Westlock County has offered all full-time employees a severance package that includes three months pay — if they give notice by Oct. 15.
The offer, copies of which were provided to the Westlock News from multiple anonymous sources, includes a two-page contract outlining the terms of the offer. These terms include waiving all current and future claims against the county and not disclosing anything “to the detriment of the employer.” Their last day of work would be Oct. 31.
“We recommend, (sic) that you consider this voluntary proposal carefully and seek legal advice, should you wish to do so,” the letter reads.
Reeve Bud Massey said the intent of the letter is to make sure everyone working for the county is pulling in the same direction as the county moves to focus more on customer service, and it wasn’t meant as an ultimatum. “The intent of it is to be fair to any employee who would wish to leave but to really tell people that we want to be a strong team,” he said. “If you want to be part of the team, great. If you don’t, here’s an opportunity for you to leave with dignity and assistance.”
He said council discussed the matter in camera, and gave CAO Peter Kelly approval to issue the letter to all full-time and permanent employees, but did not pass a motion authorizing the potential expenditure.
“No, it hasn’t had a formal motion, but we did authorize that as the employer, the CAO would have that authority, and if it was necessary we would then pass a motion authorizing the payment,” Massey said. “I guess the problem was he was the one who wished to announce it, and if we’d passed a motion at the meeting it would have been out before he had a chance to talk to the staff.”
He added he believes a motion authorizing the offer wouldn’t be required under the Municipal Government Act, regardless, because the expenses could be covered by the existing 2014 operating budget.
Massey said he believes the offer would apply to 56 county employees, but doesn’t know what the full potential budget impact of the offer would be.
“Personally, no, I don’t,” he said. “I don’t think that’s even a reasonable assumption, because not everybody’s going to take it. In fact, nobody might take it.”
Kelly said because this is a personnel issue, he wouldn’t comment publicly. He wouldn’t say what the potential cost of the offer was, either.
“I won’t get into any detail,” he said. “You’re basically on speculation of cost, so that’s unfair to the overall process until we know.”
According to the county’s 2013 audited financial statement, the total budget for salaries and wages was $4.7 million. Three months’ worth, or one quarter of that amount, is more than $1.1 million, not accounting for how much of that money may have been paid to part-time or temporary employees.
Massey said it’s unlikely very many employees will accept the offer, and any potential budget impact would be covered by the 2014 operating budget and therefore wouldn’t require a separate motion of council.
Section 248 of the Municipal Government Act states expenditures must be included in an existing budget or “otherwise authorized by council,” typically meaning by way of a resolution.
Municipal Affairs spokesperson Ryan Heise said this was a complex issue, and one that would be left to decision-makers at the local level. He could not say whether the process the county used was correct or not.
“We’re not at liberty to interpret the MGA,” he said. “It’s up to the courts to decide whether something has been contravened.”
Heise said he could not say whether this kind of buyout offer has been made in Alberta municipalities, as it’s not something Municipal Affairs keeps track of. Regardless it’s a decision for the local body to make, he said.
“Ultimately, this is a local decision and it’s really for the council to decide, as long as the way they’re implementing these buyouts is consistent with employment standards and the collective agreement,” he said.
Massey said he hopes those resistant to the new leadership will take the offer and others will accept the planned changes.
“Council had talked to the new CAO who wants to build a strong, customer-focused team,” he said. “He wasn’t sure that everybody wanted to participate because there was some resistance to changing the office hours and to getting rid of the answering machine.”
He wouldn’t elaborate much on what other changes are planned, except that there will be increased accountability and record keeping in terms of incoming phone calls.
“There will be logging of telephone calls in to make sure people have their phone calls returned. There will be better record keeping of what calls came in and what action was taken, so that when people phone in their requests are addressed in a meaningful way,” he said.
Massey also hinted that Kelly might be looking at some significant changes within the county’s workforce in terms of numbers and organization.
“He’s doing the assessment of whether we have the right amount of staff, whether we have the right staff in the right positions, what training is required, what changes could be made or should be made to improve efficiency and productivity,” he said.
He emphasized the offer was not meant to be taken as an ultimatum, but conceded some might have taken it that way.
“Some employees don’t like the change the new council has brought forward about more accountability and more productivity, more efficiency and more response to taxpayers,” he said. “I’m sure there are some people welcoming the change and some people that aren’t. Resistance to change is pretty common.”
