Home ›

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: City Administrator Resignation

by Laurie Charlton on 22 Apr 2009
in

Dear Editor,

A leadership vacuum is developing at Rossland City Hall. As many people know by now, the City’s Administrator, Ron Campbell resigned  early last week.

I wish I could provide more details about his resignation but I can’t.  I  don’t know any details.  Mayor Greg Granstrom has refused to circulate Mr. Campbell’s letter of resignation to council and a meeting of council to discuss the issue will not be held until next week.

The Administrator reports to all of council, not the mayor.  Council is  responsible for all issues surrounding the Administrator’s tenure.  It is  the mayor’s responsibility to convene a meeting so that council can decide  what steps must be taken.  That he has failed to do so is disturbing.

Mayor Granstrom has often spoken about the need for better communication 
between City Hall and the citizens of Rossland.  Perhaps he should start by 
improving communications with his fellow council members.  His lack of action 
on this very important issue is certainly not an example of effective or efficient leadership.

I think Mayor Granstrom needs to remember that he was only elected mayor.  He
was not anointed as Emperor of the Mountain Kingdom.

Laurie Charlton
Rossland, BC

Comments

CAO Resignation

by Andre on 22 May 2009 at about 09:52.
This is an outsider's attempt to clarify the question about the Mayor's handling of the CAO's letter of resignation: Community Charter (CC) sec. 146(b) specifies that officer positions must be established by bylaw. That is a COUNCIL function. CC sec. 146(c) specifies that the powers, duties and functions of officers are to be assigned in the position establishing bylaw. Again, a COUNCIL function. CC sec. 147 deals with the powers, duties and functions of the CAO and sub (c) specifies that it is the duty of the CAO to advise and inform the COUNCIL on the operation and affairs of the municipality. The CAO in question was also the Corporate Officer (CO). CC sec. 148 deals with that position. Specifically, sub (e) specifies that the CO's power, duties and functions include accepting, on behalf of the COUNCIL or municipality documents required to be given to the COUNCIL or municipality. The CAO/CO is an officer of the municipality and an employee of the municipality. The mayor's position is dealt with by CC sec. 116. This section does specify that the mayor is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), but it refers to RESPONSIBILITIES of the position, and one of these RESPONSIBILITIES, sub. (b), is to COMMUNICATE information to council and another, sub. (d), is to provide, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL, general direction to municipal officers. The CC does not reserve any privileges or exclusive rights for the mayor. I served many Rossland Councils over a 15-year period (until I was fired by the COUNCIL) and Mr. Charlton was a member on many of them, including the one who facilitated my exit. Mr. Charlton does indeed have the ability to be a pain, a royal pain, in the neck and nether regions, but on the point in question he is 100% correct. The Editor is misguided in suggesting that the Community Charter is open to interpretation in this case. The mayor does not have the authority to establish the position of CAO, and does not have the authority to hire or fire a CAO. CC sec 151 gives the mayor the authority to suspend a CAO, but sub. (2) requires the mayor to report a suspension at the next COUNCIL meeting and it is the COUNCIL, not the mayor, who will make the decision to reinstate the CAO, to confirm and/or extend the suspension, or to dismiss the CAO. There is no wriggle-room at all for a mayor to withhold information on any aspect of the employment status of any employee or officer, including a voluntary resignation, from the COUNCIL. Period! On the other hand, as it concerns Mr. Charlton, there is no statutory requirement in CC sec. 115 which establishes the duties of council members that require a councillor to be reasonable, considered, patient, or, for that matter, to be a nice guy. Being an obnoxious niggler is not a disqualifying characteristic for councillors (or mayors).

OTHER SIDE OF THE CHARLETON STORY

by Agnew Vew on 28 Apr 2009 at about 18:48.
The majority of the general public has never been to a council meeting and unfortunately does not know what goes on behind the scenes. Mr. Charlton speaks and writes more in the press than any other councillor so the only thing that the public hears is his side of the story. For the other side of the story probably the best source of information would be from people that have worked with them on a consistent basis such as past councillors and staff. If you polled all of the councillors that have worked with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Charleton in the past what would they say? Mr. Campbell? Reportedly councillors have said that he is the best administrator that Rossland has had in recent years. Mr. Charleton? There have not been many good comments about him and most of what he writes is negative. ? What would the past councillors say about him? ? Is he a positive or a negative influence in council? ? How many of them would want to work with him again or would ever vote for him? What is the other side of the story? What do you think?

