EDITORIAL – What did the CSO arbitration cost Kamloops taxpayers?
(Image: CFJC today)
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger
IT WAS GOOD NEWS when the City announced that all the problems have been ironed out with the Canadian Union of Public Employees over the switch from Bylaws to Community Service Officers.
“We can confirm that the entirety of the dispute and all differences have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City and the union,” stated a news release.
What about the satisfaction of taxpayers? Are they happy with what it cost them to “resolve all outstanding issues”?
Difficult to know since the costs are being kept under tight wraps with a non-disclosure agreement that binds the parties to “rules of strict confidentiality.”
No reason is given for this and, in fact, no logical reason exists that I can think of. Speculation about the cost has ranged up to $5 million. Acting CAO Byron McCorkell says that’s way off the mark. The real cost, he says, is “a fraction of that.”
What does that mean? Does it mean it’s closer to $2 million, as some think? Lower? Somewhere in between?
Mel Rothenburger is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Mel,
The public outrage is real with the antics going on with our city management and specifically, the councillors.
Is there anything that we can do to ensure council knows our community displeasure with how all 8 of them plus management is acting?
How about the accountability for situations like this? What is the best way to bring this to the forefront of discussion to them rather than it getting buried?
Thank you for your unbiased reporting – it’s about the only source of real, old-school reporting of the issues asking genuine questions.
LikeLike
What would be the purpose to have a non-disclosure agreement? The only thing I can think of is to obfuscate the settlement to protect the city and administration from embarrassment.
These are public funds, from taxpayers, that have been between the public entity of the city, and public servant workers of the city.
This sort of smokescreen should be illegal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What it means is that the Bylaws department despite all the jazz and the circus and the consultants is still the most dis-functional department at the “corporation”. The “corporation” which is hell bent in making sure its interests are well protected, taxpayers notwithstanding.
Who are we kidding? Actually who is McCorkell kidding?
LikeLike
“A fraction”, lol. 4/5 is a fraction, and so is 1/5. This seems to be nothing more than political-speak, in which one appears to be saying something while actually saying nothing. Could even be misleading. How are the taxpayers footing the bill(s) to know?
LikeLike
This is an excellent, unbiased editorial Mel. You have presented so many of the questions that have been asked or considered and in truth, they demand answers.
Is there a bit of “spin” in the answer given by the acting CAO? After all, he should realize that it is difficult to buffalo folks who have held jobs, raised families, paid mortgages etc. for most of our adult lives. We have experienced private industry where managers are held accountable if and when their decision(s) cost a company or corporation a considerable amount of money.
Chief Ken Uzeloc appears to be on board with the minimal amount of the cost of the arbitration. I can’t help but wonder if he would feel the same way had it been 22 Kamloops Fire & Rescue firefighters instead of 22 bylaw staff who lost their jobs?
LikeLike