Pelham Council rebuked for treatment of staff

Ex-councillor and 2018 mayoral race runner-up Gary Accursi has bitten his tongue for a year and a half, but he says what he saw transpire during council’s March 2 meeting was the final straw. In a 2400-word letter to council—received as correspondence at this Monday’s council meeting and reproduced below—Accursi takes the body to task on a range of issues, particularly their mistreatment, in his view, of Town staff.

Speaking to the Voice over the weekend, Accursi said that he was initially determined to stay above the fray, to give the new council time to learn the ropes, to understand the process and to appreciate the complexity of municipal leadership and politics.

“It’s not as simple as it looks,” said the 71-year-old, who served two terms representing Ward 2.

Born in Welland, Accursi and his wife, Mall, have lived in Pelham for 47 years. His volunteer experience over the years includes chair of his church board, chair of Big Brothers of Welland County, Member of Pelham Minor Baseball board, coaching positions in hockey and lacrosse, and being one of the founding members of the Pelham Business Association.

“Serving on council is more than one meeting every two weeks. It takes preparation and learning to understand the role of municipal government in relationship to the Regional, the provincial and the federal governments.”

He added that it takes time to develop an understanding of the issues facing the town, and the role of professional staff.

“It is wonderful to promise the world on the campaign trail, and quite something else to deliver on these uninformed promises.”

Accursi said as time passed since the 2018 election, he became more engaged, not as a former councillor but as a concerned citizen.

“I became increasingly frustrated by what appeared to me to be a lack of understanding of upper-tier legislation, a lack of preparation for meetings—based on questions asked and comments made—and a lack of respect for the advice and recommendations of senior staff.”

Accursi asserted that decisions with respect to planning and development have been particularly glaring.

“How many decisions have blatantly gone against Regional and provincial mandates,” he asked.

Local decisions cannot frustrate or attempt to supersede upper-tier legislation.

Accursi, a minor developer himself, maintains that poor council choices have resulted in unnecessary appeals, which demand that the Town now spend tax money to hire a new law firm and outside planner “to defend an indefensible position.”

“I get it that as a council you want to please your citizens, but sometimes you need to make decisions based on detailed knowledge of the circumstances.”

Accursi said that this knowledge and understanding is often something that the average citizen does not have, which means that some votes will appear to be against what residents want.

In his letter, Accursi also suggests that Mayor Marvin Junkin take a firmer hand running council meetings. Given the number of issues on council’s plate since they took office, meetings have routinely gone over curfew, even as their start times were moved ahead an hour to 5:30.

Particularly in comparison to his predecessor, Junkin generally runs the agenda with a light hand, permitting extended runs of questioning that occasionally go in circles when councillors appear not to understand—or accept—staff answers.

The Voice requested reaction to Accursi’s letter from each councillor and from the Mayor. Five councillors did not acknowledge the request. Mayor Junkin replied, as did Councillor Mike Ciolfi.

In Ciolfi’s case, however, it was to apologize for being unable to answer due to illness.

“I have been very sick since last Friday,” Ciolfi wrote in an email. “If I continue to feel like this I will not be able to participate in Monday’s meeting. Hopefully other members of council will be able to provide a response.”

Mayor Junkin recalled his time working with Accursi on council and sees little to disagree with in his letter.

“During my time as Town Councillor, from 2014 through most of 2017, I had the pleasure of sitting beside Gary. Over those three years, I came to realize that Gary was the consummate councillor. He came prepared for every meeting, asked meaningful questions of staff, and did so respectfully.”

Junkin said that Accursi understood “the true role of council and his duties as an elected official.”

“Having read Mr. Accursi’s letter to council, which he was fully entitled to write, my high regard for him remains fully intact.”

Accursi also takes Town CAO David Cribbs to task for not, in his view, better defending the work of his staff. Cribbs has largely sought to act as a neutral intermediary, deflecting what are arguably some councillors’ unreasonable demands and expectations—often expressed in tones bordering on the contemptuous.

Since Accursi said his letter was triggered by the March 2 council meeting, the Voice asked whether his viewing of subsequent meetings had changed his mind about Cribbs, who has evidenced increasingly visible signs of frustration with some council decisions.

“I do not know the CAO and have never met him,” Accursi said. “I am sure he is very knowledgeable in things municipal. He seems to be engaged in meetings. The only comment I can make, based on watching a few meetings, is that his answers to questions tend to be delivered in lawyer-speak, and at times tend to be rather circuitous.”

Accursi said that this seemed to result in confusion among councillors.

“I don’t know this to be fact, and is only based on my assessment of the situation. It may be completely off base and unfair to him and council. I welcome him to the community and wish him well.”

Junkin defended Cribbs, calling it one of his few disagreements with Accursi’s assessment.

“I have been working closely with Mr. Cribbs, and feel that he has done a capable job of navigating opposing views on potential fixes to the cannabis issue,” said Junkin. “There has not been a lack of leadership by the CAO on this or other files. That assessment aside, Gary’s advice and words of wisdom should serve as food for thought to both myself and all of council.”

