The first issue in the tumult over Mayor Crouse double billing his expenses is whether it was deliberate. I don’t agree with suggestions that the amounts in question are too trivial to bother with. The amount of money involved is nearly always irrelevant when the possibility of impropriety exists. Go down to the courthouse and sit in on a few cases. See how much investigation and court time is spent on unlawful appropriations of small values of cash or property. Filch $20 from a gas station till, dine and dash from a cheap eatery, or boost some pencils and you might find out the hard way.
Crouse’s explanation of inadvertent error seems plausible, given that he was actually preparing his own expense claims. That is risky for overly busy persons with much on their minds, which is why it is commonplace in higher corporate and governmental echelons that personal secretaries initially prepare a boss’s expense claims. The mayor has said he is considering handing his expenses to staff to prepare.
That is to be encouraged. But unfortunately the mayor’s explanation of inadvertent error carries with it the question whether he should continue managing municipal affairs. If he stumbles with the small stuff, what reason has the electorate to trust his handling of big-ticket items?
The second issue is Coun. Hughes’s role. She was entitled to proceed as she did, but her political T-boning of Crouse prompts questions. Was being the mayor’s secret auditor a task she adopted from her start as a councillor? Did she perhaps suddenly spot something that piqued her interest? Or, did she send off her freedom of information requests only after another person suggested such an approach might yield ammunition for the political wars? Then there is the question of how she handled the results. Why didn’t she first ask the mayor privately for an explanation of the impugned items? Former councillor Malcolm Parker says (Gazette, Oct. 11) this was his practice when he had questions about mayoral expenses.
Actually, if Hughes thought the Mayor was ripping off the public, why did she not take her findings to the RCMP? Instead, she used the city council chamber as a launch pad to convey her findings and concerns to the public. That imparts an inescapable aura of having been calculated to inflict political harm. I think, as a councillor, Hughes owes the electorate a full explanation of her motivation and chosen course of action.
A malignancy in last year’s municipal election featured the identity obscured St. Albert Think Tank prominently targeting Crouse. The Tankers also endorsed candidate Sheena Hughes, though I presume this reflected only their perception of a kindred political spirit, and that she had no association with them.
Perhaps recourse to the Public Inquiries Act would clear the air – if both Crouse and Hughes were put under oath to find out what has been going on here.
David Haas is a long term St. Albert resident.
