There was nothing legally prohibiting the City of Greater Sudbury from making public last year’s decision to boost non-union management staff salaries by an extra six to eight per cent.
Despite this, the decision only came to light last week, when Sudbury.com reported on leaked documents from anonymous tipster(s) who signed their letter, “Honest City Employees.”
The pay hike carries an annual cost of approximately $520,000 and was announced in a November 2023 letter to those staff members slated to receive the boost. The salary jump was retroactive to April 1, 2023, and to be paid in December, according to the letter leaked to Sudbury.com.
In conversation with Sudbury.com earlier this week, city CAO Ed Archer cited “privacy restrictions” as the key reason the city did not make this information public.
On this point, a city spokesperson clarified in response to a follow-up inquiry, “the City is not legally prohibited from making information public re: wage changes for specific pay groups.”
As such, although Archer said salary details such as these “typically don’t get publicly discussed,” declining to do so is a decision and not legislated.
During the past several days, Sudbury.com has dug deep to find out how the wage increases happened without the public knowing about it, as well as why the boosts were approved.
We also gathered feedback from city council members regarding how they feel about the salary jump and what, if anything, they planned to do in response.
Meanwhile, during Tuesday’s finance and administration committee meeting of city council, the city’s elected officials passed a motion calling on Archer to review the city’s salary policy under which the wage hikes were approved, and for the auditor general to draft recommend changes.
Greater Sudbury city council members’ responses to the wage hikes varied widely, from members agreeing with it to Ward 7 Coun. Natalie Labbée saying she feels “completely disrespected” by Archer’s “gross abuse of power.”
In subsequent correspondence, Labbée clarified that she does not believe Archer breached any policies or bylaws, or that he reached beyond the authority city council delegated to him. However, she does believe Archer should have come back to city council before awarding the salary hikes.
This is not required under the bylaw that gave Archer the power to enact the salary hikes. City council unanimously approved the bylaw on Sept. 26, 2023, during a meeting all 13 members were recorded as being present for.
What is under the microscope?
In leaked documents Sudbury.com received last week from anonymous tipster(s) signed, “Honest City Employees,” we learned about 2023 wage hikes the public was not made aware of.
These included an eight-per-cent pay boost within pay groups 16-18 (city directors and other senior managers), alongside a six-per-cent boost for pay group 15 (also high-level management).
This, in addition to their regular three-per-cent cost of living increase.
City communications staff clarified that the decision to increase these wages carries an annual cost of approximately $520,000, affects 31 roles and 37 staff members (currently 33 due to vacancies).
City CAO Ed Archer made the decision to hike these wages using the authority city council delegated to him last year.
This authority allows him to increase non-union salaries (other than his own) when “it is appropriate to do so, based on the compensation philosophy established in the Salary Administration Plan approved by Council.”
The bylaw delegating authority to Archer passed without city council discussion and without a public presentation or report explaining why it was introduced.
The Salary Administration Plan is not publicly available in its entirety, though Sudbury.com received a partially redacted version of the document from Archer upon request.
Archer explains the pay hike
The city goes through a regular review of all salary levels with approved comparators “with the view to ensuring we’re maintaining our position in the market,” Archer told Sudbury.com.
These comparators, which are included in the Salary Administration Plan (which was last updated in 2004 and is currently under review per this week’s motion by city council), include:
- Municipality of Chatham-Kent
- City of Thunder Bay
- City of Kingston
- City of Oshawa
- City of Burlington
- City of Kitchener
- City of London
- City of Hamilton
- Region of Halton
- Region of Niagara
- Region of Waterloo
The city’s goal has been to hit the 50th percentile among these comparators (the middle) when it comes to salaries, in order to remain competitive.
“The variations have grown annually to the point where in 2021, 2022, we started having conversations with council about adjustments, and the discussions led to the delegation of authority to me,” Archer said.
On April 26, 2022, city council received a closed-session municipal report recommending a six-per-cent salary increase for pay groups 16-18.
The tipster who leaked this closed-session report to Sudbury.com claimed that city council members rejected the proposal, and that Archer forged ahead with even greater increases a year later anyway.
Archer’s recollection is that city council deferred the matter on April 26, 2022, for the next incarnation of city council elected on Oct. 24, 2022, to deal with.
Although there were no public reports leading up to the 2023 bylaw vote which authorized the city CAO to alter non-union salaries, Archer said, “That’s not unique. There are other bylaws reported for approval without reports that precede them.”
As for the city not being forthcoming about the wage hikes he approved, Archer said there are privacy concerns at play.
(A city spokesperson would later clarify to Sudbury.com that nothing legally prohibits the city from making pay group changes of this nature public.)
