{"id":6509,"date":"2025-11-27T13:55:28","date_gmt":"2025-11-27T18:55:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/northhatley.info\/2025\/11\/27\/direction-generale-vs-elus-qui-dirige-vraiment-nos-municipalites\/"},"modified":"2025-11-27T14:44:07","modified_gmt":"2025-11-27T19:44:07","slug":"executive-management-vs-elected-officials-who-really-runs-our-municipalities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/northhatley.info\/en\/2025\/11\/27\/executive-management-vs-elected-officials-who-really-runs-our-municipalities\/","title":{"rendered":"Executive management vs. elected officials: who really runs our municipalities?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Things are getting turbulent in the municipality of Cookshire-Eaton, not far from where we live. After a by-election marked by the presence of a candidate linked to the biker \u201cfarm club\u201d\u2014who was ultimately defeated\u2014the new mayor and the entire municipal council now find themselves at the centre of a storm<\/a>, under investigation by the CMQ (Qu\u00e9bec Municipal Commission).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Less than three weeks after the new council took office, four elected officials accused Mayor Daphn\u00e9e Raymond of having committed serious ethical breaches<\/a>. The CMQ is now investigating and has raised concerns about deficient management of senior staff and conflicts of interest in the awarding of construction contracts. As the saying goes\u2014not a great start<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the actions that triggered the crisis was the suspension of the interim Director General, Jean-Charles Bellemare, by the mayor, who stated the following in the Radio-Canada article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThere was no collaboration. I want to hold meetings, and I get no follow-up. He left for two days of telework and then a week of vacation. I had four days to evaluate him\u2014I felt that was a bit short. My only power was to suspend him,\u201d said Mayor Daphn\u00e9e Raymond.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Mayor Raymond suspended the Director General without presenting the reasons in writing to the council\u2014something that appears to have set off the chain of events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should be noted that the mayor does indeed have the authority to suspend any municipal officer or employee at any time. However, the law requires that this decision be reported to the council at the following session, with written reasons, as set out in the Cities and Towns Act<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the councillors, Mayor Raymond was also conducting \u201cher own investigation\u201d into certain municipal files. This constitutes interference, as it implies direct involvement in the administrative apparatus\u2014something that exceeds the political role and is not permitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

A situation that exposes a blind spot in municipal governance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

From a governance perspective, the situation is fascinating: a mayor wanting to \u201cinvestigate\u201d files and question her Director General, while councillors object on the basis that such involvement constitutes improper interference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the municipal Director General sovereign?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Legally, no. The DG is subordinate to the municipal council, which holds actual decision-making authority.
But in practical terms, because the DG controls the administrative machinery and access to the information required to initiate or fuel an investigation, the DG sometimes finds themself in a position of uncomfortable power vis-\u00e0-vis the elected officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So if neither the mayor nor the councillors can conduct their own investigation into the municipal administration (operations), who can?
In my view, detecting a problem requires the ability to verify, analyze, and ask questions. Ideally, if I were mayor, I would want to dig into the administration\u2019s operations, under the DG\u2019s supervision. But municipal laws heavily restrict these types of interventions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And of course, the DG cannot credibly investigate themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This creates a kind of \u201cblind spot\u201d in municipal governance: elected officials are accountable to the population, yet they do not always have the concrete means to verify what is happening within the administration\u2014unless they resort to heavy mechanisms such as formal complaints, audits, or the Municipal Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Few elected officials want to trigger a CMQ investigation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If I put myself in the shoes of an elected official, triggering a CMQ investigation is something I would want to avoid at all costs\u2014especially knowing the risk of negative media exposure for the municipality. In the most serious situations, a municipality can even be placed under trusteeship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is therefore a real void\u2014or \u201cblind spot\u201d\u2014in municipal management. As long as everything runs smoothly within the administration, nobody worries about this void. But that\u2019s precisely the issue: how can we know everything is going well if we cannot truly verify what is happening?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In such circumstances, who supervises the Director General? The mayor? And how can they do so if they are not allowed to conduct an \u201cinvestigation\u201d?
It\u2019s almost as if a business owner\u2014who chairs the board\u2014were prohibited from checking what is happening within their own company\u2019s operations to ensure everything functions correctly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

A watertight wall between operations and politics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This creates a genuine watertight wall between the administration and the elected officials. So how can elected representatives be informed of ethical breaches by DG and management staff when they are legally forbidden from digging into files or questioning municipal employees?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my view, this watertight structure has paradoxical effects:<\/p>\n\n\n\n