Photo by Whitehorse Star
Dan Boyd, Christine Smith and Samson Hartland
Hartland, Boyd voted against ex-manager’s firing
Draft minutes from a March 14 special council meeting
Draft minutes from a March 14 special council meeting show city councillors Dan Boyd and Samson Hartland voted against the firing of former city manager Christine Smith.
While the minutes have yet to be formally adopted, they are included in council’s information package for this evening’s meeting, and will be voted on for adoption.
The minutes show the meeting lasted only five minutes, being called to order at 5:05 p.m.
“It was duly moved and seconded that the appointment of Christine Smith is hereby revoked and her employment terminated pursuant to section 35(5) of City Manager Bylaw 2014-09 as amended; and that Linda Rapp is hereby appointed as acting city manager or the period from March 9, 2017 to March 27, 2017 inclusive; and that administration is hereby directed to proceed with identifying and recruiting potential candidates for the position of city manager,” the minutes read before showing the 5-2 vote in favour.
“Some members of council expressed concern with termination under section 35(5) and stated a preference for a negotiated agreement.”
They then show Mayor Dan Curtis and councillors Jocelyn Curteanu, Rob Fendrick, Betty Irwin and Roslyn Woodcock voted in favour of firing Smith .
Hartland and Boyd were opposed.
The meeting was then adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
A statement was released by the city after the meeting ended, stating Smith’s employment had been revoked.
In an interview after she was fired, Smith said she had never had a negative performance review in her years with the city and had never been subject to any disciplinary action.
She had learned the city was moving forward with terminating her employment earlier in the month through a letter she received on March 8, International Women’s Day.
Section 35(5) of the city manager bylaw allows the city to fire its manager without cause, as was the case this time.
Under that clause, the city must either provide six months’ notice for the first year of employment followed by a further two weeks for each completed year following or, as it will do in this case, provide pay-in-lieu equal to that amount.
“All of the city’s obligations related to the employment of the city manager and this bylaw are fully discharged and the rights of the city manager fully and fairly satisfied upon the city providing the notice or pay in lieu of notice pursuant to this provision,” the section notes.
In July 2015, council approved an increase to the city manager salary that set the pay range for the position at between $175,000 to $190,000 annually, with Smith’s salary approved to rise from $175,000 at that time to $180,000.
Smith had been in her role as city manager since April 2014.
She was hired after the previous city manager Stan Westby was fired from the position in September 2013 following a suspension and then medical leave that had begun the previous April.
Less than a year into her role as city manager, Smith fired then-director of infrastructure and operations Brian Crist and Fendrick, who was at that time working as the city’s director of corporate services. They were both fired without cause.
At this evening’s meeting, council will vote on whether to appoint Rapp as interim city manager until a new city manager is hired.
Curtis has indicated that could take several months.
Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (21)
Up 7 Down 3
This is over on Mar 31, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Seriously, hughmungus, you want the 25000 citizens of Whitehorse to get involved with personnel issues? Shall we have council members speak to the media about where they thought the manager was not doing a good job, and then she can counter with how she didn't get proper direction, and then we can all pay for the civil suit that would be inevitable, and then we can all whine about increased taxes. Or we can accept that there was a typical employment contract in place that provided for council to release a manager without stating the reason, and for agreed upon compensation to be paid, and we can just move on. Because there is no way that council could would or should engage in a public discussion on this matter.
Up 11 Down 4
Harry Fleick on Mar 30, 2017 at 11:19 pm
What did the Mayor know and when did he know it?
Up 21 Down 5
Hugh mungus on Mar 30, 2017 at 2:39 pm
@ This is over
Of course people want to know why. She was a public servant. She worked for us She was shown the door two years after her predecessor was fired. She left with more than $100K in tax dollars in her back pocket. Do you honestly think the people who pay her wage and severance don't deserve an explanation? By saying nothing one can only draw a few conclusions: something nefarious going on with her or with the council she reported to.
Up 14 Down 4
Dan Davidson on Mar 29, 2017 at 9:35 pm
@Stanley Miller - It's annoying language but it's a legal binder, and it's not silly. The public will always end up feeling that it's the employer hiding behind a bit of legal obfuscation, but the city could get itself into all kinds of trouble if it said anything other than that.
