Peggy Revell
Rainy River District School Board voted 5-2 last night to rescind the changes made—behind closed doors—to severance packages of senior administration by the former board.
While actual conditions of the contracts could not be reversed unilaterally, the motion was brought forward by trustee Ralph Hill so the public would know the current board was not in favour of the previous board’s actions.
The controversy surrounding the severance packages first arose when the new board discovered in January that the outgoing one had amended the contracts in-camera at its final meeting back in November.
These amendments saw the severance package of both Education Director Heather Campbell and Superintendent of Business Laura Mills increased to four years’ worth of pay and benefits (instead of one and two years, respectively) if let go.
Voting in favour of the motion at last night’s regular board meeting were Hill, Michael Lewis, Earl Klyne, Dianne McCormack, and David Kircher.
Voting against the motion were Dan Belluz and Marg Heyens—the only two trustees to return to the board following last fall’s municipal election (with Belluz being the former chair of the board, as well).
During the meeting, Belluz objected to the motion, citing Robert’s Rules of Order and arguing that it was not present on the given agenda for June’s meeting.
But chairman Michael Lewis ruled against this objection, saying Hill gave notice of the motion at the May meeting and all trustees were informed of it.
While Belluz said he accepted Lewis’ ruling on this aspect, he also asked if “the motion is in order,” pointing to Robert’s Rules of Order whereby “the motion to rescind can only be applied to votes on nay motions, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded on something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact.”
“It’s a motion that you’re making, and possibly passing or rejecting, that can have no value,” Belluz said, arguing that if the board wanted to make a statement, then it simply could take a show of hands and issue a press release.
“I believe that the motion is in order, [and] there are people who believe it does have value in making a statement,” countered Lewis.
“If the assumption is that it’s not going to do any good, what is going to prevent the other two parties from doing the right thing and rescinding [the contract changes], as well?” added Hill.
“It could actually be very useful—the ball is back in their court to do the right thing.
“It does not have to be a useless exercise,” Hill stressed.
Campbell declined to comment on the matter while Mills was not available to comment following the meeting.
As noted and approved in the minutes of May’s meeting, Lewis had reported that he had been in contact with the board’s labour relations’ legal counsel regarding the details of the discussion on the two senior administrators’ contract amendments that were presented to the board in November.
Lewis noted the discussion with legal counsel was mainly about procedure and had little to do with the proposed content of the amendments being proposed.
Procedurally, the counsel confirmed the regular practice of the board was to pass motions in-camera and then approve the in-camera minutes by motion in the public session—although counsel confirmed this “may be in contrast to the fact that motions or agreements made in-camera are supposed to be passed in public session.”
It also was noted that two of the five trustees on the former board did not vote in favour of the severance package amendments.
