Wellington County has paid close to $1.2 million in settlements to terminated employees since 2012.
That was among the findings of a four-month Advertiser investigation into severance costs for local municipalities over the last five and a half years.
On Aug. 11, reacting to what appeared to be increased turnover of senior staff in some municipalities, the Newspaper requested the county and seven lower tier municipalities provide the total amount of annual severance payments made since Jan. 1, 2012.
Wellington County was the only one to respond right away with annual figures, which total $1,190,629.
CAO Scott Wilson considers that a cost of doing business for a municipality with hundreds of well-paying jobs and an annual budget of over $210 million (2017).
“We have over 800 employees,” he said in a Dec. 15 interview. “You’re going to have people who don’t fit.”
Wilson explained that even at their highest level, the severances amount to less than one per cent of the county’s labour costs, which in 2017 exceeded $43 million.
He also noted the City of Guelph would cover a portion of the settlements paid to former social services employees, and there’s likely some provincial contribution involved as well.
Likewise, the county would pay a portion of settlements provided by the city to emergency medical service personnel (the county and city share costs for social services and for paramedics/ambulances).
Wellington County’s annual breakdown of settlement costs is as follows:
– 2012: $166,610;
– 2013: $225,711;
– 2014: $231,527;
– 2015: $285,866;
– 2016: $156,105; and
– 2017: $124,812.
“The identity of who we terminated is masked by the numbers,” Wilson said, explaining the county’s willingness to provide the figures.
“We didn’t ask legal advice, we just sent (the information to the Newspaper).”
He added the situation is different for smaller, lower-tier municipalities with fewer employees.
“I can understand them being a bit more hesitant,” Wilson said. “I can see it if it was too easy to determine who was paid what.”
The Advertiser was able to obtain total settlement figures for 2012 to 2017 from five of the seven lower tier municipalities in the county:
– Centre Wellington $171,225;
– Mapleton $174,486;
– Minto $48,172;
– Puslinch $2,448; and
– Wellington North $106,611.
Officials from Guelph-Eramosa and Erin continue to refuse to provide information.
The process
The responses from municipal officials to the Newspaper’s request were wide-ranging.
Those who promptly supplied the information included: Wellington County (including an annual breakdown), Minto and Puslinch.
Citing concerns that annual figures could compromise privacy, Minto and Puslinch agreed to provide one figure for the six-year period.
After initially refusing the request due to privacy concerns, Centre Wellington and Wellington North eventually provided one figure in response to an official freedom of information (FOI) request.
Mapleton denied a similar FOI request but later provided the information following an Advertiser appeal of the decision with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario.
When contacted on Dec. 14, acting CAO Murray Clarke, who took over on Nov. 7 from CAO Brad McRoberts, suggested Mapleton would provide the 2012 to 2017 settlement information.
The figure ($174,486) was received via email on Dec. 18.
“We’ve had a chance to revisit the file and after a complete review … we reevaluated our previous decision and agreed it was … public domain,” he said in an interview that day.
Murray added, “My approach to these things is, we are managing a public business.”
Erin, Guelph-Eramosa
Officials with Guelph-Eramosa and Erin denied the FOI request, citing privacy concerns. Erin also refused because “the record as requested does not exist.”
On Nov. 23 the Advertiser appealed the Erin and Guelph-Eramosa denials to the IPC.
Informed on Dec. 18 that Guelph-Eramosa was one of only two municipalities to repeatedly refuse the Newspaper’s request, clerk Meaghen Ried offered little comment.
She stated the township reviewed the FOI request and its decision is outlined in its official Nov. 17 response.
That letter states the municipality can refuse to disclose personal information as well as details that “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests … or the competitive position of an institution.”
On Dec. 29, the Newspaper received correspondence from the IPC stating a mediator was assigned to its appeal of the Guelph-Eramosa decision.
The responses from Erin officials to the Advertiser requests seemed to be quite different than one provided to a town resident who made a similar request the previous year.
On June 8, 2016, resident Jane Vandervliet asked Erin officials for the “total value of all severances paid out annually … for the last five years to any and all previous employees,” including outstanding benefits and severances.
“I am not interested in what any specific individual was paid, just the totals by year,” wrote Vandervliet.
Nowhere in her response to that request did clerk Dina Lundy indicate the records as requested do not exist. Instead, she replied that it would cost $660 in searching, processing and preparing costs to fulfill the request.
“The interim decision is to deny access to the responsive records,” Lundy wrote, noting the decision was based on FOI exemptions regarding third party information, economic and other interests, and personal privacy.
She also suggested the town would have to provide notice to, and seek feedback from, “the person (to) whom the information relates before granting a request for access to a record.”
None of the Erin officials contacted by the Advertiser returned repeated requests for comment on this article. As of Jan. 2, the Advertiser was still waiting to hear back on the IPC appeal in Erin.
For more information click here.
