{"id":18914,"date":"2017-04-08T08:46:23","date_gmt":"2017-04-08T12:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=18914"},"modified":"2017-04-08T12:09:00","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T16:09:00","slug":"why-is-this-man-still-working-for-collingwood-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/why-is-this-man-still-working-for-collingwood-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Why is this man still working for Collingwood? – part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"WhyAlmost a year ago, I posed the question: why is the interim CAO still working for Collingwood<\/a>? <\/strong>After his behaviour and aggressive, disrespectful grilling of the hospital board chair and foundation head, March 27, 2017<\/a>, that question has even more significance.<\/p>\n

And, you might ask, why hasn’t council dealt with it? After all, his behaviour reflects on them – and poorly.<\/p>\n

The interim CAO’s relationship with the mayor is at best strained, at worst abrasive and unproductive. In a recent email she accused him of bullying and suggested he resign. Councillor Lloyd has made similar comments and recently blocked his emails. The last time the interim CAO’s contract was extended (at $226,000 a year), it was a 5-4 vote<\/a>, suggesting a loss of confidence in him even among his former supporters.<\/p>\n

How can any CAO operate effectively if at odds with one or more of his bosses? If he or she doesn’t have the full respect and support of all of council?<\/p>\n

I have been copied with emails sent among residents and even some sent to the local media and council chastising the interim CAO for his behaviour, calling his tactics bullying and aggressive. This is not the way the town’s top bureaucrat should be seen by our residents. It is not the way ANY top bureaucrats should behave anywhere. Or should I say misbehave?<\/p>\n

In an email sent to the mayor and council, one writer commented: “The CAO should be instructed to be more deferential to the Chair during the meeting. We did not regard his conduct to be very professional last evening.”<\/p>\n

One letter to the local media about the evening noted in general the tone towards the bureaucrats at the meeting: “Nobody likes to be lectured to by high-priced consultants or government officials, especially when it appears to any reasonable person that the real motive is to further slow down and obstruct the hospital decision-making process. And making matters worse, we all know that it is us, the taxpayer, who is paying for most of those speakers and their underlying work.”<\/p>\n

There were more remarks I won’t repeat, but they continued the general sentiment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While some of these emails were private, several were sent to or shared with council, but not to the interim CAO*<\/span>. However, in his follow-up email to council, one writer noted a troubling trend when he received a response:<\/p>\n

…on the day following my email I received an email from the CAO, Mr. Brown, inviting me to call him to discuss his role at the meeting on Monday evening. I was somewhat surprised by Mr. Brown’s email and his invitation to call him because my email was not addressed to him. I am curious how an email sent by me to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors gets to be placed in Mr. Brown’s hands for reply or comment. If I wanted input from Mr. Brown I could have and would have included him in the list of recipients of my email. Are Mr. Brown and Town Council not on the same page on this very important issue?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That isn’t the first time I’ve read or heard similar comments about the interim CAO’s intrusion into conversations he was not included in. Whether it is staff or councillors sharing with him, whether they do it for brownnosing or fear, it is not the interim CAO’s role to speak for the town or to respond for others when not asked to do so. That is disrespectful of the individuals and the process.<\/p>\n

The public needs to be able to believe in and trust its bureaucracy. If these comments reflect how the town’s senior administrator is perceived by the public, it suggests a serious disconnect that must<\/em> be fixed. If for those in the community who attend to local politics, the interim CAO has no credibility, that will not be changed while he is in office. <\/p>\n

Yet he remains in his office. Literally, since he almost never leaves it to visit the community or town facilities outside town hall.<\/p>\n

So I ask again, why is this man still employed by the town? The process to replace him has already started. Shouldn’t he be put on administrative leave to avoid more unrest? To avoid influencing what should be a neutral process to replace him? And it should be done NOW to avoid further problems or erosion of confidence.<\/p>\n

Look at the record this term. With the interim CAO at the helm, this town has:<\/p>\n