The entire 145-page governance audit that identifies dysfunction within Sechelt council, was released publicly Sept. 12.
While many of the findings and conclusions were revealed in the executive summary from George B. Cuff & Associates Ltd., which was released publicly in late June, the full report provides deeper insight into the factors that influenced the five pages of recommendations made to the mayor, council and senior staff.
While the entire report was released, a few points in the observations section have been redacted.
CAO-mayor relationship
One of the central tensions elucidated in the report is between the mayor and Sechelt’s chief administrative officer (CAO), whose positions the audit said represent “the apex of municipal leadership.”
The report is adamant that council has one employee –– the CAO –– and it is not to be handling day-to-day staff affairs. “A council’s role is oversight, not administration. It is assessing results, not plotting each step,” said the report.
It goes on to stress the importance of leaving the CAO to manage the administration. “The Mayor is not expected to interfere or try to ‘help’ the CAO manage, recognizing that to do so is to undermine the CAO in the eyes of his administration,” the report says.
“Daily interference by Council is simply a reflection of a lack of trust and a personal belief that Council members were elected to manage,” asserted the report, arguing that instead council’s role is to establish the policy framework leaving management to manage, using their experience and training.
CAO walks out
The report said the authors were advised an incident where the CAO was personally criticized at a committee of the whole meeting by the mayor, resulting in the CAO walking out of the meeting and not returning.
Another incident centred around the mayor accusing the CAO of having secret meetings with councillors. The audit said councillors were meeting with the CAO to discuss agenda topics with an open door. The audit states when the mayor found out this happened, he “was aggressive in his tone and language, to the point that the CAO wrote about his experience and was considering an harassment complaint.”
This resulted in a closed council meeting on Dec. 6, 2023 with senior management to identify problem areas for council to deal with. Problem areas discussed included how the mayor doesn’t want to collaborate with council, concern that the mayor is directing staff without council consultation, council finding it uneasy to be in chambers, concern that the mayor’s behaviour is damaging Sechelt’s reputation as well as the district’s relationship with the shíshálh Nation and affecting retention of district staff, among other points.
After the meeting, the mayor asked for more time for his reply and never followed up, the audit states council has yet to hear his response.
The audit said this meeting prompted the development of the council communication policy, which took effect in May and restricted the mayor and council from communicating directly with district staff except the CAO.
Summarized comments from staff and council observe the CAO “deflects and prefers to avoid meetings with the Mayor and Councillors in order to get things done.” The report continues, “Others observe that the CAO is hardly in the office and seems to have checked out, preferring to work from home or frequently away.”
“It appears to be an endurance game between the Mayor and the CAO,” said another comment.
The audit said the CAO has seemingly taken the approach that the less visible he is, the better the atmosphere will be for everyone else, “his lack of control is pronounced; his colleagues appear to fill in as necessary.”
However, the audit also defends the CAO’s performance. The audit says the CAO “appears focused on providing leadership to his colleagues” and “acting as a buffer between them and the Mayor.” The audit said where this has not worked well, the CAO has deferred to the director of corporate and community services as they appear to have a “more respectful relationship to the Mayor.”
Despite this, the audit notes that as the CAO is council’s chief policy advisor and administrative head, “He needs to be more visible in front of Council and in terms of taking responsibility for the administrative reports going to Council.” It also reaffirms the importance of the CAO putting his signature on all reports. “Simply saying ‘if the report is on the agenda, I approve’ is not sufficient.”
This difficult leadership relationship is not likely to be changed with the two people occupying the roles of mayor and CAO, says the report.
“The only likely change there will be limited to an absolute commitment to change in the ongoing relationship, beginning with a public apology by the Mayor or the resignation or retirement of the CAO,” says the report. “If the latter were to occur, we have little to no confidence that in the next relationship, after a honeymoon period of 2-3 months, would be any different.”
Leadership
The report also points toward an unnamed councillor who is problematic in council’s functioning. “Having one member opt out of meaningful discussions or consistently voting in opposition to almost every motion of any significance, reduces the capacity of the Council for useful change,” it states in the opening.
“In short, Council is described as dysfunctional, acrimonious and inefficient as a result of what is perceived as inadequate leadership by the Mayor and the interjections of a Councillor who feels compelled to advise the others of possessing considerably more experience,” the audit states, describing survey responses. It says that, “Most are surprised by the fact certain things do get done; attributed largely to the combined efforts of the [senior management team].”
The need to act as one body was frequently highlighted, that ideally, “Major decisions do not simply emanate from the mind of a creative Mayor or Councillor, but rather from a council acting as one body,” said the report. The report also acknowledged that unanimity isn’t the goal and that there’s a need for councillors to vote their conscience.
The audit identified dysfunction dating to the start of council’s term and said the approach to new councils’ orientation is in need of a complete refresh. The orientation has insufficient emphasis on key council roles, expected relationship to the CAO, rules and regulations of a council meeting, qualities and rules surrounding good governance and procedural bylaws.
Staff
Survey questions regarding outstanding issues revealed the staff’s frustration with the situation. Observations include that council is adversely affecting staff’s ability to do their work. Comments to staff were found to be “very disrespectful and seemingly designed to put people down.” Some staff members are allegedly “simply trying to survive this poor environment,” which results in them not keeping council as well informed as they should.
“The Mayor tries to directly orchestrate changes in staff reports to change outcomes to his point of view,” says one section.
Another observation reads, “As a means of sheltering his administration, the CAO requests that staff do not speak at [council] meetings unless they are spoken to.”
“What kind of advice can be provided such that our mental health can make it to 2026?” One response said.
One response, centred on water conversation stated, “The Mayor openly discouraged water summits but attended them; was on his phone the entire time and came back to the office to discuss what a waste of time government collaboration was.”
The report warns that “Council needs to express support for staff or may lose those of highest quality.”
In conclusion
“Given that leadership and ‘tone’ start at the top, the responsibility for this state of affairs lands largely at the feet of the Mayor,” says the audit and calls for the mayor to draw councillors together as a leadership team.
The impasse isn’t likely to change without an apology, says the report.
The status quo is not workable from a perspective of a body charged with community leadership, says the report. “Not only has the mayor made it very difficult to find common ground and work collegially, so too has one other member of council who continuously separates themselves from their colleagues. This has also been unhealthy and will not change unless the member decides to alter course or step down.”
The audit also made the case for a Governance and Priorities Committee –– a form of committee of the whole where council can seek clarification on bigger, more important issues –– and an agendas committee to oversee the council agenda.
Also noted by the audit was a need for council to strengthen its sanctions in the code of conduct so that it may address breaches of the code.
A glimer of hope in the dysfunction has been progress on major capital projects. “This is the one area wherein the senior management feel that some progress is being made,” said the report.
It notes council has been and may continue to be divided due in large measure to very difficult personalities making a sense of legitimate teamwork very difficult.
“Greater respect is needed by both parties if the District is to have the future it desires,” summarizes the report. It further notes, “The recommendations are interdependent, that is, it would not be wise to try to ‘cherry-pick’ these as each one presumes that all are being accepted.”
Read the report at sechelt.ca.
Jordan Copp is the Coast Reporter’s civic and Indigenous affairs reporter. This reporting beat is made possible by the Local Journalism Initiative.
