Saanich will be looking for a new CAO, as of yesterday
Media Release
For Immediate Release December 17, 2014
Staff Announcement – Mr. Paul Murray
Saanich, BC – The newly elected Mayor and Council of the District of Saanich together with the District’s Chief Administrative Officer have mutually agreed to end their relationship effective December 16, 2014. As this decision involves confidential information regarding personnel, no further comment will be made. The District thanks Mr. Murray for his service, and wishes him every success in his future endeavours.
At the December 8, 2014 in-camera Council Meeting the following motion was supported unanimously by Councillors:
“That Council does not support actions taken by Mayor Richard Atwell, whether as Mayor-elect or Mayor, with respect to the ongoing employment of Paul Murray as Chief Administrative Officer of the District of Saanich.”
This in-camera meeting was the first opportunity for the entire Council to discuss Mayor Atwell’s actions regarding the employment of Mr. Murray. Council through the above motion raised its concern and objection to the activities and the process that was undertaken by the Mayor without knowledge or agreement of Council. The actions taken by Mayor Atwell left Council with no viable options other than to proceed to end the employment relationship with Mr. Murray. Council is also concerned about the financial impact the Mayors’ actions have had on the citizens of Saanich – a total payment of $476,611 (inclusive of accrued vacation of $55,448). This equates to 0.50% of taxation money that cannot be used for other initiatives of the municipality.
-30-
Saanich News has Mayor Atwell’s response to the events:
“It was a very short conversation done in my office. I invited him in for a discussion about moving on and that started the proess of him thinking about leaving. Council looked at it and decided they would negotiate his departure,” Atwell said.
“Where council has difficulty is I made this initial contact with Mr. Murray as Mayor-elect, and I think they expected that to come to council first,” he said.
Atwell said the $476,000 severance package will be paid out of several funds, but couldn’t immediately provide specifics.
“$55,000 of that is accrued vacation,” Atwell said. “There doesn’t seem to be a limit to how much vacation a senior manager can accrue.”
Advertiser
When asked about the unanimous councillor motion opposing his actions, Atwell said he sees himself in an oversight role within the municipality, and that voters gave him a mandate for change at the ballot box.
“That means getting new ideas into the organization. A new CAO will be able to implement some of those ideas that I campaigned on.
“There will be councillors interested in maintaining the status quo … but change is often difficult and there are costs to moving forward,” he said.
SN’s full article can be found here:
http://www.saanichnews.com/news/286112831.html
From DAM: A well-connected local with inside knowledge of the Saanich CAO situation described the steps involved as follows: during the campaign, the CAO advised senior staff he could not work with Atwell and recommended Leonard; Atwell and CAO met shortly after election and agreed CAO would leave voluntarily, with severance; council objected mostly to the cost involved and voted to censure Atwell; when informed of CAO’s pre-election statement to staff however, Council saw the opportunity to dismiss CAO for cause (and save cash) and so voted to approve Atwell’s action by an 8-1 margin (emphasis added); Atwell then reaffirmed the offer to allow CAO to leave voluntarily and CAO accepts; finally, some Council members object publicly, despite having voted to approve.
Thankyou for illuminating, assuming what you say is true Paul Murray wanted out if Atwell got elected.
Who/what is “DAM”?
FTR, I had several cases of incompetence and deviousness as well as a smear attempt when I pointed to major errors in a department’s work. Whether or not Paul Murray appreciated what was going on (he was told) he was in charge.
I voted to “Fire Frank”.