Two sides to every story

by Adrian Barnes on 29 Apr 2009 at about 06:11.

I think it's worth remembering that there are two sides to every story. Would a discussion about the merits of the clearly profesional Mr. Campbell and the repeatedly elected Mr. Charlton by their respective supporters tell us anything new? Or would everyone be confirmed in their original opinion? 

Better, perhaps, to deal with things on a case by case basis. Even on that level, it's hard to find the root facts. Was there anything of concern in the 'letter'? No. Was Mr. Charlton right or wrong, procedure-wise, to ask to see it immediately? That still hasn't been established clearly. A week of discussion and we're really no further ahead in our understanding.--ed.

CAO and Capone's Vaults

by Tyler Austin Bradley on 28 Apr 2009 at about 16:06.

Wow. That resignation letter was quite something.  For those of you that watched with as much anticipation as I did when Geraldo Rivera gonzoed on and on about what treasures might lie in Al Capone's vaults back in the eighties, I can only liken the comments contained in the outgoing CAO's letter to the contents found within Scarface's hidey-hole.  Revelatory. 

Still, better to have not had to wait fifty years to know there wasn't anything to fuss about. Tommie Guns indeed. 

Gone too far!

by Kathy Wallace on 27 Apr 2009 at about 13:09.

There is so much that I would like to say in response to Mr Charlton's latest post but I will wait until the appropriate time and place. Please allow me to quote myself instead.

"It is incumbent on all members of council (mayor included) to act in the best interests of the community. In my opinion, upholding the respectability of the position of mayor is critical to the well-being of the community. "

Regular meeting of council and in-camera meeting are scheduled for this evening.

With RESPECT and the best interests of the community in mind.

Kathy Wallace

 

Reputations

by Rosa Jordan on 27 Apr 2009 at about 13:05.
Mr. Vew: I covered city council in 1985-86, on which Laurie Charlton served. Now, more than 30 years later, he is still serving on council. Given that he has been elected to that position many times by Rossland voters--a fact which speaks to the respect a large number of citizens have for him--why on earth would anyone suppose that a recall petition would be needed, or successful if launched? By contrast, Mr. Campbell has been in Rossland only a few years, during which he routinely worked fewer hours than previous city administrators, and was paid a great deal more (the highest ever in Rossland history). Perhaps you were satisfied with this situation, and with the way he ran City Hall, but many citizens were not. The fact that none have criticized Mr. Campbell on this forum should not be taken as evidence of a satisfactory performance, any more than the criticisms of a few anonymous posters should be taken as a reliable guide to the performance of Councillor Charlton. It has been up to Council to assess the former, and up to the voters of Rossland to decide the latter.

Level of discourse

by Rosa Jordan on 27 Apr 2009 at about 11:55.
Editor: On the subject of personal insults and mudslinging being facilitated by a policy which does not require the insulter to identify themselves, this thread offers a fine example. Kindly note that almost all of those posting under their own names (you, me, Charlton, Wallace, Golling, and Vew) have maintained a civilized level of discourse, while unidentified posters are the ones who have indulged in personal insults and mudslinging. It is not necessary for such posters to "cross the line" into slander in order to bring down the level of discourse--and the reputation of the publication.

The nature of the medium

by Adrian Barnes on 27 Apr 2009 at about 13:30.

You're bound to disagree with me, Rosa, and I'm sorry it makes  you think less of our paper. However, it's worth saying one more time: comments are different from letters. They are an integral part of the internet and our policies are the same as any other online news source's. We don't endorse ANY commenter's views--they exist as a side conversation.

I'd suggest Rosslanders take anonymous comments as seriously as city hall might take an anonymous letter criticizing them. If the statement has merit, listen to it--if not, just ignore it as the ravings of a scaredy-cat crank. And we'll continue to keep the libellous ones out.

Some comments are ugly. Well, some people are ugly. And some truths are ugly. The Telegraph chooses to offer a fully open forum and are willing to take what comes with that--good and bad. --ed.

PETITION or REFERENDUM?

by Agnew Vew on 27 Apr 2009 at about 08:49.
It sounds like Ron Campbell has done a great job for Rossland and there have been many positive comments about him and his work. It will be a large loss for Rossland if he leaves. If what people are saying in this post is true, that one councillor is to the main reason for the administrator leaving: WOULD IT BE BETTER FOR ROSSLAND IF THAT COUNCILLOR LEFT INSTEAD OF THE ADMINISTRATOR? Has anyone heard about a petition or referendum to this effect?

