By Kelly Allard

Community TV / The Trash Panda’s newest contributor Alex McCuaig obtained the unredacted Kingsgate Report and made it available to us. Alex highlighted the redacted parts.

I am so excited to welcome Alex to the team, I have admired his writing for years! This is from his X (formerly known as Twitter) profile.

“Freelance reporter formerly w/Brooks Bulletin, Medicine Hat News, CHAT News,Western Producer. Former CoS to #ableg speaker”

I attached the reasons for each redaction to the unredacted document, just open the comments part of the pdf file. At times the redactions appear to be nonsensical.

We are two days away from a judicial review of the sanctions placed on Mayor Clark by TMSOC (The Mutinous Seven of Council). Councillor Sharps did not take part in the deliberations but she did file the original Code of Conduct complaint This portion continues on with the investigator notes, it also includes Councillor Sharps’ complaint and comments. Some are absolutely shocking.

Part One of the Analysis left off at item 30 on page 7.

Redacted parts in bold italic
FOIP Act quotes are in italic posted above the relevant redacted portions
-- Commentary —
Links at bottom of page

Page 8

Points 35, 37, 38 39, 40
17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

— I’m not sure why the following redactions were necessary. —
— Why was it a secret that the Mayor was going to hire a lawyer? —

35 On November 28, 2023, the Respondent emailed the investigator to request additional time to review her draft interview statement and to seek legal counsel.

37 On December 11, 2023, the investigator emailed the Chair of the City’s Administrative and Legislative Review Committee to advise that the investigator has not heard back from the Respondent or received her signed interview statement, and the investigation would need to be postponed until the new year as the investigator was going away on a pre planned vacation over Christmas.

38 On January 2, 2024, the investigator emailed the Respondent to follow up regarding her interview statement and to confirm whether the Respondent had retained legal counsel.

39 On January 9, 2024, the investigator sent a further email to the Respondent to follow up regarding her interview statement and to confirm whether the Respondent had retained legal counsel.

40 On January 10, 2024, the Respondent emailed the investigator to advise that she just returned from vacation yesterday and am away at a conference for the rest of the week.The Respondent said “I will do my best to provide you with the written statement by Friday. I do apologize for the delay.”

Page 9

— Again, I’m not sure why the following redactions were necessary. —

Points 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49
17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

43 On January 15, 2024, Grant N. Strapon K.C. of Bennet Jones LLP (the “Respondent’s Legal Counsel”) emailed the Investigator to advise that he has just been retained to assist the respondent with this matter and would need the next week to 10 days to assess the case.

44 By reply email on the same date, the investigator acknowledged the acknowledgment of the respondent’s Legal Counsel and request for an extension.

45 By separate email on the same date, the investigator advised the Chair of the City’s Administrative and Legislative Review Committee that the Respondent has now retained legal counsel and they have requested an extension of a week to 10 days to assess the case.

46 On January 31, 2024, the Respondent’s Legal Counsel provided the Investigator with their response to the complaint a copy of which is attached as Appendix A.

47 On February 5, 2024, the investigator attended, virtually, before Council in closed session to provide a status update on the investigation.

48 On February 13, 2024, the Respondent’s Legal Counsel provided the Investigator with further submission in response to the complaint, a copy of which is attached as Appendix B.

V. COMPLAINANT’S (Councillor Sharps) INFORMATION

49. Below are relevant excerpts from the Complaint:

Ultimately, I find the events of August 21, 2023 which are recorded on YouTube for all to see, absolutely reprehensible!

I am submitting this letter to address what I believe are several code of conduct violations by the (Respondent).

Page 10

Entirety of page 10
17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

I am referencing Bylaw 4492, (which was amended by Bylaw 4694 on February 23 2022.) The code of conduct for members of council.

Section 4.1 (b) of the code states that members shall perform their functions and duties in a conscientious and diligent manner, with integrity, accountability, and transparency.

