It seemed like it was going to be like any ordinary, in that Grimsby sense, Committee of the Whole meeting on May 3, 2021. But Councillor John Dunstall and a few of his Council-mates had other ideas for the meeting agenda and public interest that evening.
At the beginning of the meeting where the “Approval of the Agenda” is typically a formality and passes without issue, Councillor Dunstall interjected and rambled off a list of the items he wanted “deleted” from that night’s agenda. Appearing well-rehearsed but nervous at times, in his motion he wanted the following items deleted from the meeting agenda:
- A resolution and debate on a CAO performance appraisal
- A resolution and debate on obtaining a legal opinion about the CAO’s termination of the Treasurer without Council approval
- A “Notice of Motion” on Cost of HR Review to determine the costs associated to the CAO’s Human Resources actions
- A “Notice of Motion” on Signing Officers related to the CAO’s “Bad Banking” actions
- A resident’s delegation on the Municipal Act
Needless to say this seemed to have caught four members of Council by surprise, with Dunstall’s “brothers-in-arms” unfazed by the motion. First out of the gate with a question was Councillor Vardy, who asked for Dunstall’s reason for wanting to delete the items. After the motion was seconded and Dunstall agreed to split voting on the items he gave his explanation:
“I don’t want to see it on the agenda”… Wow.
What Councillor Dunstall saw as an “attack” would have been appropriate discussion on Council’s only employee, the CAO, and some rather questionable actions. Just like February 2020, when allegations came up about the CAO, it was clear five members of Council were once again coming to his rescue.
Vardy was unsatisfied with Dunstall’s answer and said that the items go to transprency and that items such as a performance review are important, that it was inappropriate to shut down residents who want to speak on items and that inconsistencies need to be addressed. Bothwell re-iterated Vardy’s concerns and said that if items are allowed to be deleted, Council would not be answering the communities questions over the CAO’s actions and information he provided.
Councillor Freake spoke on the importance of the CAO’s performance appraisal, as its a normal management process. He stated “if you want to call it a witch hunt, that’s fine” and commented that he did not know where Councillor’s Dunstall responsibilities were due to his request.
Councillor Vaine added little to the discussion and predicted that “the four Councillors will all vote together, I am sure that is what you are alluding to”. That was a feeble attempt to “flip the script”.
Without further ado, here is how the voting went on the item deletions…
- Delete CAO Performance Appraisal – DEFEATED (Remained on agenda)
YES: Councillors Dunstall, Kadwell, Ritchie, Vaine
NO: Councillors Bothwell, Freake, Sharpe, Vardy and Mayor Jordan - Delete Legal Opinion Request – DEFEATED (Remained on agenda)
YES: Councillors Dunstall, Kadwell, Ritchie, Vaine
NO: Councillors Bothwell, Freake, Sharpe, Vardy and Mayor Jordan - Delete Resident Delegation – DEFEATED (Remained on agenda)
NO – Unanimous - Delete NOM – Cost of HR Review – CARRIED (Deleted from agenda & discussion)
YES: Councillors Dunstall, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine
NO: Councillors Bothwell, Freake, Vardy and Mayor Jordan - Delete NOM – Signing Officers – CARRIED (Deleted from agenda & discussion)
YES: Councillors Dunstall, Kadwell, Ritchie, Sharpe, Vaine
NO: Councillors Bothwell, Freake, Vardy and Mayor Jordan
The G5-block was in play here, although Councillor Sharpe proved himself to be the “swing vote” on the deletion of two of the items (CAO Performance Appraisal & Legal Opinion), but negated that by voting to delete the last two items (HR Review & Signing Officers) which probably would have been most critical look at the CAO by joining the “G5” side of the equation.
When the “CAO Performance Appraisal” came up for debate, the matter was deferred to January 2022 (and doesn’t appear to have ever occurred) with Sharpe joining the other 4 (Dunstall, Kadwell, Ritchie and Vaine) who wanted it deleted in the first place.
The “Request for a Legal Opinion” on the CAO’s actions in dismissing the Treasurer suffered a similar fate. With it being clear that the CAO had not sought Council’s approval to dismiss the Treasurer, contrary to the Municipal Act, a legal opinion from the Town’s law firm would likely not have been favourable to the CAO.
Those who voted to delete the motion in the first place, but were overruled, defeated the Legal Opinion motion when Councillor Sharpe voted alongside them.
If you need reminding, here is “How They Voted” on that:
| YEAS - WANTED LEGAL OPINION | ||
|---|---|---|
 Mayor Jordan |  Councillor Freake Ward 1 |  Councillor Vardy Ward 2 |
 Councillor Bothwell Ward 4 | ||
| NAYS - DID NOT WANT LEGAL OPINION | ||
|---|---|---|
 Councillor Ritchie Ward 1 |  Councillor Kadwell Ward 2 |  Councillor Dunstall Ward 3 |
 Councillor Vaine Ward 3 |  Councillor Sharpe Ward 4 | |
Concluding Remarks
Once again, after serious questions about the CAO’s actions come up, the band of five Councillors went for a Secret Service save. It would have been one thing if debate had proceeded on all items and some/all were voted down, but Councillor Dunstall moving to delete the items before a proper discussion could occur was contrary to the principles of political deliberation and through a “G5” vote, deprived residents of answers to possible mismanagement by the CAO.
If you want to read more details on how this meeting went down, you can read the meetings notes at this link here.