THE ISSUES - STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY - PAY EQUITY STUDY
OVERVIEW
In the summer of 2014, the Clerk wrote a report which cited legislative compliance as a lever to advance an out-of-budget project - namely, a Pay Equity Study and a Market Value Review. When questioned by Councillors about the omission from the 2014 budget, the Clerk's verbal response contradicted the Clerk's own written report - but Council did not press the issue.
A member of the public gallery questioned the contradiction, and subsequently submitted a letter urging Council to revisit the issue. The Mayor then issued a written response on behalf of Council, basically confirming that legislation was apparently a non-issue after all, and that the balance of the work had already been scheduled to take place 2014.
In trying to explain away the issues, the response has instead put Council and Staff right back at square one. If legislation does not require part of the work, why was the reference to compliance used as a lever in the report? And if the second part of the project was scheduled for 2014, why was it not part of the 2014 budget discussions? These questions remain unanswered ... the work on the study is moving ahead (at an out-of-budget expense of $7,000) ... and Staff remains completely unaccountable for the whole issue.
A member of the public gallery questioned the contradiction, and subsequently submitted a letter urging Council to revisit the issue. The Mayor then issued a written response on behalf of Council, basically confirming that legislation was apparently a non-issue after all, and that the balance of the work had already been scheduled to take place 2014.
In trying to explain away the issues, the response has instead put Council and Staff right back at square one. If legislation does not require part of the work, why was the reference to compliance used as a lever in the report? And if the second part of the project was scheduled for 2014, why was it not part of the 2014 budget discussions? These questions remain unanswered ... the work on the study is moving ahead (at an out-of-budget expense of $7,000) ... and Staff remains completely unaccountable for the whole issue.
DETAILS
In a written report (A-14-28), received by Council at its June 16 2014 meeting, the Clerk indicated that a Pay Equity Study and a Market Value Review should be conducted. It is important to note that this was an out-of-budget item. In that report, the Clerk wrote:
"... during the past two audits the auditor has suggested that it is time to complete a pay equity review as part of a market review to ensure that the Township continues to be in compliance with legislation."
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
Some Councillors questioned why, if this was a known requirement, the item had not been part of the 2014 budget process. When the Clerk answered, no one at the Council table picked up on the clear contradiction between the Clerk's own written report and the Clerk's verbal response, which was:
"... because the budget was already done by the time the auditor brought it up again."
During the Public Question period of that same meeting, one of our members pointed out the contradiction - indicating that the Clerk's verbal answer was neither accountable nor acceptable, in light of the report clearly indicating that the auditor had identified the issue previously (ie. "... during the past two audits..."). The Mayor noted the comments and excused the issue by suggesting that previous Councils had overlooked it, too.
Subsequently, that same public member submitted a detailed letter to Council on the topic. The letter pointed out again, in plain terms, the contradiction between the Clerk's written report and verbal response, and the letter also framed the possible Pay Equity Act compliance issue in the context of the Township having been in non-compliance on other matters for several years - without any apparent consequence. The letter urged Council to revisit the issue, and to either hold Staff accountable or to defer the issue until 2015 - when it could be properly incorporated into the budget.
The agenda for Council's September 8 2014 meeting originally categorized the letter for an action of "Receive and File". In other words, there was originally no intention to issue any kind of response. Keep in mind that the Clerk is the one who is in charge of preparing the Council's agendas, including suggesting a suitable action for each correspondence item. So, it is is clear that the Clerk had no intention for Council to respond. Luckily, one Councillor did comment on the letter, noting that it contained a lot of information and that it had obviously taken some time and effort to put together - and as such, it deserved a response.
After some discussion, Council eventually agreed that the action for the letter should change from "Receive and File" to "Receive and Respond". The letter was then referred to Staff to draft a response, whereupon Council would review it and give input, and the final response would then be sent.
The Mayor did indeed issue a written response on behalf of Council, which was clearly intended to explain away the various issues. But instead of putting Council and Staff in the clear, the response landed them right back at square one. Let's examine some key elements of the Township's official response.