Based on the council meeting of August 21, 2023, it is my belief that (the Respondent) did not fulfill her duties in such a manner, particularly in terms of integrity and transparency (...) failed to inform us that she had privately sought an outside legal opinion. Instead, she chose to announce this in an open council meeting. She chose not to reveal ANY of this information thus lacking integrity and transparency in her role…

— A lot of residents think Mayor Clark did fulfill her role which is to hold the City Manager accountable. The Municipal Government Act (MGA) states that bylaws are to be passed in open council. Neither Council nor the City Manger have the legal right to bypass the MGA. —

Furthermore, Section 4.1 (c) states that members should conduct themselves in a professional manner with dignity and make every effort to diligently participate in council meetings.

I reiterate my claim that during our strategic meeting, where this specific matter was discussed, the chief elected official did not diligently participate by informing us about her actions of seeking outside legal opinions. This blindsided us during the open meeting. These actions by the chief elected official are clear violations of the code of conduct, specifically in terms of integrity, transparency, and diligent participation. I urge the council to address these violations and take appropriate action.

— Sharps seems more concerned with how Council was embarrassed and Council’s lack of due diligence. People were pleased it came out in open council and many were shocked that the rest of Council were happy to be a rubber stamp.—

— NB - Hmmmm - sort of similar to the July 17 2023 amendments passed in the mayor’s absence? The amendments were not in the Agenda Packet beforehand so the public never had a chance to weigh in at all. Some were reasonable, many stripped the Mayor of their powers. You can see Deputy Mayor Sharps presiding and pushing to get the Procedure Bylaw 4725 passed with 14 amendments in the Mayor’s absence. Each Council Member had stacks of paper in front of them, they were well prepared. Watch the video starting at about 2:11:20 —

Section 5 of the code of conduct pertains to communicating on behalf of the council. Specifically, section 5.5 states that no member shall make a statement with the intent to mislead council or members of the public.

While reviewing the video of the August 21 council meeting, it is evident that the chief elected official continued to make statements with the intention of misleading the public. She created a false narrative that our City manager had intentionally made erroneous decisions that cost our taxpayers dollars. Furthermore, her statements implied that we were now in a litigious position as a result of these decisions.

— Ummm, my thoughts were that the City Manager screwed up. That’s not a big deal, everybody screws up. However, instead of correcting it right away, Mitchell just kept going anyway with the expectation that Council would rubber stamp what she did. They did not disappoint her. —

[...] This blindsided us during the open meeting. These actions by the (the Respondent) are clear violations of the code of conduct, specifically in terms of integrity, transparency, and diligent participation. I urge the council to address these violations and take appropriate action.

— NB - if this sounds familiar, it is the same as the above with the exception of replacing “the chief elected official” with (the Respondent). —

Page 11

17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

(The Respondent).. Made a blatant attempt during the open council meeting to discredit the City Manager.

— To me this sounds like my children when they would say “(Sibling) got me into trouble”. I always corrected them by saying that it was their own behaviour that got them into trouble. It was part of how they learned to take responsibility for their actions. —

[...]
Section 8 of the code of conduct pertains to respectful interactions with council, staff, and the public. Subsection 8.1 emphasizes the importance of acting in a manner that demonstrates fairness, respect for individual differences and opinions, and an intention to work together for the common good.

In my opinion, there was a lack of fairness demonstrated by (the Respondent) despite repeated statements from council that the matter had already been agreed upon. She was determined to make her point that our City Manager had, in her opinion, broken the law and the code of conduct and she sought a legal opinion to support her stance.

— The City Manager violated the MGA by bypassing Bylaw 4662. The bylaw is only 8 pages long. If I was starting a new job my first duty would be to see exactly what my job duties consisted of, what I could and could not do. The Mayor says she tried to discuss this with the City Manager and got nowhere so she got an external legal opinion. Since the City Solicitor is hired and fired by the City Manager, I think it was wise to get an uninvolved 3rd party to weigh in.—

Subsection 8.2 states that members should treat fellow employees, members of the municipality, and the public with courtesy, dignity, and respect, without engaging in abuse, bullying, or intimidation. As someone sitting around the council table on August 21 2023, I witnessed a complete absence of courtesy, dignity and respect towards our City manager.

