|
6. REMUNERATION FOR THE
POSITION OF AUDITOR GENERAL RÉMUNÉRATION DU
POSTE DE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL |
Committee RecommendationS AS AMENDED
That Council approve an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General
position, effective in 2008, in accordance with the salary scale established
for the Executive Director position and subject to a performance review to be
conducted at a future meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee; and
That progression within the pay-band for the
position be set by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
following an annual performance review to be held at a meeting subsequent to
Council’s discussion of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du comité
Que le Conseil approuve une hausse de rémunération du poste de
Vérificateur général, à compter de 2008, conformément à l’échelle salariale
établie pour le poste de directeur exécutif et sous réserve d’un examen de
rendement effectué lors d’une prochaine réunion du Comité des services
organisationnels et du développement économique; et
Que la progression au sein de la fourchette de traitement du poste
soit établie par le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement
économique, par suite d’un examen du rendement annuel effectué lors d’une
réunion subséquente aux discussions du Conseil sur le rapport annuel du
Vérificateur général.
Documentation
1. Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee report dated 5 February 2008 (ACS2008-CMR-CSE-0014).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 5 February 2008.
Report to / Rapport au :
City Council
Conseil municipal
Submitted by / Soumis par : Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee Comité des
services organisationnels et du développement économique
Contact/Personne-ressource : Diane Blais, Coordinator / Coordonnatrice
Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels
et du développement économique
(613) 580-2424 ext./poste : 28091 ; Diane.Blais@ottawa.ca
|
City Wide / À l'échelle
de la Ville |
Ref N°: ACS2008-CMR-CSE-0014 |
SUBJECT: REMUNERATION
FOR THE POSITION OF AUDITOR GENERAL
OBJET : RÉMUNÉRATION DU POSTE DE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council approve an increase in the remuneration of the
Auditor General position, effective in 2008, in accordance with the salary
scale established for the Executive Director position and subject to a
performance review to be conducted at a future meeting of the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee; and
That progression within the pay-band for the position be set by the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee following an annual
performance review to be held at a meeting subsequent to Council’s discussion
of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
Que le
Conseil approuve une hausse de rémunération du poste de Vérificateur général, à
compter de 2008, conformément à l’échelle salariale établie pour le poste de
directeur exécutif et sous réserve d’un examen de rendement effectué lors d’une
prochaine réunion du Comité des services organisationnels et du développement
économique; et
Que la
progression au sein de la fourchette de traitement du poste soit établie par le
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique, par suite
d’un examen du rendement annuel effectué lors d’une réunion subséquente aux
discussions du Conseil sur le rapport annuel du Vérificateur général.
background
In a memo dated 14 January 2008, the City Clerk and the City Solicitor referenced a report considered by Council at its meeting of 28 November 2007 titled Office of the Auditor General – Bill 130-Revised Mandate (ACS2007-OAG-0001). The memo reviewed the recommendations of the aforementioned report, provided some background and context with respect to the Auditor General’s request for a salary increase (recommendation 9 of the report), and outlined options for Committee and Council’s consideration of the matter.
At the 15 January 2008 meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC), Councillor R. Chiarelli submitted the following Notice of Motion, for consideration at the Committee’s 5 February 2008 meeting:
WHEREAS on 19-20 November 2007, the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee considered a report entitled “Office of the Auditor
General – Bill 130 – Revised Mandate”, including recommendation no. 9 with
respect to increasing the remuneration for the position of Auditor
General;
AND WHEREAS the
Committee referred that recommendation to City Council for its “consideration”,
and did not provide a specific recommendation on this issue in order to allow
the Auditor General sufficient time to provide supplemental information on
market comparators to all Councillors prior to the meeting of Council that
considered this report;
AND WHEREAS at its meeting of 28 November 2007, City Council
“received” recommendation no. 9 on consent without debate and/or
consideration;
AND WHEREAS in a memo dated 14 January 2008, the City Solicitor and
the City Clerk advised that they should have advised CSED Committee that “it
could have severed recommendation no. 9 …
and review the requested [market comparator] information at the next
CSEDC meeting”;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee consider recommendation no. 9 of the report titled
“Office of the Auditor General – Bill 13 – Revised Mandate”.
In a memo dated 4 February 2008, the City Clerk and the City Solicitor provided further procedural advice with respect to Committee’s and Council’s consideration of the Auditor General’s request for a salary increase and the Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Chiarelli on 15 January 2008 and listed on the CSEDC’s 5 February 2008 meeting agenda.