Up 9 Down 6
Dan Davidson on Mar 29, 2017 at 9:31 pm
I admit to bias, having known Christine since she was a student while I taught in Faro. On the other hand, I watched her deal with council here in Dawson while she was a YTG community advisor, and was impressed with the way she handled some iffy situations. Firing "without cause" is written into the terms of the contracts of all senior municipal officials, especially the chief administrative officer, who is, after all, the only person actually employed by the council. Everyone else works for the CAO, and the senior staff face the same uncertain future as their boss in that regard. I would have thought it unlikely that the CAO would terminate anyone's contract without having been nudged, or been given the tacit approval of council, but events here last year have caused me to revise that opinion, so I'm not sure why Ms Smith let the men go when she did. Regarding Mr. Fendrick, whom I have met while he was filling in a bit here a couple of years back, he seemed then to be a competent fellow and I know nothing against him. That said, it would have been prudent of him to recuse himself from the vote to terminate Ms Smith. The suspicion that it was "payback" will linger, whether it is deserved or not, and that isn't a nice taint to have to carry around.
There has been some complaint here about the reference to International Women's Day in the reporting. It's true that it's not relevant to the story, except that it is ironic, and whoever decided to issue the final memo on that day clearly didn't see that it could be taken that way. People should avoid handing out free straight lines where possible in such instances.
Up 39 Down 5
This is over on Mar 29, 2017 at 9:14 am
I don't understand why people are calling for some sort of public explanation. "Without cause " dismissal is standard in employment contracts of this nature, especially when they pretty much amount to political appointments as opposed to open hiring. And the action comes with a pre-defined financial compensation that is agreed to, up front, by all parties. If council were to publicly state the reason for the firing, then it's no longer without cause, and there would be the inevitable, and more expensive, unfair dismissal lawsuit, not to mention other lawsuits for having made a public explanation at all. As to a "negotiated" settlement, the manager had guaranteed cash in hand for the without cause dismissal. What possible motivation would she have to negotiate? Move on people. Heartland and Boyd are just grandstanding. As usual.
Up 2 Down 29
CJ on Mar 28, 2017 at 5:22 pm
@Hugh Mungus Normally I would agree that the reference is a little out there, but it's true that the position is traditionally male. It's all too possible that Christine Smith's gender had a bearing, in that it's not easy getting into a position like that if you're female. Ultimately, I think it's about, women's mistakes or unpopular decisions in the workplace are often seen as catastrophic to their performance, men's not so much.
True enough, Linda Rapp is in there now, and she's amazing. Hopefully, she won't pay for it. But Linda has been at the city for many, many years and certainly worked her way up. Could she have survived or progressed if she only started in the past 8 years or so, which seems to have been hard on managers? We just don't know. But I do believe gender parity has to be consciously sought, so in a sense I get why there's something ironic about Ms. Smith being fired on International Women's Day.
The fact that the position is traditionally male, and the traditional male who had it before he got in a position to fire her -- it certainly crossed my mind that this is where it would end up. I agree with someone who said elsewhere that it would have seemed appropriate if he abstained.
@ Jane Smith, I agree the two votes seemed to be more about the terms. But apart from the difficulty of some councillors not being happy with the manager, city council has a lot invested in council members agreeing -- to the point it's in the Procedures Bylaw. I think it's weird, but what are you going to do. At least they tried not to burn bridges for Christine Smith.
Up 40 Down 0
Hugh Mungus on Mar 28, 2017 at 4:25 pm
@ Darby Holt I agree 100%. What does 'International Women's Day' have to do with any of this? Is anyone aware it was also 'National Peanut Cluster Day'?
Does anyone think she was fired because she was a woman? I've heard plenty of rumours but I guess time will tell what really went on
Up 36 Down 2
Jane Smith on Mar 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Re: Boyd and Hartland -
Some members of council expressed concern with termination under section 35(5) and stated a preference for a negotiated agreement.” It appears they agreed that it was appropriate to let Ms. Smith go, but wanted to negotiate a different severance package.