Facts

by Kathy Wallace on 26 Apr 2009 at about 14:01.

 

If this discussion is of interest to you, I also encourage you to do a little research of your own and read the Community Charter. Some sections that have relevance: sections 114-116 (as already noted by Councilor Charlton), section 126 wherein it’s stated that the mayor can call a special meeting solely, while 2 councilors are required for the same action, and as Mr Campbell held the positions of Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Officer, sections 90 and 148 are also informative.
A municipality is a corporation and the mayor is the chief executive officer of the corporation. By definition, this means that the individual in this position has the authority to act on behalf of the municipality (or corporation). This position is given powers beyond the council chambers, which is a significant point to recognize, as the powers of councilors are restricted to council chambers during a scheduled meeting.
It is incumbent on all members of council (mayor included) to act in the best interests of the community. In my opinion, upholding the respectability of the position of mayor is critical to the well-being of the community. Please don’t misinterpret me as supporting a carte blanche power for the mayor’s position as that is not what I intend. Council (as a whole) always maintains (by mandate - they can't give it away even if they wanted to) the right to final decision – when in chambers at a scheduled meeting. The concerns that have been raised in this letter to the editor need to be discussed appropriately, at the appropriate time and place – in a scheduled council meeting.

With respect and the best interests of our community in mind.

Kathy Wallace

Experts

by Adrian Barnes on 26 Apr 2009 at about 17:00.

We thought it best, in this case, to leave it to the experts. Procedures in a situation like this are generally not written down in stone or in black and white. Does Mayor Granstrom HAVE to reveal a letter like this upon demand?--the answer is still not obvious to me, despite all the informed comments we've received. We could interview one person, I suspect, and be told one thing, then interview a second and be told another. Discussion is sometimes the best remedy. --ed.

The obvious answer

by Laurie Charlton on 27 Apr 2009 at about 12:39.

Hi Adrian,

As far as I know there is no legislation that specifically requires Mayor Granstrom to reveal a letter of resignation to council.  Presumably he could be forced to reveal the letter under a Freedom of Information request.

I think the real questions are what is the ethical course of action for someone who is supposed to be a leader and what are the consequences of not revealing the letter.

Without having access to the letter, council is put in the position of making decisions without having full knowledge of the situation.  That is simply not acceptable.

Mayor Granstrom’s refusal to circulate the letter to council demonstrates his contempt for his fellow council members and will lead to a deterioration of his status as a leader of the community.  If Mayor Granstrom truly had respect for councillors, the letter of resignation would have been circulated to us within hours of his receiving it.

Laurie Charlton

Resignation Letter Distributed

by Andrew Zwicker on 28 Apr 2009 at about 13:45.

At Council last night, Mayor Granstrom circulated Ron Campbell's discontinuation of service agreement letter to council and the media. Alas no great secrets or mountain kingdom smoking guns found.(starting to like the new nickname, time for a rebrand :)  )

The much talked about letter read as follows:

_____________________________

Greg:
Re: Discontinuation of Services

Please accept this letter as notice of discontinuation of my services as Chief Administative Officer / Corporate Office to the City of Rossladnd under my contract dated June 9,2008, in accordance with the requirements therein.

I am proud of the many accomplishments acheived during the last three years. in particular, I am very proud of the management team which has been assembled, and am confident they will continue to provide outstanding service to Rossladn and City Council.

It has been a pleasure serving the people of Rossland during the past three years.

Ron W. Campbell

__________________________________

 

Further documentation on the resignation brouhaha

by Adrian Barnes on 28 Apr 2009 at about 16:13.

To further clarify this issue, the relevant portion of the email that Mayor Granstrom sent out to council regarding Mr. Campbell's resignation letter goes as follows:

"The resignation will require several in-cameras and the upcoming week is full partly due to the AKBLG. Therefore we will have an in-camera after the regular meeting on Apr. 27. As to the letter of discontinuation of service I am the only one that has seen it. Ron has been very gracious and professional...We will discuss it at the appropriate time.

"There are steps that must be taken in this matter and be assured that I am moving forward with my responsibilities. Again we will discuss this at the proper time!"

--ed.

All the facts

by Laurie Charlton on 26 Apr 2009 at about 15:08.

Councillor Wallace is, for the most part, correct in her comments.  However, her comment that "By definition, this means that the individual in this poition (mayor) has the authority to act on behalf of the municipality (or corporation)." is somewhat misleading. 