Archer also pointed out that overall salary totals are posted within the city’s annual budgets, and that the annual Sunshine List publicizes public sector salaries greater than $100,000.
Neither the budget document salary expense totals ($303,603,725 in 2023, going up to 322,731,880 in 2024 and 338,642,224 in 2025), nor the Sunshine List offer any context as to why salaries have changed. The leaked documents and partially redacted Salary Administration Plan Sudbury.com acquired provide this context.
What does city council have to say?
Sudbury.com reached out to all 13 members of Greater Sudbury city council last week, and received responses from eight of them by Wednesday.
Responses came from Mayor Paul Lefebvre, Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc, Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin, Ward 8 Coun. Al Sizer, Ward 5 Coun. Mike Parent, Ward 7 Coun. Natalie Labbée and Ward 2 Coun. Eric Benoit.
Ward 9 Coun. Deb McIntosh also shared insights with Sudbury.com following Tuesday’s finance and administration committee meeting of city council, at which she seconded Parent’s motion for the city to review its 20-year-old Salary Administration Plan.
Although responses ranged, the prevailing consensus was that the process for determining salary amounts needed to be reviewed. This sentiment was affirmed by Tuesday’s unanimous city council support for Parent’s resolution requesting a review.
Natalie Labbée’s response was the most critical. She lambasted both Archer’s decision to increase salaries and the fact it was done without going back to city council.
Even so, she recognized that Archer followed the delegated authority city council granted him, and that he increased wages within parameters set out in the city’s Salary Administration Plan.
Her frustration, she said, centres on what she perceives to have been “miscommunication, misinterpretation and a difference of opinion in what a "reasonable" increase would be.
“From my perspective, I believe there was a clear expectation that the CAO would indeed come back to Council if he felt that the percentage increase he was allocating didn't fit within the appetite of Council's vision,” she said.
Although Archer’s decision fell within the target of getting positions in line with the city’s guidelines, Labbée said the consequences of these increases is “spreading like a cancer from within, evidenced by the closed session information being leaked to Sudbury.com.”
Fortin said it’s “always of great concern” when she finds out something as important as salary hikes at the same time as the public, “and it is made even more alarming when we all find out from the proverbial brown envelope.”
“Before increases of this magnitude are given, Council should receive detailed information to justify them,” she added. “In this case, we did not, and that must never be allowed to happen again.”
It’s dishonest for city council members to claim they were blindsided or feel duped in some way by the pay hike, Leduc said, since Archer used authority city council members approved, within guidelines a past city council OK’d and which members should have been aware of.
“You were there at the meeting, you knew exactly what had to be done,” he said, directing his comments to certain city council members.
“Who’s accountable?” he asked. “We are. Council.”
Lefebvre similarly said that Archer used his delegated authority to do what needed to be done.
“It is a very large increase, there’s no doubt about that,” Lefebvre said, adding that the city had fallen behind and was having a difficult time recruiting staff.
That said, Lefebvre clarified that the city’s processes could be more transparent.
“We want to be in the 50th percentile” (with salaries), he said, adding that the city needs to “showcase what that means, and get in front of it and be honest with those in Sudbury because I think that’s what people expect.”
Sizer said he agrees with Archer’s decision, “as the goal of our policy is to recruit and retain qualified employees and remain competitive in the labour market.”
The city could have done more to be transparent about the boost in management salaries, Parent said.
“Employees that make more than $100,000 per year will be disclosed per The Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act (Sunshine List),” he said, “so there is opportunity for the city to be more transparent regarding wage increases of the most senior staff.”
Parent also indicated that if city council were to have voted on the wage hikes, he would not have raised his hand in favour of an eight-per-cent increase.
Brand new to city council, Benoit said he is still getting up to speed on the goings on of city council and didn’t want to comment without having enough information to do so.
What’s next?
A report summarizing Archer’s review of the city’s current salary policy will be presented to the finance and administration committee of city council by September.
The review will include such things as the suitability of comparator municipalities and the method by which the corporation's positions are compared.
The auditor general will analyze the results of the report and recommend policy changes.
Meanwhile, several elected officials told Sudbury.com they also plan to revisit Archer’s delegated authority, including Labbée, who said delegating authority was “a poor decision ... and now we have to deal with it.”
Now that the salary adjustment has taken place, the delegated authority is not likely to become relevant again for some time, Archer said, assuming the economy doesn’t go into turmoil again like it did during the pandemic.
“I think we can always find ways to make our processes better,” Archer said. “I anticipate the potential exists for us to examine this experience and reflect on what else, if anything, we can do in the inevitable but much later event that leads to some future discussion about other changes.
“I believe we’ve reset our (salary) position to be back where this policy says we should be.”
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