At the Committee’s 5 February 2008 meeting, Councillor Chiarelli introduced the following replacement motion:
That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend City Council approve an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General
position, effective in 2008, in accordance with the salary scale established
for the Executive Director position; and
Be It Further Resolved that progression within the pay-band for the
position be set by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
following an annual performance review to be held at a meeting subsequent to
Council’s discussion of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
During discussions on the item, Councillor R. Jellett proposed an amendment, which Councillor Chiarelli accepted as friendly to his motion. As a result, Committee voted on and approved the following revised motion:
That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend City Council approve
an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General position, effective in
2008, in accordance with the salary scale established for the Executive
Director position and subject to a performance review to be conducted at a
future meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee;
and
That progression within the pay-band for the position be set by the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee following an annual
performance review to be held at a meeting subsequent to Council’s discussion
of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
CONSULTATION
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
Document 1 - Memo from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor dated 14 January 2008, previously issued to all members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk
Document 2 - Memo from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor dated 4 February 2008, previously issued to all members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk
DISPOSITION
Employee Services Branch staff to implement Council’s decision.
REMUNERATION FOR THE POSITION OF
AUDITOR GENERAL
RÉMUNÉRATION DU POSTE DE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL
Councillor Deans raised the issue of the
rationale for why this matter was back before Committee. She referenced the suggestion that it was
because the City Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk had not advised the
Committee that this could be treated as a stand-alone item. She indicated this struck her was wrong,
noting that members of Council obviously knew the rules of procedure. She argued the Deputy City Clerk and the
City Solicitor did not advise Committee and Council of the procedural ins and
outs of every item coming forward and that, if this was accepted as the
rationale, one could re-open any matter without reconsideration. She stated this did not sit right with her.
As a result of the Councillor’s comments, Mayor
O’Brien asked for a comment from Legal Services staff. Mr. T. Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, noted
that when the matter was before Council, it was “received”. There was not a vote either for or against
the recommendation. Therefore, Council
did not make a substantive decision on the matter. In light of this, Mr. Marc opined that the matter could properly
be raised without any special voting requirements.
At this juncture, Councillor Chiarelli moved
the following replacement motion:
That
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend City
Council approve an increase
in the remuneration of the Auditor General position, effective in 2008, in
accordance with the salary scale established for the Executive Director
position; and
That progression within the pay-band for the
position be set by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
following an annual performance review to be held at a meeting subsequent to
Council’s discussion of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
Speaking to his motion, Councillor Chiarelli
suggested that with the changes in Council and the Auditor General’s (AG)
powers handed down by the Province and with some of the comparators evolving in
other municipalities, there appeared to be an oversight on the part of Council
in terms of remuneration for the AG. He
felt that in this particular case, the City had an AG who had done an excellent
job. He remarked that, unlike other
Auditor Generals, Ottawa’s AG was not out there trying to create headlines for
sensationalist reasons. He believed the
AG’s reports had, so far, been filled with merit-based judgements and
recommendations designed to have a true substantive impact on the City’s public
finances and that they were not dealing with trivial issues having no impact
but having high sensation value.
Therefore, he maintained because Ottawa had an AG who had done a good
job, had been very substantive, and now had additional tasks ahead of him and
because they lay of the land had changed on a province-wide comparator basis,
he felt it made sense to make an adjustment.
Although he thought it would not be reasonable to go to the same rate as
Toronto, which was a much larger city, he believed it made sense to give some
increase and that his motion represented a fair middle ground.
Responding to a question from Councillor
El-Chantiry, Mr. Marc advised the pay band for the position of Executive
Director was $161,828 to $180,047.
Mayor O’Brien noted top range of the Auditor
General’s (AG) current pay band was approximately $155,000. Therefore, the recommended salary scale was
between the AG’s current pay band and the Deputy City Manager level.
Councillor Wilkinson remarked that usually,
when the City was re-assessing staff positions and putting them into a
different category, there was an analysis done. She noted she had not seen an analysis on this position and she
wondered if it had been done by staff behind the scenes.
Mayor O’Brien confirmed there was no analysis
done nor was there a report, since the Auditor General reported directly to
Council. However, he referenced the
comparators for other cities and suggested that Councillor Chiarelli’s motion
fit in with the band in other cities.
Councillor Wilkinson maintained it would have
been useful to have a report on the comparators. She felt this was not a good way of dealing with staff positions.