Up 21 Down 6
westofbelfast on Mar 28, 2017 at 1:38 pm
These terminations without justification or cause are going to cost us. The taxpayer will end up paying a severance package to Ms. Smith...there is no doubt in my mind about that. Secondly, they have pretty much knackered us in terms of getting any individuals of substance from putting in for this job since we have fired without cause three top bureaucrats in the last couple of years. And also, no person in lower ranks with any sense would take that kind of promotion knowing that the potential for being suddenly and inexplicably fired is as easy as the next council meeting after you pissed somebody off.
Up 44 Down 3
Bud McGee on Mar 28, 2017 at 12:09 pm
It is true that Smith was fired on International Womens' Day. However, in attempting to frame Smith's firing as a sexist act, the Whitehorse Star fails to point out that the new acting manager is a woman also.
Up 52 Down 3
Another opinion on Mar 28, 2017 at 10:15 am
Ms. Smith keeps playing her "woe is me" card, when in reality she releases Mr. Fendrick, Mr. Crist and also Deputy Fire Chief Jason Wolsky without cause.
These former employees had many years with the city under their belt, not just a few. They were also great employees trying to make a change in the system.
In Deputy Fire Chief Wolsky's case it never even made the newspaper, it was strictly a political move because someone did not like him. Following all the reality shows he was simply "voted off the island".
In all these high level terminations they were simply given no reason, other than we don't think you are the right fit. It does nothing for the morale of the employees, I'm certain, to know they can be let go "because they are not the popular kid". Mayor, council and the new city manager should do some background checks into all the supervisors abilities and education to see if they are actually able to do their jobs. They may be surprised.
Up 21 Down 41
Brian on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:25 am
If Boyd and Hartland voted against her firing, then obviously there was not enough reason too. Those guys have their heads on straight, something smells about this.
Up 34 Down 30
Alec Nehman on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:09 am
You would think that Fendrick would recuse himself from the vote, given the obvious conflict of interest this decision put him in (since Christine had fired him). While it would not have changed the outcome of her dismissal's vote, it at least would not have put his own ethics in question. Apparently he doesn't know where to draw the line on personal matters.
Up 29 Down 28
Yukoner on Mar 27, 2017 at 9:07 pm
Besides Fendrick, the others who voted yes to firing her are pretty much filler on city council. Dan does have a wealth of experience, Samson has been in government. Now let's look at our mayors qualifications. What, ex realtor? Skills Canada? If nothing else, Christine Smith has a lot of experience and credentials.
Now, maybe she wasn't working out, but the track record at City hall has been pretty terrible. If she hadn't had any negative reviews, why can her? It's just going to cost money. If she was taking a course that you didn't agree with, change it. Something stinks here.
Up 26 Down 31
Adam Smith on Mar 27, 2017 at 8:54 pm
Thank you to the two who showed the maturity we expect of elected officals.
Up 9 Down 12
CJ on Mar 27, 2017 at 7:22 pm
@Stanley Miller I don't know if that's what the votes opposed mean. It could just mean they wanted a negotiated agreement. Which might not have been cheaper, so much as leaving on better terms. So it still reflects well on them, as seeing a bigger picture.
Up 34 Down 8
jc on Mar 27, 2017 at 5:54 pm
Since the taxpayers were paying her salary, we demand to know why she was fired. That will give us a chance to agree or disagree with the decision.
Up 47 Down 5
Darby Holt on Mar 27, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Stephanie, can you please stop shoehorning in that the firing occurred on International Women's Day? That fact is completely incidental. Even the News and CBC didn't try to jam that agenda into their reportage. If the dismissal had taken place today would you mention that she was fired on International Whiskey Day; or, tomorrow, that she was let go on International Something on a Stick Day? If not, bit inconsistent.
Up 70 Down 9
Stanley Miller on Mar 27, 2017 at 4:31 pm
It's pretty obvious that some on council thought the firing was justifiable and some do not agree with it. It was obviously not without cause- something happened to bring the motion forward.
Despite the silly language about it being a personnel matter I want to know why Christine was let go.
Up 35 Down 47
The only two people that are competent on Mar 27, 2017 at 4:20 pm
on City Council.