George Cuff Has Good (and Not So Good) Advice
By Kelly Allard
Good
Cell phone usage during meetings
During our exclusive interview, Cuff said this about cell phone use.
“They need to have their own rules on what is decorum, one of which should be you put your cell phones on silent; you don’t refer to them during the course of a meeting.
You can have a little basket and everyone put their phone in a basket and can retrieve them when the meeting is over. You should pay attention to the meeting. You shouldn’t be distracted, all of which could be in your code of conduct or your rules of operation of the council.”
Cuff’s company did a review of Red Deer County earlier this year and says this about cell phone use on pg 18.
“5.0 Council Members’ Approach to Itself and its Administration
5.1 We recommend that all Council members abide by a protocol to treat each other with respect. This will include not utilizing your cell phones or other devices during a Council meeting (for texting those inside and external to the meeting or for conducting your own “research” into the
reports of your administration).”
NB - Medicine Hat City Manager (CM) Ann MItchell has been seen using her phone during not only committee meetings but also during City Council meetings. Public Services Managing Director was seen scrolling his phone at the June 3 Council meeting when he was Acting City Manager in Mitchell’s absence. Councillor Sharps was seen with 2 open laptops at the June 3 Council meeting.
(Each Council Member is issued a city laptop and a city smartphone when elected, all members of administration have their laptops available at meetings to access necessary information.)
Video /photo credit Kelly Allard
Video 1 City Manager Ann Mitchell at 6:47 pm May 21 2024 City Council Meeting
Photo 1 Councillor Shila Sharps at 6:52pm Jun 3 2024 City Council meeting
Video 2 Acting City Manager Brian Stauth (Managing Director Public Services) 8:17 pm Jun 3 2024 City Council meeting
There’s nothing in the Code of Conduct that addresses cell phone (or extra laptop) use during meetings, not in the current Bylaw 4492 or the proposed Bylaw 4805.
Public Criticism of Council Members or Administration
“5.3.2 We further recommend that Council press forward with a Code complaint if any member egregiously exceeds acceptable practice through publicly criticizing other individuals on Council or in senior administration. Such commentary needs to be reserved to in camera meetings of Council, and even then, applicable Code of Conduct standards should be that by which such comments are judged.” (source pg 19 Report on Governance Audit for Red Deer County)
Councillor Dumanowski’s diatribe of May 6 comes to mind when discussing the information that Mayor Clark had asked for.
1:22:25 of the May 6 2024 Council meeting Dumanowski made accusations of an ulterior motive saying things like
- recent request made under guise of transparency starting to sow seeds of discord and mistrust
- accountability and transparency are not mere buzzwords to be used for political or personal gain
- …today’s requests finds itself in direct conflict with transparency… trust and integrity…may be manipulated for personal gain or a political agenda …not only tarnishes the reputation of our organization but erodes the trust of those we serve…
Everything Must be Done Openly
Another good point Cuff makes is that everything must be done in open council. It should not be done by e-mail or in private meetings. Councillors should not be picking up the phone and asking their fellow council members, do I have your support on this issue?
This is contrary to what happened last year when Sharps said at the Shitshow Showdown that they had already discussed it behind closed doors saying to Mayor Clark
“…this has already been talked about and I don’t believe anybody around the table is actually in agreement with you so we had a strategic meeting and you did bring this up and ….I have no intentions into getting into her (CM) weeds, I have my own business to run, we are not administration… she did come to us,…. To me that was done. We shouldn't have to discount each other's credibility when we’re around this table and the question was asked, we answered it (physically pointing at the mayor) YOU might not have agreed, that does not change the answer.”
NB - this was after the July 17 2023 meeting where 7 members of council added 14 amendments to Procedure Bylaw 4725 which stripped the mayoral position of many of the powers/privileges. Mayor Clark was absent (as was Councillor Robins).
July 17 2023
2:11:26 - Deputy Mayor Sharps starts by asking if anybody needs a break before they start as it will be lengthy.
7 council members (Dumanowski, Hider, Hirsch, McGrogan, Robins, Sharps, Van Dyke) had many questions which the City provided after the meeting.
The first reading of Procedure Bylaw 4725 was on July 4 and seemed reasonable, updating language, etc. On July 17 there was NO notice given to the public as to what they planned to do.
It was very obvious that these 7 council members had discussed these issues in private, they all had stacks of papers in front of them. These 14 amendments passed boom, boom, boom with little or no discussion on most matters.
Matters of Note at july 17 meeting
2:15:18 Councillor Hirsch proposed that they vote on all 14 amendments as an omnibus and pull out the ones they wanted to discuss to save time. The City Solicitor said that it would be a very long motion for staff to type out if they did it that way so it made more sense to do it one by one.
That really disturbs me that they thought is was okay to pass the amendments without public notice all at once.
2:16:50 Sharps “isn't as bad as it looks - Councilor Dumanowski you're looking at me like oh my god um it actually isn't as bad we crossed out a lot because they were duplicitous so I really do think we can get this quite quickly”.
