Smithers Will Face a 5.2% Tax Increase for Administrator's Departure

Monday, June 18, 2007 04:00 AM

A former municipal politician who had served two decades in municipal politics says he was not surprised to hear the manner in which three top Ft. St. John City managers were dismissed this past week.

The same consulting company that recommended the changes at City Hall in Ft. St. John , George B Cuff & Associates Ltd., did a review in Smithers earlier this year.

Following that review Wallace Mah , who had been the Administrator of the Community, left the town in what has been described as a "mutual understanding".

According to the town of Smither's web site, Mah received about $171,000 dollars in wages and benefits as his payout in that departure. Given the fact that $ 32,000 dollars means an increase of 1% in property taxes, the cost to that community will result in an increase in municipal taxes of about 5.2 %

Four Councilors say Mah’s departure came after disagreements over the building of a new City Hall (the old structure was 70 years old) the construction of Highway 16 through the community and the construction of a new Canadian Tire store.

Since Mah left the employ as Adminstrator in Smithers, two other senior managers have resigned and moved to Nanaimo.

Present Mayor Jim Davidson, had run on a campaign that he would not build a new City Hall. He was over ruled by the Council following his election to office.

Here is a portion of how George B Cuff and Associates Ltd list itself on its Web Site.

Established in 1984, the firm of George B. Cuff & Associates consists of a wide variety of seasoned professionals who offer their services on a per diem basis. As a result of this approach, and as President of the firm George Cuff is able to assemble the best minds in a particular field on short notice for significant engagements. His firm provides a variety of consulting services to mostly public sector clients principally in the areas of board and council governance, organization reviews, trouble-shooting, executive recruitment, staff and elected official training and special projects.

George served four terms as Mayor of Spruce Grove, Alberta (population 17,000), having been first elected in 1977. In addition to having chaired numerous boards and committees, George is also a Past President of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (1982-83) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (1988-89). He has subsequently received the Award of Excellence from both of those organizations

Under the Municipal Act, there is an opportunity for appeal of a Council’s decision. But as our former municipal official says, "It’s a bit like firing a coach because the team isn’t performing. He isn’t the guy at fault, but he gets to pay the penalty."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, June 18, 2007 04:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lunarguy on June 18 2007 6:19 AM

Sort of sounds like what the University did. Bring in some consultant, slashed things as they saw how it should be. Consultant leaves down, doesn't monitor what is happening now and the quality of the University goes down dramatically.

Posted by: skabowl1 on June 18 2007 8:01 AM

what is the old line about consultants, something about some one more with a briefcase who is more than 100km from home? Often when these folk get hired, they know they cannot come back and say everything is going well, so they look for the smallest reason to disrupt the apple cart. They figure it makes them look useful! Does that provide value in this case to the cities or the taxpayers?

Posted by: owl on June 18 2007 8:34 AM

Okay, now the thing is starting to make sense. The locals are not good enough to govern, so they have to bring in a consultant for a fresh look.

The consultant tells them things could be better and here is what you have to do to get there. Since the Council was not good enough to do things on their own in the first place, why would anyone think that Council can actually decide whether the consultant's recommendations are worth following?

Our Council understands that such people are only consultants and that they do not have to take their advice.

In the case of the Cameron Street Bride, for instance, engineers advised against building a bridge at or near the existing Cameron Street Bridge, and instead recommended, in a report dated January 2003, it be built about halfway between the existing bridge and Cottonwood Island Park for something like $9million.

Had Council listened and commissioned the bridge, it could have been designed that summer, built into the river over the late fall and winter and completed by fall 2004 or, at worst, spring/summer 2005. The Cameron street bridge would have been closed to vehicular traffic not because of structural problems, but because a new rout was in place. We would have a new bridge in a progressive location as an actual catalyst for the re-population of downtown, with a heritage bridge for continuing use by pedestrians and cyclists.

Posted by: owl on June 18 2007 8:36 AM

Bride??? .... LOL ... Bridge .... :-)

Posted by: seamutt on June 18 2007 2:16 PM

I like Bride better!

Posted by: thereasonableman on June 18 2007 9:52 PM

Under the "Taxpayer Income Piss-It-Away Act", this is the kind of thing we should already be accustomed to and maybe even start to enjoy it.

But didn't the various governments say they couldn't afford to pay for the replacement of "deemed unsafe" playgrounds at our schools ?

Aren't they, in fact, being torn down whether they can be replaced or not ?

Aren't we, in fact, spending a lot of time trying to raise the money through bottle drives, dances, raffles, etc. ?

Yet, between these two municipalities, about $800,000 was pissed away for nothing...absolutely no benefit to the taxpayer whatsoever.

Meanwhile, we are trying to raise $12,000 to $16,000 per playground, and we have to put the f*cking thing up on our own time on weekends because the government can't afford to pay for it ! (that's if we manage to raise the money to buy it)

I said, "I think we got a problem here".

Posted by: thereasonableman on June 18 2007 9:53 PM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: thereasonableman on June 18 2007 9:54 PM

(for the hearing impaired)

Posted by: owl on June 19 2007 8:16 AM

I think the playgrounds are a good case in point. There are many other cases as well as we all know.

I really do not know what the cost benefit analysis is for laying sthree people off at a cost of $600,000. That part, as far as I am concerned, should not be hidden under the "it's a personnel matter" banner. That part is a simple if we do this, then that scenario. In other words, where are the savings? Were those 3 "pissing" away the money and by putting in $600,000" it will save future decisions like that? If so, sure to God someone can determine that they were not doing their job properly. If they cannot do that, then they should step down from office. What other parts of the duties of care when it comes to managment oversight will they not be able to do properly?

I realize that until the info comes forward, it is all a stab in the dark.

Posted by: Chester on June 19 2007 10:46 PM

It's one thing to hire an outside consultant. It's another to take their advice.

Too much buddy buddy stuff when we only work within the parametres or our own tight little group of power monguls. Need outside help to break up the few who control the butter. Chester