Ever since MacKay described Crouse’s questionable expenses claims as “double dipping” and upon Crouse objecting to that term, and then MacKay informing him that he was “entitled to his own opinion but he was not entitled to his own facts,” Crouse has obviously been looking for revenge.
His revenge came in the most peculiar form. He criticized MacKay for spending a few hundred dollars to take a course so that he could speak a few phrases in the native Filipino language. The mayor’s outburst is peculiar from two perspectives namely (a) from a political standpoint it is disrespectful to the whole Filipino community in St. Albert, and (b) from a legal perspective it seems clear that MacKay’s expenditure was entirely within the rules.
From a political perspective, Crouse’s suggestion that developing a familiarity with the Filipino language is not in the “public interest” shows an intolerance which should be an embarrassment to the entire city. There is a substantial Filipino community living in St. Albert. Most of that community are practicing Catholics, are well known for being hard working people, and their friendly and polite demeanour is infectious. Most people in the St. Albert community are known for their tolerance of other races and religions. While St. Albert residents take pride in their enlightened tolerance, Crouse proceeds to make such statements which everyone thought had passed out of existence with the advent of the ’60s.
From a regulatory perspective, it seems clear that MacKay was fully entitled to make this expenditure and claim re-imbursement. Section 7 of the City Council Re-imbursement and Expense policy says in part: “Members of Council may claim expenses from their Council Development Budget for professional development activities”. Section 11 of the City Council Re-imbursement and Expense Policy says in part; “Council Development budgets shall be provided to the Mayor and each Councillor” So, the upshot of the matter is this: MacKay had a professional development budget and had the right to choose what type of professional development he would pursue. He decided to pursue the learning of the Filipino language at a nominal cost to the city of less than $300.00 over a period of years. That, in a nutshell is Crouse’s complaint with MacKay.
Possibly, instead of focusing on MacKay’s professional development activities, Crouse should have focused on section 8 of the Council Reimbursement Policies, which says, “Members of Council shall not be paid a per diem except for special circumstances as may be determined by resolution of council. In situations where a member of city council is appointed to represent the city in an official capacity on an external agency, board or committee, and a per diem is paid by that organization, the per diems received must be reported to the city manager and paid into city revenue. Did Crouse ever report his CRB per diems to the city. Did Crouse ever pay his per diems into city revenue? The answer to those questions is unequivocally, “No.” That is an unalterable fact and as MacKay said Crouse “is entitled to his own opinions but he is not entitled to his own facts.”
L. Hennigar, St. Albert
