold to cover last years loss. They are now being given to businesses along Main Street for their employees to wear this year (free). More municipal brilliance

Mark

Anonymous said...

The post from 07:02 AM may be silly, but many properties were decreased in value for taxes after the budget. Does this affect the budgets?

Anonymous said...

There is nothing that needs to be said anymore, no more debate, propaganda. We all know Oct is not that far away then the clean sweep will start.

Anonymous said...

To anon 7:47 you are an idiot if you think what 7:02 is silly about what he wrote. It's idiots like you that are silly and worse you are ignorant.

Anonymous said...

to answer 7:02 question

"Where were your volunteer fire department personnel compared to the 2005 flood incident?"

they were out there or do you mean the ex volunteers that voluntarily dropped their pagers in a box.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:43am. Yep, I meant the latter re volunteer fire department crew, who numbered 90 or so, and were jolly on the spot. The present firemen were out there yes, but when did they take up their posts? Can you really say there was no difference between 2005 and 2013 regarding the preparation, prevention and response? The top boys let things lapse.

Anonymous said...

The volunteers that voluntarily dropped their pagers in a box, were taking a stand, in support of a person that they respected and admired. Sometimes in life, you have to take a stand for what you believe in. I admire them for that. Looks like they were right as well, as the ones that we were told were looking out for us, didn't. In the past, it seems action was taken to avoid a crisis. This time, it looks to me, that we only got action after the crisis. I'd have to say that I prefer the leadership of the past. The results of each incident would seem to support my preference.

Anonymous said...

Time to move forward. The question for me is when will we find out the real costs? I suspect after the next election

Anonymous said...

Anon12:05 PM. If its time to move forward, why are you worried about the costs. It's done, so move forward. You can't have it both ways. Or, we can use the past three year experience to see what we really need to run this burg, and take the costs you are concerned about into account.

Anonymous said...

This is not about the new volunteers or the old volunteers. You would need to be incredibly deaf and blind to how our council has been treating volunteers, in general, not to realize there is a big problem here. We will not be able to correct this until we have an entirely new council in the late fall. The current council can't write a new policy to change this.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:52

What I mean by moving forward. Is everybody knew that things were going to change at the fire depts. we have been told that the change will cost us no more than the previous fire depts. I for one do not believe that there fore we need to move forward with the change but we need to refine those changes. The point of the post I believe is that we has a community will not be able to afford the administration that has been put in place. The fire depts are a prime example of that. We saved $40,000 a year by closing Hillcrest then put in place full time firemen, a deputy fire chief, full time fire chief and a director of protective services. All for the same price has the previous dept. I don't think so

Anonymous said...

Dean, is there a way for taxpayers to find out how much money our council spent on the failed Medican deal? They hired a consultant to start with, then spent huge amounts on lawyer fees and public relations consultant to present their successful work to the community. Now they are likely working with the crisis communication consultant to get a new spin on the failure of the deal. Maybe they will tell us rubes the deal needs further study? A better explanation will be: this deal will come back once the Crowsnest Centre is demolished and proper policies are put in place. But this will also hinge on electing them for four more years. And they had a nerve to claim all the previous councils did not know what they were doing.

Anonymous said...

I asked an officer if he could guarantee my safety while, Sinister 7 is here. He said no.

Anonymous said...

I an confused I took my parking pass with me to Blairmore nobody asked to see it. Will they be using it for Rum Runner Days?

Anonymous said...

I am using my 2012 RumRunerdays parking permit this year and thus saving administration further spending. I can't wait to pet the baby goat and jump in the 'bouncy castle'. I'd expect that this is going to be a real traffic mess.

My expected company is a bit cheesed off that camping is $100, and all the while with Gallant's Sinner Seven it is free. I am trying my best (and with cheap PR) to sell the goat thing, but I am having an issue with the value equaling return.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget about the "Fire Department Demonstrations." I mean, come on, we have shiny new trucks, that's worth coming to see.