Anonymous said... (November 14, 2008 11:43 AM )
It is interesting how this story has two different perspectives in the press.
In The Auroran, the focus of the story is this is why the CAO was escorted from the Town's offices and dismissed. In The Banner, the story never mentions the CAO by name or title and refers to the entire matter as "Staff".
In reading Ms. Buck's account, and if it is factual, I have a couple of questions.
1. Why was only the CAO terminated and not the other directors that made decisions to pay the contractors?
2. Why is the CAO not suing for unlawful dismissal (maybe he is) because it certainly seems to me that he (and other senior staff) performed their duties as they should?
Clearly there is a paper trail indicating that there was fault accepted by the architechs. Whether their insurance covers it or not, they are responsible to pay the costs that have been accrued. I understand perfectly why the payment to the contractor was made, what else could they do. My only caveat to that would be about making sure the council of the day was aware of what was going on and that a cheque had to be cut.
Clearly this is an example of the responsibilities of staff versus council. Council is there to create policy. Staff is there to implement said policies. It does not surprise me that once Phyllis got involved, things go off the tracks.
:
****************************
These Two Questions I Cannot answer.
1. The decision to terminate was not mine.
2, The consequences of media revelations and the contradictions therein are as yet unknown.
3. My account is a matter of record. You have already made the choice of which makes sense and which does not.
Since writing the above, I recall a question I asked at the table during deliberations of the judgement and authority exercised in making the payment for the bulkhead repairs. As Mayor, I signed every cheque issued by the town..Even though it may not be manually signed. the signature is necessary for the cheque to be honoured. .
The Mayor is equally responsible with the Chief Financial Officer for all cheques issued on the treasury .I would argue therefore the Mayor's signature is certainly sufficient authority for the payment to be made. If she does not know what cheques are issued under her signature, she certainly ought to. My question was not answered.
From Phyllis Morris’ inaugural address: “You'll find that I'm a "hands on" Mayor, interested in the day-to-day operation of our town.”
ReplyDeleteShe has stayed true to her word in this respect, and residents are continually surprised by her constant micro-management of even the smallest issue. So what is her excuse on such a large issue as this? This has happened on her watch. How did she miss this? She must accept the responsibility and provide a full and accurate accounting to the residents.
If this was the reason the CAO was fired, as is being suggested in media accounts, then how would the town be liable to pay-out the balance of his contract as a settlement? Would this not be "cause".
Will there ever be transparency on this issue?