[...]
Furthermore, subsection 8.6 (c) explicitly states that members must not maliciously or falsely damage the professional, ethical reputation, or prospects for the practices of employees of the municipality. However, at the open council meeting of August 21 2023 (the Respondent) made statements and continued with a line of questioning that allowed the public and viewers to believe that our City Manager had acted unprofessionally and had been deceptive to us and the city solicitor, none of which actually occurred.

— I have seen other Council Members ask questions they already knew the answer to including Cocunillor Sharps. They usually preface it by saying “I already know this but just so the public is informed…” —

These actions by the chief elected official are clear violations of the code of conduct, specifically in terms of fairness, respect, courtesy and avoiding malicious or false damage to the reputations of employees. It is crucial that we address these violations and take appropriate action to ensure a respectful and professional environment within our council.

— If the City Manager bypasses a bylaw, they should not get a free pass. In fact they need to be held to a higher standard since they set the example for the rest of the staff. By rubber stamping the City Manager’s violation of the MGA, Council has now effectively told staff that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. That is not a good standard to set.—

Point 50

Disclosure harmful to law enforcement
20(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
(b) prejudice the defence of Canada or of any foreign state allied to or associated with Canada,

— The above makes no sense whatsoever, it is my opinion that it is a typo in the redactions. —

24(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal
(a) advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for a public body or a member of the Executive Council,
(b) consultations or deliberations involving
(i) officers or employees of a public body,
(ii) a member of the Executive Council, or
(iii) the staff of a member of the Executive Council,

50. Below are excerpts from the Complainant’s interview statement:

I filed this formal complaint on my own behalf, not on behalf of the City Manager or anyone else.

In February the City Manager moved the City Clerk from the City Solicitor to report directly to the City Manager. The City Clerk was ecstatic about the change. Within days of doing this the City Manager realized that process to amend the Administrative Organization Bylaw hadn’t been followed and no one on Council, including the Mayor,

(next page)

spoke up when the City manager apologized for that.

— Why was this redacted? “The City Clerk was ecstatic about the change.“ I’m not sure this is privileged information.—

Page 12

August 14 was the annual performance appraisal of the City Manager. It was not a regular or special council meeting but I’m pretty sure it was advertised. It was not a council meeting.

— Fact check - it was NOT advertised. Check the meetings here. —

First redaction pg 12
17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

Local public body confidences
23(1) The head of a local public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal
(b) the substance of deliberations of a meeting of its elected officials or of its governing body or a committee of its governing body, if an Act or a regulation under this Act authorizes the holding of that meeting in the absence of the public.

I don't know why the Mayor cares about this. There were plenty of times to raise this issue with Council. The City Solicitor is always in the room with us. Why didn't the Mayor ask the City Solicitor to weigh in if she was concerned that the proper process wasn't being followed?

— I don’t why Councillor Sharps doesn’t care about bylaws being bypassed. Did Sharps even read the 8 pages of Bylaw 4662? Why didn't she get a legal opinion herself? —

17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

We work as a Council, based on the will of Council. If there was an issue regarding the City Manager’s reorganization and the Administrative Organization Bylaw we should have known in advance. The Mayor could have asked for an in-camera meeting. She could have requested a legal opinion from our City Solicitor. She even could have said that she was going to get an external legal opinion.

Council was mortified and embarrassed when the Mayor said in a public meeting that she got a personal legal opinion.

— Once again, it’s about how Council was embarrassed. —

The morning after the Council meeting (Aug 22) I tried to talk to the Mayor and ask her how do we fix this. The mayor told me she feels threatened right now and didn’t want to talk to me. I said wow, and I walked out. I had no intention of filing a formal code of Conduct complaint, I really wanted to try and resolve it.

— This above part was not highlighted in the Unredacted Report. Sharps went into the Mayor’s office in person? Why not just e-mail? If Sharps was giving off any of the vibes she had shown at the Aug 21 Shitshow Showdown, I would feel threatened too. —

I go back and watch the video of our Council meetings sometimes and one time I realized that I had spoken inappropriately to a Managing Director during the meeting. So, I went and apologized to them and apologized publicly at the next Council meeting. I thought the mayor would do this. That she could apologize to the City manager and to Council for her conduct at the Aug 21st meeting.

