ANALYSIS
Editor’s note: This analysis is based on the contents of Township records, and a review of evidence and documents contained in the Superior Court claim Rosien brought against the Township of Madawaska Valley for breach of contract. Much of it has been previously reported exclusively by The Current.
Before the new Council took office there remained unanswered questions regarding legal costs, including amounts paid for Integrity Commissioner investigations. These included: did the abrupt removal of Jack Rosien, the first Integrity Commissioner, add unnecessarily to these costs? Using the report presented by CAO/Clerk Sue Klatt to Council on December 17, The Current now attempts to throw some light on this issue as taxpayers have had no explanation from the Township itself for the more than $100,000 excess over budget for legal expenses during 2017-18.
Rosien’s offer to complete investigations rejected
When Rosien was dismissed in April 2017, he had been investigating three Code of Conduct complaints made against two councillors. He had already been paid over $9,000 for his work. Some weeks before his dismissal, he gave notice that he had arrived at a conclusion of one of the complaints. This is where the picture becomes murky. A few days later, he was instructed by the Township’s lawyer to suspend investigations into that councillor for medical reasons. This suspension, which Rosien said did not prevent the councillor from carrying out any other duties, continued for over two months. Then, out of the blue according to his evidence given in the Court case, he received an email from the Mayor (there was no CAO during this period) terminating his appointment.
On April 18, 2017, he appeared at a Council meeting to present his final report. He ended it with a recommendation that he be allowed to finish the three investigations he had started as this would result in a saving of money and time. All members of Council were present, including the two councillors under investigation – neither of whom declared a conflict of interest. His recommendation was rejected by Council without explanation. The reason for replacing him given in the Court proceeding was that the Township wanted someone who could provide a “greater range of services.” However, services provided by an Integrity Commissioner are defined by the Municipal Act and Rosien had been providing these to the Township for a year. In any event, if that was the true reason, how does this explain Council’s decision to ignore the work he had done up to that point thereby wasting $9,000?
Financial consequences
As Klatt’s report demonstrates, Rosien’s prediction about saving costs was justified. Why? Council hired his successor, Guy Giorno, and agreed to pay him $300 an hour. On the other hand, Rosien was under contract at $75 an hour. Giorno went on to take more than a year to complete each of the same three investigations, for which he has been paid over $40,000. If Rosien had needed to spend the same number of hours to finish the job, taxpayers would have ended up paying him one-quarter of what Giorno received. Add to this the $9,000 already paid to Rosien and we arrive at a total of approximately $40,000 of unnecessary expenditure.
Moreover Rosien sued the Township for breach of contract. As previously reported by The Current, this ended in a secret settlement reached just prior to a court hearing last April. When contacted, Rosien said it was subject to confidentiality terms and he was not allowed to speak to anyone about it. Klatt’s report on the overspend for legal costs shows a line item of $19,867.71 described as “Employment matters & general matters.” The Current asked Klatt if this refers to some or all of any compensation and legal costs that may have been paid to Rosien but she has declined to respond.
In his legal claim Rosien accused the Township of improperly interfering with investigations by an Integrity Commissioner contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This was supported by the written opinion of a leading expert in municipal law. Because of the out-of-court settlement, there has not been a public airing of whether Rosien’s serious accusation was justified. The Current has written to the Township requesting an explanation, as a matter of public interest, of why it prevented Rosien from completing his investigations. Had it not done so, the facts indicate that the budget overspend for legal costs would have been cut in half at least. No response has been received.
Featured photo: conversionfanatics
Pingback: Use of non-disclosure agreements leaves public in the dark – Madawaska Valley Current
In reply to Andrea Budarik: Thank you for your comment. You have put your finger on a controversial issue. Namely, is it proper that public authorities should enter into secret settlements of litigation particularly where misconduct has been alleged? After all, it is a means through which the public may be prevented from learning about systemic abuses. Nobody is required to agree to confidentiality. It is always optional. This lawsuit did include allegations of misconduct, details of which had previously been revealed to ratepayers. Some argue that the statutory requirements of accountability and transparency should, except in exceptional circumstances, preclude secrecy from electors and those footing the bill. Had the case been determined by a judge, both the trial itself and the judgment would have been public.
As a rate payer I am all for transparency and accountability. I think a key point in the article which was not made clear is that when a court settlement is reached and often and as in this case it includes a confidentiality clause. ALL parties; elected or not; being paid by tax dollars or not have, to execute that clause. Actions of the past are difficult to learn from when not fully aired, examined and explored. In order for council to do so on that matter now seems to remain personal. I think the steps to declare conflicts now newly in place since we have entered the new year is a huge step; one of education; process and commitment to implementing change to avoid past mistakes. When one can not speak truth sometimes one just needs to look to their actions. I am encouraged by some of the education, change in process and courage to move forward changed but not drained from what’s happened but rather motivated to do it better!
Hopefully our ‘new’ Council will follow through on this issue , and be truly transparent, and honest in their response. Agree with an earlier post that this is taxpayer $$ and we have every right to know how it is being spent.
Doug’s comment also reflects the misguided ‘priorities’ of the last Council–a sad commentary on their performance.
I just dont understand, as taxpayers…why we cannot be informed on what WE have paid for and why??? It’s extremely frustrating.
This is very disappointing. For significantly less expense, Council could have had a full-time curator employed to rebuild the Railway Station museum and community programs to serve the residents of our township. The reason they refused the offer of our citizens’ group? “There is no money available.”