The acting official controlled incoming submissions
The RFP directed all consultant proposals to Kris Croskery-Hodgins. She was inside the process before it started — as the recipient of every submission, not a separate party.
The story starts in October 2020 with a closed-door HR review that was never made public. It ends in 2024 with a fourth staff position needed because the structure created in 2021 proved unsustainable. What follows is pieced together from what the public record allows — because much of what mattered happened behind closed doors.
This case study is not an attack on any individual staff member. The Township's staff are hard-working, diligent, and committed to serving residents well. What follows is a documented failure of Council leadership — spanning multiple terms — to provide the direction, oversight, and transparency that staff deserve and residents are owed. When Council is absent, staff fills the void. That is not a criticism of staff. It is a reason to have better Council.Chris Johnston
Janet LeClair, CHRL, of Stratford Managers Corporation presents an organizational review to Council in closed session under s.239(2)(b) — personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal employees. Both CAO-Clerk Charles Barton and Treasurer-Deputy Clerk Kris Croskery-Hodgins are present. The review identifies structural staffing concerns and recommends hiring a Deputy Clerk/Administrative Assistant.
CAO-Clerk Charles Barton's resignation takes effect February 16. The very next day, Council calls a special meeting. Only Kris Croskery-Hodgins is present as staff. Council sits in closed session for over four hours (9:01am to 1:28pm) under s.239(2)(b). Coming out of that session, Council passes By-law 2021-11 appointing her as Interim Acting CAO-Clerk-Treasurer and directs her to advertise for a temporary administrative assistant — not a permanent CAO replacement. (R2021-037 through R2021-041)
The RFP asks for proposals to manage a search for a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer — a clear, defined scope. There is one detail buried at the bottom that matters enormously: RFP submissions are directed to Kris Croskery-Hodgins, Acting CAO-Clerk-Treasurer — the person currently holding the role the Township is ostensibly trying to fill through an open competition.
Scope: find and hire a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer. Submissions directed to: "Kris Croskery-Hodgins, Acting CAO-Clerk-Treasurer." Deadline: June 8, 2021.
Open document →At the June 8 Council meeting, before approving the e4M proposal, Council goes into closed session at 7:08pm under s.239(2)(b) — personal matters about an identifiable individual. They resume open session at 7:20pm — twelve minutes later. R2021-142 immediately follows: Council accepts the e4M RFP for $9,315.
The minutes of this meeting are signed by Kris Croskery-Hodgins as "Interim CAO-Clerk-Treasurer" — the person whose permanent replacement is the subject of the process just approved.
Read the June 8, 2021 meeting minutes →
e4M proposes an Expression of Interest process to recruit a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer. Total fee: $9,315. Signed by Peggy Young-Lovelace, Director, e4M.
Open document →Council resolves to accept the e4M RFP for the CAO-Clerk hiring process. Moved by Marchant, seconded by Kirkey. Carried unanimously.
Open document →This is the resolution that does it all. Read it carefully. e4M advises that a Municipal Administrator model is "best suited." e4M has already "engaged in a selection process with Kris Croskery-Hodgins." Council then amends the title, enters the employment contract, and resolves to establish performance expectations — though no position description, no public contract, and no documented performance expectations would appear for another six months.
The e4M proposal Council approved in June included a specific step to publicly advertise the position through social media, print, and sector publications. That step does not appear to have happened. Three months after hiring the consultant, Council was told a selection process had already been conducted — with one person.
There is a question the public record cannot answer: a September 2024 staff report states that e4M identified the staffing structure as unsustainable during the 2021 CAO replacement process. If that is accurate, e4M had two findings when they walked into that September 7, 2021 meeting — hire this person, and this structure won't work. Council was given one of them. The other did not surface publicly until 2024, when a fourth position was needed to fix what e4M apparently already knew.
States: e4M advised that a Municipal Administrator model is "best suited"; e4M has "engaged in a selection process with Kris Croskery-Hodgins"; Council therefore amends the title and enters an employment contract with Kris Croskery-Hodgins; Council shall establish performance expectations. Moved by Moore, seconded by Scott. Carried unanimously. No position description, employment contract terms, or performance expectations were made public. The first formal position description would not appear until March 15, 2022.
Open document →Two weeks after the resolution, Council passes three by-laws formally appointing Kris Croskery-Hodgins as Municipal Administrator, Municipal Clerk, and Municipal Treasurer. Each by-law carries two signatures: Mayor Tom Piper — and Kris Croskery-Hodgins, signing with the title the by-law is in the process of conferring.
Appoints Kris Croskery-Hodgins as Municipal Administrator. Counter-signed "Kris Croskery-Hodgins, Municipal Administrator" — a title that does not exist until this by-law passes it.
Open document →Appoints Kris Croskery-Hodgins as Municipal Clerk. Counter-signed "Kris Croskery-Hodgins, Municipal Administrator" — a title that only came into existence that same night under By-law 2021-45.
Open document →Appoints Kris Croskery-Hodgins as Municipal Treasurer. Counter-signed "Kris Croskery-Hodgins, Municipal Administrator" — a title that did not exist until By-law 2021-45 was passed earlier that same evening.