The following is Accursi's letter to council, with minor edits for clarity, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling to match Voice journalistic style.

RELATED

Editorial: Politeness, deference to expertise, is sorely needed

Dear Mayor Junkin and Council,

It is with reluctance that I write this letter, as I am sure I will be accused of merely throwing mud, and of practicing sour grapes given my former position on council and my defeat in the last election but I decided to write anyway because I felt that as a private citizen and taxpayer I have every right to comment on issues impacting this town, its reputation and my tax dollars. So here it goes!

I watched the meeting of March 2, 2020 as several items on the agenda were of interest to me, namely the issues surrounding the cannabis matter and the issues surrounding the continued spending of unbudgeted funds.

At the outset, I would like to say how much I appreciate the hard work which the Cannabis Committee has put forward on behalf of the Town and my remarks are not in any way intended to be critical of them. This town functions as well as it does because of the great work that our many community volunteers do.

My comments are directed at what I see as an unbelievable divide between this committee and the senior planning staff. Council seems unsure of which group to support. Till the meeting of March 2, this divide was for the most part behind the scenes, although somewhat apparent if one thoroughly read the various reports and watched the various presentations.

This obvious discord provides fuel to the cannabis industry producers if they choose to appeal any changes made to the various bylaws and Official Plan. It may also provide key witnesses for them from our own Town staff.

What took place on March 2, was, in my opinion, unseemly and unprofessional. To have the type of open discord and disagreement between the Town's professional staff and a volunteer committee was unbelievable to me.

These types of discussions should have taken place at a meeting convened by the CAO and the Mayor and a resolution arrived at and presented in a unified manner to the public and the opponents of the contemplated legislative amendments and bylaws. To have had the types of discussions seen only adds fuel to the fire of the complainants.

As I continued to view the meeting, I was amazed at the report from the CAO concerning the public meeting issue and the discussion surrounding it. This report further pointed out the disagreement between the parties.

It took no sides, when again in my opinion the CAO should have supported his staff. This support should have come about by way of a thorough and complete discussion with staff around their position on the matter. Any massaging of their position should have been done at the staff level and any disagreement sorted out there.

Although the CAO could argue that he was relying on the opinion of outside counsel, I question whether that opinion argued in any way against another public meeting. It merely pointed out that council has the right to forgo this step if it is of the opinion that the changes proposed are not substantial. It further goes on to support, however, a public open house, which I would argue would still require that proper notice be given to the public.

Apparently at this open house, the Town would undertake to receive public input. Kind of sucking and blowing at the same time if you ask me. Our CAO is a lawyer and I am certain he could provide sound practical advice to this council that goes beyond mouthing the words of the Act. Could he not interpret these words in a real world and factual situation? To argue over semantics at this point in the process seems counterproductive to me. We know that the industry is going to challenge the Town regardless of the changes made. They have made this clear. Why not reduce their arguments.

This council and Mayor ran on openness and transparency but here we have an issue were staff is recommending a statutory public meeting and for whatever reason this council (on the wishes of the committee) are pushing back.

If one looks at all the arguments for and against, I believe a public meeting serves several purposes. Firstly it removes the argument that the cannabis growers did not have a fair and equitable opportunity to review the proposed changes, to evaluate the impacts on their businesses and to provide input in a formal way.

Secondly, by providing this opportunity, the Town and staff will be made aware of the planning, business and legal challenges which the industry might mount on appeal, and would have an opportunity to respond to those challenges either by way of prepared arguments or by way of amendments to the changes accomplished through negotiation.

This opportunity could head-off the appeal to the changes which could prove to be long and costly for both parties. I point out that the industry has far more funding than the Town.

Lastly it would provide an opportunity for others in the public, growers of other crops and citizens alike, an opportunity to hear all the arguments for and against the changes and to provide their input.

To council, I say practice what you so loudly preached—openness and transparency should be your course of action and a formal public meeting will satisfy this regardless of the degree of changes proposed.

I realize that there will be those that read the above, who will say that I am merely an apologist for senior staff. Trust me that is not the case and never has been.

Look at my record. There was no one who was harder on staff and demanded more from them than I. I was never afraid to ask tough questions but I tried to do these things without being insulting and derogatory.

After reading staff reports, ask your questions of staff in the days leading up to the meeting. Give them a heads-up that questions are coming at council. It's a long four years when you are in an adversarial environment and it will limit what you will be able to accomplish.

I would like to make one further comment on the cannabis matter. I am shocked that this council is having the Cannabis Control Committee respond to the letters put forward by legal teams for the various growers of cannabis. These matters represent serious legal challenges to the Town and the response should only come from the Mayor and council after a thorough vetting from legal. To direct a volunteer committee to deal with these matters is beyond the pale.

I wonder who holds legal liability with respect to their response. Are the committee members insured against such matters? The minute there is a legal challenge or a hint of one, the matter should rest with Mayor and council, senior staff and the Town’s legal advisors, not with a volunteer committee.

