The Town of Athabasca's Policy 300-014 has emerged again as a “thorn” in council's backside, after former community peace officer Shaun Woloschuk was fired May 18.
The Town of Athabasca's Policy 300-014 has emerged again as a “thorn” in council's backside, after former community peace officer Shaun Woloschuk was fired May 18.
The staff appeal policy is the same one that was brought up at the time of a laundry list of complaints against former chief administrative officer Josh Pyrcz was anonymously submitted to the Athabasca Advocate in early 2016. When presented with the complaints, Pyrcz vehemently denied the claims or explained related policy behind the claim.
Disqualification votes against Coun. Tim Verhaeghe and Mayor Roger Morrill ensued.
Coun. Tanu Evans said Policy 300-014 was in place “last time we had a staff concern.”
“The policy just sat there and now we have another issue,” he said.
“Leaving a policy like that in place is our fault and it is misleading to staff, especially since it does seem to contradict the MGA,” Evans added.
The policy was passed Nov. 18, 2003 and dictates that any complaints should first be addressed to the employee's head of department, and if that is unsuccessful to meet with the administrative committee, which includes all members of council.
Last week, the Advocate reported that Coun. Joanne Peckham said Woloschuk went on stress leave in December, and followed proper procedure according to Policy 300-014 in order to address workplace concerns he had. She said the procedure had “absolutely not” been followed, and multiple councillors confirmed at the Jan. 17 administrative committee meeting with Woloschuk and his lawyer three members of council walked out of the meeting and broke quorum.
Evans said in an earlier interview the staff appeal policy contravenes the MGA “and should be tossed out.”
“There's a dissonance here. If an employee is questioning…I don't know why that policy is in place. I don't even know where it came from, but I know it's been a thorn in my ass the past four years,” he said.
Alberta Municipal Affairs public affairs officer Jerry Ward pointed out in an email the MGA states in Section 201 that “council must not exercise a power or function or perform a duty that is by this or another enactment or bylaw specifically assigned to the CAO.”
He added section 207 states the CAO is the administrative head of the municipality, and the CAO is council's only employee.
Topinka replied to questions pertaining to Policy 300-014 in an email, which stated that “Council's role is a governance role. Council is responsible for developing and evaluating the policies and programs of the Town. The creation, deletion or amendment of committees and policies is at Council's sole discretion.”
He also said the “CAO is the administrative head of the town and as council's sole employee is responsible for the administration, operation, financial management and human resource management of the Town.”
Coun. Tim Verhaeghe said in an email “I think we need to ensure that all our policies are updated and relevant, so we should be reviewing all of them in a timely fashion.”
In comparison, Lac La Biche County's conflict resolution standard operating procedure says formal complaints from unresolved employee or managerial conflicts shall be submitted to the county's human resources department, where they will be reviewed and investigated.
Lac La Biche County communications co-ordinator Alex Fuller said in an email if the complaint “pertained to the CAO specifically and involved unethical practices or other significant matters, then the mayor and Council may choose to examine the matter as the CAO's employers and address it appropriately.”
– With files from Allendria Brunjes
