Food for thought

There’s more. And I fear there will be still more before the election comes.

I want to note that although this term of council is officially considered “lame duck,” meaning they can’t make any hiring or firing decisions at present, they can still suspend the CAO (without pay).

Further, because Council is not responsible for the hiring or firing of staff at the levels of Jason Tamming and Rob D’Amboise, they can – in fact – still be suspended or fired, just as a front-line employee working in public works or community services could be by their manager.

What is unclear, because of his role as an elected official is if they can suspend Caslin and/or his pay. There must be a way to sanction him – and immediately – but I can’t easily find what that would be.

Regardless of what this current Council can do or chooses to do about Caslin, the ultimate choice is – of course – in the hands of the people in 72 days.

And here’s some food for thought:

Can they reconsider?

What I mean is can they officially vote to reconsider the hiring of Carmen D’Angelo?
(Warning: This is entirely hypothetical, so don’t get your hopes up.)

Knowing what we know now, can Council move to reconsider the matter of hiring this particular CAO?

According to Bourinot’s Rules of Order, we would need a Councillor who was on the prevailing side (voting in favour of hiring D’Angelo) to have changed their position to move to have the matter reconsidered. By my count, any one of: Sendzik, Rigby, Maloney, Joyner, Darte, or Campion could move to reconsider.

The tricky part then becomes getting 2/3 of councillors (who were present for the initial vote) to vote in favour of the reconsideration, as we can be reasonably certain that Annunziata, Quirk, Volpatti, Gale, Jeffs, Timms, and Maves will not.

We would need all of: Augustyn, D’Angela, Edgar, Heit, Hodgson, Luciani, MacGregor, Marshall, Baty, Campion, Darte, Diodati, Grenier, Joyner, Maloney, Rigby, and Sendzik to vote in favour of reconsidering.

If a reconsideration vote is even possible (honestly, I can’t imagine that it is on HR matters) and the reconsideration passed, then we’d need a simple majority (16 councillors) to vote against the original motion to hire Carmen D’Angelo.

Here’s how the vote went down in October 2016:

Moved by Councillor Diodati
Seconded by Councillor Quirk

That Confidential Memorandum CAORC-C 12-2016, dated October 31, 2016, respecting Matters related to Personal Matters about Identifiable Individual(s) – Chief Administrative Officer Recruitment Committee Recommendation(s) BE RECEIVED;

1. That Carmen D’Angelo BE APPOINTED as the Chief Administrative Officer for The Regional Municipality of Niagara with the terms and conditions outlined in memorandum CAORC-C 12-2016; and

2. That by the end of the 1st quarter of 2017, the Chief Administrative Officer WILL MEET with Council and jointly develop and document his performance objectives for the following 12-months, many of which will be directly related to the Strategic Priorities.

A separate vote was requested on Recommendations 1 and 2 be considered separately.

A recorded vote was requested on Recommendation 1 as follows:

That Confidential Memorandum CAORC-C 12-2016, dated October 31, 2016, respecting Matters related to Personal Matters about Identifiable Individual(s) – Chief Administrative Officer Recruitment Committee Recommendation(s) BE RECEIVED; and

1. That Carmen D’Angelo BE APPOINTED as the Chief Administrative Officer for the Regional Municipality of Niagara with the terms and conditions outlined in memorandum CAORC-C 12-2016;

The members voted as follows:

Voting For the Motion (17): Councillors Annunziata, Baty, Campion, Darte, Diodati, Gale, Grenier, Jeffs, Joyner, Maloney, Maves, Petrowski, Quirk, Rigby, Sendzik, Timms, Volpatti.

Voting Against the Motion (8): Councillors Augustyn, D’Angela, Edgar, Heit, Hodgson, Luciani, MacGregor, Marshall.

The Regional Chair declared the motion,
Carried

A recorded vote was requested on Recommendation 12 as follows:

2. That by the end of the 1st quarter of 2017, the Chief Administrative Officer WILL MEET with Council and jointly develop and document his performance objectives for the following 12-months, many of which will be directly related to the Strategic Priorities.

The members voted as follows:

Voting For the Motion (21): Councillors Annunziata, Augustyn, Baty, Campion, D’Angela, Darte, Diodati, Gale, Grenier, Hodgson, Jeffs, Joyner, Luciani, MacGregor, Maloney, Petrowski, Quirk, Rigby, Sendzik, Timms, Volpatti.

Voting Against the Motion (4): Councillors Edgar, Heit, Marshall, Maves

The Regional Chair declared the motion,
Carried

Again, I don’t even know that this is possible with HR matters, but I thought it was an interesting point of discussion, given that the CAO’s position is the only one that’s subject to a vote of Council.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s