First of all, the letter opens with the following statement:
Subsequently, that same public member submitted a detailed letter to Council on the topic. The letter pointed out again, in plain terms, the contradiction between the Clerk's written report and verbal response, and the letter also framed the possible Pay Equity Act compliance issue in the context of the Township having been in non-compliance on other matters for several years - without any apparent consequence. The letter urged Council to revisit the issue, and to either hold Staff accountable or to defer the issue until 2015 - when it could be properly incorporated into the budget.
The agenda for Council's September 8 2014 meeting originally categorized the letter for an action of "Receive and File". In other words, there was originally no intention to issue any kind of response. Keep in mind that the Clerk is the one who is in charge of preparing the Council's agendas, including suggesting a suitable action for each correspondence item. So, it is is clear that the Clerk had no intention for Council to respond. Luckily, one Councillor did comment on the letter, noting that it contained a lot of information and that it had obviously taken some time and effort to put together - and as such, it deserved a response.
After some discussion, Council eventually agreed that the action for the letter should change from "Receive and File" to "Receive and Respond". The letter was then referred to Staff to draft a response, whereupon Council would review it and give input, and the final response would then be sent.
The Mayor did indeed issue a written response on behalf of Council, which was clearly intended to explain away the various issues. But instead of putting Council and Staff in the clear, the response landed them right back at square one. Let's examine some key elements of the Township's official response.
First of all, the letter opens with the following statement:
"Your letter dated September 2nd, 2014 was received by Council at its meeting of September 8th, 2014 at which time Council instructed the Mayor to respond."
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
That statement (shown with emphasis, above) is not true. Council instructed Staff to draft a response which Council would then review and give its input. While it is true that the Mayor is generally the one to 'speak on behalf of Council', they did not instruct the Mayor (directly) to respond. Do not be fooled - contrary to what the opening sentence implies, Staff (the Clerk?) was the author of the fundamental response - even if Council subsequently suggested some edits and ultimately approved the final version.
An interesting side note - when do you suppose the review and discussion of the draft response took place? We don't have an answer for you, because it was not dealt with during any (known) open session. We would certainly have noted that process if we had ever observed it.
Getting back to the response, itself ...
The second paragraph in the Mayor's response attempts to twist the words of the original letter to Council. The original letter posed a question - but, the Mayor's response frames it as a statement, which changes the interpretation entirely. Here is the context from the original letter to Council:
An interesting side note - when do you suppose the review and discussion of the draft response took place? We don't have an answer for you, because it was not dealt with during any (known) open session. We would certainly have noted that process if we had ever observed it.
Getting back to the response, itself ...
The second paragraph in the Mayor's response attempts to twist the words of the original letter to Council. The original letter posed a question - but, the Mayor's response frames it as a statement, which changes the interpretation entirely. Here is the context from the original letter to Council:
"If the auditor suggested last year that such a study should be conducted, it begs the question of whether or not the Township was already in breach of legislation at that time?"
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
And here is how the Mayor's response framed that same item:
"In your letter you suggest that "the Township was already in breach of legislation" referring to the Pay Equity Act. It must be stated that the Township has been compliant with the legislation following the mandatory pay equity review conducted following the amalgamation of the former Townships of Kitley and Elizabethtown."
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
Before we move on, let's make one thing perfectly clear. We often quote excerpts from documents issued by Council and/or Staff - but we do not alter the context of the quoted item. If we have done so, it is certainly unintentional - and if any example is ever brought to our attention, we will happily correct it and apologize.
By twisting the original question into a statement, the Mayor (and Council) missed the point entirely. There is a direct relationship between last year's circumstances and this year's. Specifically, if the Township was not in breach of legislation last year (when the auditor's suggestion was overlooked the first time), then it is unlikely there would be any breach of legislation this time around by simply deferring the whole issue until next year. On the other hand, if this year did involve non-compliance, then likely last year did too - and since there doesn't seem to have been any consequence from that, there doesn't seem to be a need to worry about deferring the whole issue until next year.
And that's the very point that the Mayor (and Council) missed entirely. Namely, that no matter how you slice it, it seems to end up with the same outcome. There was no statement about non-compliance in the original letter - it was a question, used to establish the direct relationship between last year and this year.