City Solicitor Ben Bullock told council
“I think the process that we had in mind is that Council would vote on the these motions and then second reading would be uh postponed to a later date and then we would come back with the bylaw as amended for second reading for you to vote on at that time”
2:19:56 Sharps says “I'm going to just ask a question anticipated and that's line in the sand or is that our only option, I guess I guess a few of us around the table thought we were going to get past second reading today and have yes city manager …”
2:20:09 City Manager Ann Mitchell then asks City Solicitor a question re 2nd and 3rd reading, saying
“Chair just for a question for City Solicitor Bullock if council around the Horseshoe agrees to all the Amendments as presented would that not be sufficient for a second reading? I recognize that they wouldn't have the amended document but they would know what all the changes were in amendments were if there was a desire to do second reading tonight.”
In the questions/comment section
Hirsch opined that council should vote “to adjourn AND to take a recess. Rationale: a Mayor could declare a “recess” if the trending/direction of a debate is in a direction the Mayor supports, they could use it as a tactic to filibuster/reduce the momentum of the debate. The deputy mayor can take the chair if the Mayor needs a bio break. We should not be breaking for recess. Never happened prior to this council.”
2:24:03 Hirsch reiterates this during the council meeting, saying at one point
“I just feel at this point in time we've never really had that in play in fact if the mayor had a reason to take a bio break …”
To me this seems a bit condescending. There are many reasons to need a bio break. Meetings can go 4-1/2 hours, it is beneficial to take a break, it also gives staff who are working a chance to pee.
Motions should be provided in advance
No matter how much sense a motion makes, it should never be created on the fly. There are always 2 sides to an issue and allowing time to consider the issue make for better decision making. It allows time to research the issue, finding out what other cities do thereby saving time - there is no point in reinventing the wheel.
NB -Councillor Sharps has bypassed this in the past, saying she “didn’t want to wait two weeks just to wait two weeks”.
Not So Good
role clarity
Cuff is of the opinion that Council is there to govern and set policy, Adminstration is there to manage. In that, he is correct. Council should not be getting into the minutiae of day to day governance. They don’t need to know which employee is showing up late to work or what kind of oil the city uses in their vehicles.
However, there are shades of grey. During the Council Committee of the Whole (CCOTW), Mayor Clark used transit as an example. Cuff cut her off numerous times, saying that it is Council’s job to direct staff to create a first class transit system and then be pretty much hands off.
Therein lies the rub - the definition of a “first class” system.
At this point Council would be entirely within their rights to say to administration exactly what kind of service they want, whether it includes holidays or extended hours on weekends etc.
1:38:13 Mayor Clark stood her ground against Cuff, saying
”getting into the minutiae of implementation is not what I was talking about and so if we take something to a ridiculous extreme it will always be ridiculous but I think there's an in between where the how should be council's purview.”
Managing Human Resources is under the purview of the City Manager (CM), yes.
That position used to report to the Managing Director of Corporate Services but the CM changed that shortly after starting with the City of Medicine Hat; it has been renamed People Services.
Council can instruct the CM to create new positions but they’re not going to sit in on the interviews or read resumes.
Council is certainly entitled to know things like overall employee turnover and how much severance agreements are costing the City. Ann Mitchell seems to be using her position as a shield when she refuses to provide this information when asked for it; first by the mayor then Community TV through a FOIP application.
The City sent a Request to Disregard to the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) for that information, including Tom’s personal FOIP request. A similar letter regarding a resident’s request was denied by the OIPC.
Yes, Council sets policy and Administration carries it out. However, Council cannot set policy to correct an issue if they do not know exactly what is wrong.
Trust in Administration
Cuff talks a lot about how Council must trust their Administration.
Playing Devil’s Advocate - If an administration is hiding wrong-doing then how is Council supposed to know? Someone who is doing something wrong is not going to tell Council that they are doing things wrong. They might not even know that they are doing that thing wrong (such as when CM Mitchell apparently accidentally bypassed a bylaw in 2023).
MItchell admitted she “missed a step” when doing the reorganization in 2023 when she bypassed the City’s Administrative Organization Bylaw during the August 21 2023 council meeting. Yes it was a mistake but how she handled that mistake is what eroded a lot of trust.
Mistakes happen. I make them every day. When I do, I expect and often welcome closer scrutiny.
Here’s how I handle it when I make a mistake.
If I discover the mistake myself, I let people know I screwed up as soon as possible and take steps to rectify it.
If someone else discovers my mistake, I take responsibility and do not deflect.
I answer all questions about how it happened (there are usually none because I already came forward).
I tell them how I plan to not make the same mistake again.
I sincerely apologize.
City Manager Ann Mitchell has done NONE of those things.
Trust is earned. When you screw up, even inadvertently, you must expect closer scrutiny. Role clarity lines shift until the trust is rebuilt. When you deflect and do not apologize then it takes longer to rebuild trust.
Council has every right to look closer
at City Hall operations.
#yxh #medicinehat #thetrashpanda #communitytv #comtv #annmitchell #brianstauth #shilasharps
