Here is a missive from Lutz Becker. He may have stopped editing the Mud Creek News but he hasn’t stopped fighting Town Hall. We post it as received.
Stead violates conditions of Brideau’s employment contract, again?
Lutz E. Becker / Feb. 03, 2011
With the infamous and at least legally suspect letter of Stead, dated Feb. 15, 2007, he had provided his long-time buddy CAO Brideau four years in advance with out of order salary increases and out of order retirement contribution increases. This letter never made it to the Council table in 2007. Now again Stead has amended the provisions of Brideau’s employment contract. As from reliable information sources Stead passed an email to Councillors and out of the public’s view allowing Brideau to have eight weeks vacation in violation of his original employment contract.
(By the way, the “illegal” conditions in Stead’s letter passed the Council table two years later in 2009 when the “old gang” covered up for Stead and only after I had taken Stead and the Town to Court about this letter. At present and up to the 31st of March this year Brideau makes $100,403.00 yearly and tax payers have to come up with an outrageous 18% of this amount ($18,072.54) in addition for his retirement plan.) [The CAO makes no contributions now to his pension himself – it’s all on the taxpayers dime Ww]
I have been informed by people familiar with the situation that Brideau has taken off for two months (eight weeks) vacation in Florida already. Stead and Brideau are both obviously under the very interesting but outraging impression that Brideau’s presence will not be necessary during the Town’s most critical and very demanding discussion and creation period of the budget 2011/2012.
The Brideau employment contract, dated May 27, 1996, states on pages 2 /3 that “Brideau is entitled to twenty (20) working days of paid vacation for each year of employment. This vacation may be taken during the year upon which it is based and vacation is taken at times mutually agreed upon by Roy Brideau and the Mayor of the Town.” “Unused vacation from each year may be carried over to the following year subject to:
(a) The carry over is limited to 50% of the original vacation time; and
(b) The carry over must be used in the year in which it is carried over or it is forfeited.”
Stead calculates the eight weeks in his email as follows:
- · 2 weeks not taken(?) in 2010
- · 4 weeks (yearly allowance) for 2011
- · 2 weeks of 2012
To me, such a suggestion/decision is unheard of and favours buddy Brideau but violates his employment contract again. At the end of this January Brideau has just earned just 1/12 of his vacation allowance for 2011 or about 1.7 days. To provide Brideau with 2 more weeks from 2012 as well tops this kind of non-sense even more. Maybe, Stead has never heard of the common term “Unpaid Leave of Absence” for really important reasons only.
Some people suggested that Stead should provide Brideau for the benefit of the Town with 10 more months vacation in 2011 by taking allocations from future years after 2012.
Congratulations Stead for your decision and your very personal interpretation of the Brideau contract!