Councillor Chiarelli submitted that going
through the points evaluation would not lead to the same conclusion because the
points evaluation system was based largely on the number of employees reporting
to the incumbent. He remarked that the
AG position existed to help find efficiencies in the organizations, therefore
Council could not very well turn around and penalize him for not having enough
employees reporting to him.
Furthermore, he maintained this was a very different kind of animal
because Council should look at comparing the job done and the value it provided
as opposed to a points based evaluation.
Councillor Wilkinson maintained that what
Councillor Chiarelli had outlined as the rationale for approving this increase
could have been put into a report to Committee and Council. She argued Committee and Council had no
background report from staff giving any kind of suggestion one way or the
other. She indicated she was not
opposed to doing this and she understood the reasons for it. However, she re-iterated that normally, when
changing salary classifications, some background information was provided in
writing so Council members could judge whether or not it was appropriate.
Responding to a further comment from Councillor
Wilkinson, Mayor O’Brien confirmed that the envelope with which the AG was
working would not change. Therefore,
any increase in his salary would simply result in a little less money his
office had to spend on other things.
Councillor Hume indicated he was still
uncomfortable with how this matter was brought forward. He noted the Chair had made a ruling and he
advised that he would not challenge it.
However, he felt the rules needed to be clarified with respect to how
this item had been brought before Committee because he fundamentally believed
that Committee and Council knew what they were doing when they dealt with
recommendation 9 of the AG’s report in November. He maintained Council knew exactly what the recommendation was;
it was considered and received. As
such, Council decided to take no action.
In closing, he asked that the rules be clarified so that this loop hole
would not be exploited in the future to have matters brought back before
Committee and Council.
Mayor O’Brien felt this was a good point. Mr. Marc responded by indicating he would
request that the City Solicitor ensure the matter came up in the mid-term governance
review.
Councillor Brooks maintained that if the City
wanted to get good quality people, it had to pay them. He felt Council needed to consider the
qualifications and job requirements and, in setting a pay rate for the position
of AG, Council should consider whether the salary would be sufficient to
attract and retain qualified, quality candidates five or ten years hence.
Councillor El-Chantiry noted the motion called
for Committee to conduct annual performance reviews. Therefore, he submitted it would be up to members to do their due
diligence.
Picking up on that point, Councillor Jellett
wondered, if Committee and Council would be basing future years’ increased on a
performance review, why it would not do a performance appraisal this year, prior
to adopting this first increase.
Mayor O’Brien submitted that by approving this
band change, members of Council would be expressing that they were comfortable
with the AG’s performance to date.
Councillor Jellett proposed an amendment to the
first part of Councillor Chiarelli’s motion; that the increase in pay scale be
subject to a performance appraisal at a future meeting of the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee.
Councillor Chiarelli felt it was important to
look at the context. He maintained this
was a unique office. There was not
another office like that of the AG at the City. He noted Council had established an initial pay system based on a
set of circumstances, criteria and the workplan and responsibilities of the
office, as these existed at its inception.
Council did not set-up a process to review this, nor to receive
petitions to review it. Now, he
remarked that a memo had come forward to Council indicating that the
responsibilities of the office and the comparators’ rates had changed. Therefore, Council had been seized with the
question of dealing with it or of not dealing with it. He indicated a motion had come forward to
deal with it and part of the solution included the recommendation of an annual
performance review against the base year.
He acknowledged that Committee could do a performance review in two or
three weeks. However, he did not think
it would have been worth Council’s time to spend a whole lot of effort on
establishing a process for a one-person back when that office was
established. He did not believe Council
had made a huge mistake. He felt it was
perfectly reasonable to allow the AG, or anyone else in a one-person office, to
petition Council directly to deal with a problem like this. In closing, he accepted Councillor Jellett’s
proposal as a friendly amendment to his motion, noting Committee could deal
with it in two weeks, or whenever was appropriate.
Councillor Wilkinson suggested that if
Committee was going to conduct a performance review, a process needed to be
outlined.
Councillor Chiarelli assumed Committee would
follow the same process as was used in conducting the City Manager’s
performance evaluations.
Mayor O’Brien indicated a process would be
brought forward, as soon as possible, for the performance evaluations of both
the Auditor General and the City Manager.
At this juncture, Committee voted on the
revised motion.
Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli
That Council approve an increase in the
remuneration of the Auditor General position, effective in 2008, in accordance
with the salary scale established for the Executive Director position and
subject to a performance review to be conducted at a future meeting of the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee; and
That progression within the pay-band for the
position be set by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
following an annual performance review to be held at a meeting subsequent to
Council’s discussion of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
CARRIED
as amended