The mayor has the authority and responsibility to act on behalf of the municipality but only to the extent authorized by council.  This is clearly spelled out in section 116(2)(d) of the Community Charter which says the mayor is to "provide, on behalf of the council, general direction to municipal officers respecting implementation of municipal policies, programs and other directions of the council" and in section 116(2)(g)  which says the mayor is to "reflect the will of council and to carry out other duties on behalf of the council".

A mayor can act without the consent of council in only a very few circumstances and those circumstances are carefully prescribed in the Community Charter - for example the ability to call special meetings.

Councillor Wallace also states that "the powers of councillors are restricted to council chambers during a scheduled meeting."  This statement is also misleading.

Section 115(d) of the Community Charter says that councillors have the responsibility "to carry out other duties assigned by the council".  Section 115(e) says that councillors have the responsibility "to carry out other duties assigned under this or another Act".  Clearly, the powers of councillors do extend beyond the confines of the council chambers, but only to the extent prescribed by the Community Charter or assigned by council.

Laurie Charlton

 

Facilitating Slander

by Rosa Jordan on 25 Apr 2009 at about 10:57.
Those responsible for the Telegraph's policy of allowing anonymous postings are largely responsible for the unfounded personal insults that that characterize threads like this. Mudslingers always prefer to remain anonymous, to gossip behind their hands and/or behind their sign-on handle. Any publication that does not require letter-writer names to be included in what is published on their pages provides an incentive to those inclined to slander others while hiding their identity--as several of the previous posters have done. The greatest damage is not to the person being slandered. It is to the publication. The media, like municipal government, loses credibility when it conceals information--or allows those using its forum to do so.

facilitating slander????

by Adrian Barnes on 25 Apr 2009 at about 18:14.

 Hi Rosa,

I suppose I'm 'those responsible' (you'll note I'm signing my own name!).

Thanks for your interest. I have several comments to make on this subject, one that has come up before and will surely come up again.

First, some clarification: a comment isn't a letter. We do publish letters and follow standard newspaper procedures for doing so. Comments, on the other hand, are informal responses to officially-published items. They are more like two people discussing a local issue in a public place (say, Pro Hardware), except that 'place' is cyberspace.

Our policy on comments is exactly the same as those of globeandmail.com, nytimes.com, and other online papers: we require a valid email address so that we can track posters down if a legal issue arises (if you want to see harsh discourse, check out the G&M's comments--they make our teapot tempesters seem positively urbane). A username means site members can run but ultimately not hide.

Personally, I agree with you and would much prefer people sign their real names. However, I have never come across an internet site--newspaper or other--that has the sort of policy you suggest. A new medium creates new rules, for better and for worse.

All that said, we don't believe any of the comments in this thread are libellous or slanderous in the legal sense. We do not allow truly slanderous comments to remain on our site. If you or any of our readers see a comment which they feel crosses a legal line, please let us know.

We realize this is a legitimately contentious issue and wrestle with it ourselves. Any more thoughts out there?--ed.

CAO resignation & secrecy

by Sara Golling on 25 Apr 2009 at about 10:23.
At this time, it seems to me that the Mayor and Council have an obligation to discuss any issues raised in Mr. Campbell's letter of resignation in private -- "in camera" -- behind closed doors and secretly, if you really like that accusatory sort of expression. Personnel issues and issues of conduct often need to be discussed privately before any decision is reached and acted upon.

hiding?

by mountaingirl on 25 Apr 2009 at about 09:37.
In my opinion after reading this letter to the editor it seems as though mr charlton and obviously the other councillors do know that the administrator has resigned and as mr charlton stated in his letter there is a date set for council to sit down and discuss this issue. If you ask me this is just Mr Charltons way of trying to "stirring the pot" as he is well known for doing. If he thinks he has all of this knowledge and that no one else can do it correctly why has he not run for mayor over the past two terms and instead just sat by to slander those who did come forward?

I'd like to know

by Adrian Barnes on 24 Apr 2009 at about 14:11.

As a resident, I'd like to know what the rules are around this sort of thing. Can the mayor keep this sort of information back? Or, as Mr. Charton seems to say, is the CAO's resignation the business of all counsellors equally? The core facts seem missing--or at least, I don't know them. Anyone care to enlighten me?--ed. 

I'd like to know

by Laurie Charlton on 25 Apr 2009 at about 22:42.