Open document →Two months after the appointment, I emailed Kris Croskery-Hodgins directly to ask for the e4M proposal referenced in the June 8 minutes — and any final report or recommendations document produced as a result of the $9,315 contract.
The response was immediate and revealing: the e4M proposal was not publicly available. Kris replied that it was "a document in their ownership" and that she had "requested authorization to release it." Two and a half hours later, after receiving that authorization, she sent the RFP package. There was no final report. No recommendations document. The only output of a $9,315 consultant contract in the public record is the proposal itself — and it required a direct request to obtain even that.
I then asked the question directly:
"How did a proposal for $9,315 to e4M that first and foremost in the RFP — was to find a CAO — turn into a recommendation for a Municipal Administrator with 0 public input, 0 public debate, 0 notice that this was occurring other than the ~1 minute it took for the council to approve the motion in September?"Chris Johnston, email to Kris Croskery-Hodgins, November 18, 2021
The response cited the Municipal Act's closed session provisions and confirmed that discussions about "the change of the position title and the person best fit to fill the position were not required to take place in Open Session." Council had the opportunity to debate R2021-189 when it was tabled, the response said.
I disagreed — and shared an Ombudsman case from Timmins involving a similar situation. That disagreement became a formal complaint. The Ombudsman later found Council had violated the Municipal Act by discussing its hiring plan in closed session.
After reviewing this sequence, I formally raised concerns with the Ontario Ombudsman. The Ombudsman investigated and found that Council violated the Municipal Act by discussing its hiring plan in closed session. Matters of this nature must be handled in the open.
Read the Ombudsman summary →The RFP directed all consultant proposals to Kris Croskery-Hodgins. She was inside the process before it started — as the recipient of every submission, not a separate party.
The e4M proposal Council approved explicitly included advertising the position through social media, print media, and sector-specific publications. R2021-189, passed just three months later, states e4M had already "engaged in a selection process with Kris Croskery-Hodgins" and moved directly to recommending her appointment. There is no public record of any advertisement ever running. The process Council paid $9,315 for was not the process that was followed.
By-laws 2021-46 and 2021-47 — Clerk and Treasurer appointments — are counter-signed "Municipal Administrator." That title did not legally exist until By-law 2021-45 passed earlier that same evening. The documents were signed with authority that had not yet been formally conferred.
As early as September 2020, an independent HR review by Janet LeClair, CHRL, of Stratford Managers Corporation had already identified structural concerns with the Township's administration and recommended hiring one new position — a Deputy Clerk/Administrative Assistant. But that review was never made public. The minutes of the October 6, 2020 Council meeting show Janet LeClair presented to Council in closed session under Section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act — personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal employees. Both Charles Barton (CAO-Clerk) and Kris Croskery-Hodgins (Treasurer-Deputy Clerk) were present in that closed session. Residents had no way to know the review had occurred, what it found, or what was recommended.
Six months after that closed session, Barton retired and Council hired e4M to run a CAO search. Within three months, e4M — the same consultant running that search — recommended restructuring the entire senior position, renaming the role, and appointing the person who had been in the closed session review. The September 2024 staff report would later confirm that e4M had also identified the workload sustainability problem during that same 2021 process — a finding that was never disclosed to the public when Council approved the appointment. There was no independent party evaluating whether that recommendation was appropriate, and residents had no basis to evaluate it either.
The Stratford Managers review had identified the problem. The e4M process validated it — but did not fix it. It papered over it with a structural change that left the underlying staffing gap unresolved. By 2023 the Township was applying for a government-subsidized intern to fill that gap. By 2024 the structure was formally acknowledged as unsustainable and a fourth permanent position was created — which happens to be the Deputy Clerk/Administrative Assistant that Stratford Managers recommended in 2020.
The acting official should not have been the recipient of RFP submissions, and should not have remained connected to a process where she was a potential outcome. Independence is not optional in a senior leadership search.
The Municipal Act, 2001 defines one senior executive position under Section 229: the Chief Administrative Officer. The CAO is a recognized statutory role with defined responsibilities — general control and management of municipal affairs, accountable to Council. "Municipal Administrator" does not appear in the Act. It is not a statutory title. It carries whatever scope Council defines in a by-law, and no more.
When e4M recommended shifting from CAO to Municipal Administrator, that was not just a cosmetic renaming. It was a structural decision with real implications for accountability, authority, and scope. The RFP was for a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer — the Deputy Treasurer function was part of the senior role. What the Township ended up with was a Municipal Administrator who holds the full statutory Treasurer role, while a new subordinate position — Land Planning and Technology Administrator – Deputy Treasurer — was created below her, reporting up to her. The scope of the top position expanded; the Deputy Treasurer function originally in the advertised role was moved downward and became a subordinate reporting to the appointee. That is a material restructuring of the Township's senior administration, decided without public debate before the appointment was made.
Six months after the appointment, the Township brought forward By-law 2022-13 on March 15, 2022 to formally establish the position description. That document — Appendix A to the by-law and labelled "Revision date: Draft #1." The formal written description of the most senior staff position in the Township did not exist until half a year after the person was already in the role.