Now on to the spending of unbudgeted funds. This council has constantly cried poor and stated that there is no money for anything. They developed a budget which showed a substantial tax increase to all citizens and yet every time one turns around, they are passing motions to spend more money. Money not budgeted for and therefore not provided for.

At the meeting which I am commenting on, council spent money off budget when it approved another $30,000 for outside legal advice for the Cannabis Committee. It was only two weeks previous that $50,000 was approved. I think the council has now spent or authorized in excess of $100,000 on this matter, much of which was unbudgeted. This represents another approximate 1% on the levy to the taxpayer. When will this end—or is there an open account here.

Would it not have been prudent to have obtained a fixed contract price to complete the work necessary to bring forward the changes necessary?

Further, would it not have been prudent to have had staff involved in the discussions? How much staff time has been spent, and therefore money, on developing reports that appear for the most part to be ignored?

If the Town is going to rely on the outside experts then why has staff spent their time on reports? There is plenty for them to do without writing reports which basically go ignored.

Lastly, was the procurement policy of the Town followed with respect to the hiring of the planners and legal firm?

The gypsy moth issue is another example where council considered going off budget. The budget set aside $150,000 to address the problem this year, and yet a substantial amount of time was spent debating increasing the taxation on the public by another half percent, a move that would increase the area sprayed but would not cover all the areas needed.

A great deal of time was spent arguing with staff on how this should be done, despite staff advising on numerous occasions that it could not be done the way council envisioned. Kind of "getting' in the weeds" don't you think?

Eventually, rational thought won out and a motion to proceed as budgeted moved forward, however with a proviso that the issue could be revisited.

The Town should look after the Town lands (as was planned when the budget was struck) and provide information to the public on how they can take care of their own properties. This is the only fair and equitable way to proceed other than spraying the entire Town (at a cost of more than $1 million dollars). The lessons learned last year with respect to spraying private property and then trying to collect the amount fronted by the Town should be a lesson well- learned.

Creating the position of in-house counsel is another example of off-the-books spending. While I like the idea of shared services and I can see a business case which could be made to bring some matters in house, I would think that the legal issues which cost the most money will still need to seek outside expertise. The responsibility of taking on a new employee is significant. It is all too easy to hire and not so easy to remove an employee. Have the issues which could realistically be handled in house been identified and quantified in terms of hours and then dollars. I question whether the Town can hire an experienced municipal lawyer or, for that matter, even an experienced generalist, for $75-$90 dollars. In fact, if you do hire at $90/hour, this amounts to substantially more when you add the costs of all benefits and liabilities.

Would the legal liabilities of the Town increase by doing our own work in house as opposed to relying on outside counsel to whom the Town could claim against if an issue went off the rails? Is there a contract with the current outside firm? Has any thought been given to looking at hiring a paralegal to handle the simple and mundane matters? I would argue that this would be a great deal more cost effective.

Certainly with the expertise of the CAO overseeing such matters, this might be a viable alternative. This direction represents more unbudgeted money to be spent. Will the taxes be further increased? If not, what services might be cut to offset the expenditures?

I would also like to comment on the hiring of a policy planner. I realize that the hire has already been done and I wish the new planner well, and I am sure she will work hard for the Town, but I do worry about these types of long-term commitments. I certainly understand that the zoning bylaw is very outdated (the past council was virtually at the point of having public input into the new bylaw) and that the Official Plan needs review but again I wonder about the wisdom of taking on another full-time employee. Will this position become redundant once these issues are resolved and the period of rapid growth and development passes? Contracting may have proved cheaper and more efficient with less long term liability to the Town. Was this option even evaluated? What were the results?

My last observation of concern, which I would like to draw to the attention of the Mayor and council, is a breach in the Code of Ethics and Confidentiality which occurred during the meeting and went completely unrecognized and unchallenged by the chair. Legal advice given in camera is to be kept confidential, as its revelation may in fact hurt the legal position of the Town at some point. I will not name the councillor involved but I believe if the video of the meeting is reviewed it will become abundantly apparent when the breach occurred. The chair should have stopped the speaker in his tracks, spoken to him regarding the breach and not allowed him to proceed with his quoting of the advice. Councillors have been removed from meetings for less.

It begs the question, if this can occur in an open meeting of council without recognition, what information gets revealed over a coffee or in a social setting or to the press without actually realizing that a breach has occurred. Perhaps a review of these issues should occur.

I realize council has many challenges in front of them but I also realize the importance of having a committed staff which knows it is appreciated for its expertise. I think your actions need to reinforce this.

Being supportive of staff does not preclude a hearty discussion and question-and-answer period, but at the end of the day there needs to be a realization that they are the professionals who carry out the policy direction of council.

It is not up to council to run the day to day operations of the Town.

Councillor Kore said in the meeting that he felt he got elected to make the tough decisions. Sometimes the toughest decisions are to support staff and to say no to the public, even if they are hard-working volunteers or taxpayers in your ward.

You, as council, are to be the ones informed on the issues at hand and need to act as such. Make the hard decisions for the entire town!

Thank you for your time and your service to the community.

Yours truly,

G. E. Accursi, DDS, MSc.