The Mayor's response goes on to explain some specific triggers which would require a mandatory pay equity study. That same paragraph closes with a statement indicating that none of the minor changes, which have actually taken place in the 12 years since amalgamation, qualify as a mandatory trigger. Here is the pertinent paragraph from the Mayor's response:
By twisting the original question into a statement, the Mayor (and Council) missed the point entirely. There is a direct relationship between last year's circumstances and this year's. Specifically, if the Township was not in breach of legislation last year (when the auditor's suggestion was overlooked the first time), then it is unlikely there would be any breach of legislation this time around by simply deferring the whole issue until next year. On the other hand, if this year did involve non-compliance, then likely last year did too - and since there doesn't seem to have been any consequence from that, there doesn't seem to be a need to worry about deferring the whole issue until next year.
And that's the very point that the Mayor (and Council) missed entirely. Namely, that no matter how you slice it, it seems to end up with the same outcome. There was no statement about non-compliance in the original letter - it was a question, used to establish the direct relationship between last year and this year.
The Mayor's response goes on to explain some specific triggers which would require a mandatory pay equity study. That same paragraph closes with a statement indicating that none of the minor changes, which have actually taken place in the 12 years since amalgamation, qualify as a mandatory trigger. Here is the pertinent paragraph from the Mayor's response:
"Section 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act states that every employer shall establish and maintain compensation practices that provide for equity in every establishment of the employer. It also states that a review of the plan is not mandatory unless there has been a change in circumstances or upon request of an employee. The amalgamation of two or more municipalities is considered a change in circumstance. Significant changes in positions or hiring may also be considered a change in circumstance. As it has been 12 years since the initial pay equity review there have been some minor changes to the pay grid and pay grade. None of these changes on their own could be deemed a change in circumstance."
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
To summarize that whole paragraph into very plain English ... it seems a pay equity study is not required after all. This is further confirmed in another statement contained elsewhere in the Mayor's response:
"Again, the Township has never been "in breach" of the Pay Equity Act and continues to strive to remain in compliance."
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
So the references to legislation and compliance contained in Report A-14-28, by the Clerk, appear to be completely unfounded and misleading. But it certainly seems that they were effective in persuading Council to move ahead with the out-of-budget project, doesn't it?
The Mayor's response also touches on another aspect of the project - the Market Value Review - suggesting that combining it with the Pay Equity Review was a prudent approach. We agree; doing both at the same time - if/when required - does appear to be efficient. But in addressing the Market Value Review, the Mayor's response takes the whole issue out of the frying pan and places it directly into the fire instead. Let's look at that part of the response:
The Mayor's response also touches on another aspect of the project - the Market Value Review - suggesting that combining it with the Pay Equity Review was a prudent approach. We agree; doing both at the same time - if/when required - does appear to be efficient. But in addressing the Market Value Review, the Mayor's response takes the whole issue out of the frying pan and places it directly into the fire instead. Let's look at that part of the response:
"Since a market pay review was also scheduled for 2014, it was thought prudent to combine both tasks into one bundle rather than having two separate but related items reviewed separately."
EK-COG Note: Emphasis denoted above is our own, for clarity.
So here we are, right back at square one. In trying to explain away the issues, the Mayor's response actually re-establishes a solid foundation for the same fundamental questions which should have been self-evident all along:
Question 1: If the pay equity study is not required, why was the reference to legislation used as a lever in the report?
Question 2: if the market value study was scheduled for 2014, why was it not part of the 2014 budget discussions?
These questions continue to go unanswered ... the work on the study - an out-of-budget expense of $7,000 - continues to move ahead ... and Staff remains completely unaccountable for the whole issue.
Oh, and by the way ... as of February 2015, there has still been no report to present the results of the study that was commissioned. At least, not in any open session. It hasn't even been listed as a topic for any closed sessions either (nor has it been referenced, after-the-fact, as part of reporting out in the minutes).
The secondary issue ...
If you read through the original letter submitted to Council, as well as Council's reply, you'll also see some references to other legislation - namely, Regulation 284/09. This legislation deals with the need to develop and receive a certain type of budget reconciliation report.
The legislation, as written, is actually quite easy to understand. The report must be completed (and received by Council) prior to the passing of the budget. The minutes of Council's own meetings clearly establish the fact that our Township has not complied with the timing requirement of that legislation for the last 3 years (ie. since it came into full effect).