For six months, the Township had no formally adopted position description for its most senior employee, no updated organizational chart reflecting the new structure, and no public document explaining what the Municipal Administrator role encompassed or how it differed from the CAO model originally advertised. Residents had no basis to evaluate what had changed, why, or what it meant for how the Township was governed.
Two by-laws passed on the same night. By-law 2022-12 establishes the organizational chart; By-law 2022-13 establishes the position description at the time of passage.
The org chart shows the Municipal Administrator sitting between Council and all departments, holding the Treasurer function as a statutory officer — not as a Deputy Treasurer as the original RFP specified. The original RFP was for a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer. The position that was created is Municipal Administrator, Clerk, full Treasurer, and Emergency Management Coordinator. That is a materially different scope, with a materially different statutory footprint, that was never presented to the public before the appointment.
The same agenda package includes a second position description — also By-law 2022-13, for the "Land Planning and Technology Administrator – Deputy Treasurer." This position reports to the Municipal Administrator. This is significant: the original RFP sought a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer, meaning the Deputy Treasurer function was part of the senior role. What was actually created splits that differently — the Municipal Administrator holds the full statutory Treasurer role, while a separate subordinate position performs the Deputy Treasurer function and reports up to her. The scope of the top position expanded; the Deputy Treasurer function that was originally part of the advertised role was placed below it. None of this was presented publicly before the appointment.
Open March 15, 2022 agenda package →A hiring process that was supposed to bring stability instead produced a structure that required repeated amendment. The organizational chart and position descriptions were revised in 2022 and again in 2024. By September 2024, the Municipal Administrator was before Council recommending a fourth administrative staff position — because the structure created in 2021 had proven unsustainable.
By-laws 2022-12 and 2022-13 (March 15, 2022) formally established the organizational chart and position descriptions for the first time. The Deputy Treasurer title was moved out of the senior role and into a new subordinate position.
By April 2024 the workload on staff had been formally acknowledged as unsustainable. Position descriptions were updated, and the Deputy Treasurer title was stripped from the Land Planning and Technology Administrator role entirely — visible as a strikethrough in the document. The structural changes took effect in September 2024 under By-law 2024-42, nearly three years after the original appointment.
A September 10, 2024 report to Council — authored by Kris Croskery-Hodgins — recommended adding a Deputy Treasurer-Office Assistant position. The report stated the current staffing structure "versus workload is unsustainable" and cited the 2020 Stratford Managers review as having identified the same concern. The fourth position was approved, effective November 1, 2024.
Just 18 months after the 2021 appointment, the Township applied for a Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (NOHFC) intern to provide administrative support across the office, museum, and recreation departments. The program funds up to 90% of eligible costs to a maximum of $35,000. Total estimated cost: $53,126.32 — leaving $18,126.32 for the Township, which the report notes aligns with $18,112.50 already budgeted for a "Municipal Manager" position.
Critically, the report explicitly frames the intern as a path to permanent employment — referencing a 2009 FedNor intern who became the Land Planning and Technology Administrator as "the desired outcome for this program." The 2024 staff report later confirms this intern was being considered for the new Deputy Treasurer-Office Assistant permanent position. A government-subsidized training program was used to trial and fund a position the Township needed but could not fully justify or budget for on its own.
Open April 2023 staff report →Recommends Council approve a new Deputy Treasurer-Office Assistant position, effective November 1, 2024. States directly: "The current staffing structure versus workload is unsustainable as noted by the HR review performed in 2020 by Stratford Managers and also by E4M during the CAO replacement role in 2021." Also discloses that the previous CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer, who held the role for over 30 years, trained the current Municipal Administrator on Clerk duties, Treasurer duties, cemeteries, software, HR, and payroll before departing. The new position may be offered to the existing intern — the same person brought in through the 2023 NOHFC program.
Open September 2024 staff report →The 2024 org chart shows the full Township structure reporting through the Municipal Administrator-Clerk-Treasurer to Council. This is the third organizational chart since the September 2021 appointment. The September 2024 staff report notes that before Barton's resignation, the Township operated with a CAO-Clerk-Deputy Treasurer (3 days/week), a Treasurer-Deputy Clerk (full time), and an EDO-CEMC (full time). What replaced that structure has been revised twice since — and was still being formally documented six months after the appointment was made.
In practical terms: the Township went from 2.5 administrative FTE in early 2021 to four full-time positions by November 2024 — while the structure was still being redesigned in real time.
The org chart also embeds the Recreation Committee, Museum Board, and Cemetery Committee as boxes attached to staff positions — as if they sit within the administrative reporting structure. They do not. These bodies exist at the pleasure of Council, are appointed by Council, and are accountable to Council — not to staff. Placing them on a staff org chart misrepresents how they function and blurs the line between Council oversight and administration.
Open organizational chart →This case spans 2020 to 2024. A process that was supposed to find an external senior executive instead appointed an internal candidate into a newly invented role, without a position description, without an org chart, and without a public explanation of what changed. Three years of structural revisions followed — each one a consequence of decisions that were never properly debated before they were made.