Hi Adrian,

The answer to your question can be found in sections 114 to 116 of the Community Charter.  Have a look at:

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20c%20--/community%20charter%20%20sbc%202003%20%20c.%2026/00_act/03026_05.xml#part5_division1

Or google "community charter".

A mayor actually has very few responsibilities over and above those of councillors.  Those duties include providing leadership to council, communicating information to council, and reflecting the will of council.  In other words, a mayor is the conduit of information to council and from council to staff and the community.  It is up to council as a whole to make decisions.

Another point to keep in mind is that Ron Campbell is not (or was not) an employee of the City.  The City has a contract with a numbered company, of which Ron Campbell is the principle, to provide CAO services to the City.  Since this is a contract for services, no different than the provision of garbage collection or janitorial services, the contract is available to the public.  Payments to the numbered company (0758791 BC Ltd.) are listed in the City's annual report under the schedule of payments to suppliers of goods and services.  In 2007, those payments totalled $164,192.61. 

Mr. Campbell's letter of resignation, or more correctly, letter of termination of agreement, should also be a public document just as communications from any other supplier of goods or services are public documents.

Laurie Charlton

 

 

Mayor Rules

by Ross Slander on 24 Apr 2009 at about 14:33.
Having had a few spots in the community charter pointed out regarding this and similar issues by a city hall staffer, while certainly not being an expert on it myself, it was pointed out that the Mayor has the power and that councillors were not even mentioned. I to would be interested to learn more about what the policies on this kind of thing are As previous posts have alluded to, certain folks at city hall also mentioned councillor charlton as being the number 1 reason why the CAO has resigned from his position.

Ross Slander

by Adrian Barnes on 24 Apr 2009 at about 16:45.

"The Ross Slander" was my original suggestion for the name of this paper, but for some reason I got voted down...-ed. 

Missing the Point!

by Rosa Jordan on 24 Apr 2009 at about 11:24.
It is unfortunate that whenever a substantive issue is raised--as was in this case--there will be always be some who, apparently unable to grasp the issue, will focus on personalities. Whether one is pro-Charlton, anti-Charlton, pro-Campbell, or anti-Campbell, what does that have to do with the secrecy issue raised by Councillor Charlton? Doesn't anyone care to comment on the issue at hand? Or do we all think it is okay for a mayor to keep information from council members (and by extension, from the public?)

Ron Campbell's resignation

by middlepath on 23 Apr 2009 at about 21:15.
Agree with HobbesGirl -- that's a really safe bet. And strongly agree with Councillor Charleton that there is now a vacuum. This is a guy who by all accounts put in like 10 - 12 hour days. Who assembled a team of professionals for staff, straightened out the mess that was Rosland's budget, supported City Hall through the OCP re-write and helped drive the Visions to Action process, blah, blah, blah. Not bad for three years. I just hope that more staff don't quit as they deal with the extra workload and stress of transition. But what twisted irony that Councillor Charleton is now complaining that he hasn't been able to see the resignation letter. He probably figures, and I sadly suspect he's right, that Mr. Campbell is too much of a class act to point fingers.

Whatta guy!

by andy on 29 Apr 2009 at about 11:15.
Yeah well, Mr. Campbell better have been working 10-12 hrs. a day, and doing a good job, to justify his contractual earnings of +$160,000.00/yr. I work on a contract basis, and if I exceed deadlines, or fail quality assurances, I can be fined, or worse, not paid at all. I'm sure Mr. Campbell did a fine job, but let's get over the glorifying/hero thing, please. He was just doing what was expected of him.

It sounds like Ron Campbell

by Agnew Vew on 27 Apr 2009 at about 08:44.
It sounds like Ron Campbell has done a great job for Rossland and there have been many positive comments about him and his work.

Hall of the Mountain King

by Tyler Austin Bradley on 23 Apr 2009 at about 20:22.

Speaking of 'Emperors of the Mountain Kingdom', check out this wicked footage of DJ superstar Goldie conducting Grieg's "Hall of the Mountain King;" it's from a BBC series titled something like "who wants to be a conductor?"

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG_8MINTFR0 

I like to listen to it when I'm getting caught up on local politics, especially as the tempo and stakes build... yow!!  Who says classical music and local goings-on are boring?!

Resignation

by Melannie Vockeroth on 23 Apr 2009 at about 20:03.
Mr. Charleton, Aside from any "disturbances" or "Lordly" actions I'd bet money that your behaviour is a factor in this resignation.