Notably, the Mayor's response does not dispute that the Township has consistently received this report after passing the budget. Instead, the response offers an explanation as to why the Township has chosen to do so, and will apparently continue to do so. (Interestingly, we cannot find any reference to this topic having been discussed, nor can we find a notation of any corresponding direction being given to Staff to ignore that particular requirement of the legislation. So, just who decided to deal with it in this manner, and when?)
To be fair, the logic outlined in the response does have some merit. But, it still doesn't change the fact that (technically) the Township is not fully complying with the Provincial law - something that the Ministry is supposedly aware of and is apparently prepared to tolerate (if we take the response at face value).
But that is not a real solution - it is a band-aid, at best. If the Ministry is aware of the shortcomings of its current regulation, then it should have changed the legislation by now. It has had plenty of time. And if the Province has been dragging its feet, why is it that our Council - and other Councils which have similar concerns - have not already circulated a motion demanding that the Province address the pitfalls? That would be leadership.
The Mayor's response includes the following statement:
Question 1: If the pay equity study is not required, why was the reference to legislation used as a lever in the report?
Question 2: if the market value study was scheduled for 2014, why was it not part of the 2014 budget discussions?
These questions continue to go unanswered ... the work on the study - an out-of-budget expense of $7,000 - continues to move ahead ... and Staff remains completely unaccountable for the whole issue.
Oh, and by the way ... as of February 2015, there has still been no report to present the results of the study that was commissioned. At least, not in any open session. It hasn't even been listed as a topic for any closed sessions either (nor has it been referenced, after-the-fact, as part of reporting out in the minutes).
The secondary issue ...
If you read through the original letter submitted to Council, as well as Council's reply, you'll also see some references to other legislation - namely, Regulation 284/09. This legislation deals with the need to develop and receive a certain type of budget reconciliation report.
The legislation, as written, is actually quite easy to understand. The report must be completed (and received by Council) prior to the passing of the budget. The minutes of Council's own meetings clearly establish the fact that our Township has not complied with the timing requirement of that legislation for the last 3 years (ie. since it came into full effect).
Notably, the Mayor's response does not dispute that the Township has consistently received this report after passing the budget. Instead, the response offers an explanation as to why the Township has chosen to do so, and will apparently continue to do so. (Interestingly, we cannot find any reference to this topic having been discussed, nor can we find a notation of any corresponding direction being given to Staff to ignore that particular requirement of the legislation. So, just who decided to deal with it in this manner, and when?)
To be fair, the logic outlined in the response does have some merit. But, it still doesn't change the fact that (technically) the Township is not fully complying with the Provincial law - something that the Ministry is supposedly aware of and is apparently prepared to tolerate (if we take the response at face value).
But that is not a real solution - it is a band-aid, at best. If the Ministry is aware of the shortcomings of its current regulation, then it should have changed the legislation by now. It has had plenty of time. And if the Province has been dragging its feet, why is it that our Council - and other Councils which have similar concerns - have not already circulated a motion demanding that the Province address the pitfalls? That would be leadership.
The Mayor's response includes the following statement:
"The Township Council and staff have placed legislative compliance as a high priority and will continue to remain compliant."
It is interesting to note that there are indeed (several) other municipalities which do prepare and receive the report in full compliance with the Regulation 284/09 (ie. before they pass their budgets). So, while our Council might say that it places a high priority on legislative compliance, apparently that really only applies to whatever legislation they decide makes sense.
Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised. After all, Council has stated on more than one occasion that is does not feel bound to follow its own by-laws - so why wouldn't Council tend to feel that it may also be acceptable to operate above other laws, too? (If you're not already familiar with the Brush Fee fiasco, [click here] to read all about it.)
Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised. After all, Council has stated on more than one occasion that is does not feel bound to follow its own by-laws - so why wouldn't Council tend to feel that it may also be acceptable to operate above other laws, too? (If you're not already familiar with the Brush Fee fiasco, [click here] to read all about it.)
RESOURCES and SUPPORTING MATERIALS
[Click] - Letter to Council urging it to revisit the issue of the out-of-budget Pay Equity Study and Market Value Review, and to either hold Staff accountable or defer the project until 2015.
[Click] - Council's Official Response - via the Mayor.
[Click] - Council's Official Response - via the Mayor.
PLEASE ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS
The clearest, most effective message you can send to Council, is to attend their meetings. So long as the public gallery is empty, they will get the impression that no one cares.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.