On Aug 21 when the Mayor spoke the idea that the City Manager failed to inform Council is simply not true. We knew what the City manager was doing. Council said thanks, yes that sounds good. The Mayor makes it sound like Council was kept it (sic) the dark and the Mayor is the only one bringing it forward.

— The public was concerned about being kept in the dark, that Council was effectively passing bylaws behind closed doors before bringing it to Open Council. Many members of the public was shocked and pissed that Council was rubber stamping the City Manager’s misdeeds. It seemed sneaky and underhanded. —

The Administrative Organization Bylaw has been under review for the last 6 months.

— The AO Bylaw 4662 was not under review, it was being bypassed right from the start when the City Manager had the City Clerk reporting to her instead of to the City Solicitor. The City Clerk had been recruited from Grande Prairie in 2022; the City paid a relocation allowance. 5 months after Ann Mitchell started, we had to hire a new City Clerk. —

Advice from officials
24(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal
(a) advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for a public body or a member of the Executive Council,
(b) consultations or deliberations involving
(i) officers or employees of a public body,

The City Manager came to Council and asked if people are good with what she is doing. It’s no deal breaker for me that we’re ratifying the City manager’s decisions ahead of the fact on the reorganization.

— Are you freaking kidding me? This should definitely be a deal breaker!!!! —

Page 13

17 (4) d, 17 (4) f
(4) A disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if
(d) the personal information relates to employment or educational history,
(f) the personal information consists of personal recommendations or evaluations, character references or personnel evaluations,

I don’t think the Mayor’s intention was to go after Council at the Aug 21 meeting. But when she said she was the only one upset about this it made it sound like rest of council (sic) were being secretive or something. As a lawyer she knew what words to use.The next day people on social media were asking how Council could be so deceptive; we’ve taken a beating from a very small minority. My credibility is key as is my integrity. I don’t lie.

— Again, it’s about Councillor Sharps. —

The City Manager has something like 40 years of service. Even if every word the Mayor said was true it should have been said in private as a confidential personnel matter. We can deal with it behind closed doors. There was opportunity to do that. The Mayor wanted to do it in public intentionally knowing it would be insubordinate for the City manager to defend herself. Personnel is a closed item under FOIP. Performance issues are not appropriate discussion in public.

— The Mayor said she tried to handle it behind closed doors. The Mayor said the City Manager had told Council in camera that she had obtained a legal opinion from the City Solicitor; the City Solicitor was not present at that meeting. According to Mayor Clark, the alleged legal opinion has never been provided to Council.

It’s never insubordinate for someone to defend themselves. Of course it helps if they have done nothing wrong. The City Manager never publicly apologized for bypassing bylaw 4662. —

From my perspective this investigation is not about the Administrative Organization Bylaw. It is not about conduct of the City manager. If the AO Bylaw was breached it is on Council to raise the issue.

Council never met to discuss issues with the AO Bylaw and how the City Manager was handling the reorganization.

The Mayor’s conduct at the Aug 21 meeting has caused me personal reputational damage. I've lost clients in my business. 3 of the 4 have since come back after watching the meeting video.

— Again, Councillor Sharps is concerned for her own reputation. She should be. When someone is okay with doing things outside of the MGA, then their reputation should take a hit. —

The Mayor never brought her concerns to Council in advance. She never said we need to get a legal opinion on this. We were blindsided at the meeting.

— Sharps said at the Shitshow Showdown at about 2:01:43 “With all due respect, with all due respect, 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.”

That doesn’t sound like they didn't know about the Mayor’s objections, it sounds like they just didn’t care.—

I was in shock on the 21st, thinking what the hell just happened. We were all in shock and just hoped the City manager would not quit.

— Someone standing up for what is right when they stand alone is shocking, yes. —

Local public body confidences 23(1) The head of a local public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal
(b) the substance of deliberations of a meeting of its elected officials or of its governing body or a committee of its governing body, if an Act or a regulation under this Act authorizes the holding of that meeting in the absence of the public.

The City Manager had come to Council in-camera to say what she was doing around the reorganization. If Council did a resolution in public before the changes were implemented, then the staff would know that we’re dissolving a department or a business unit.

— Keeping secrets from staff about their future is not cool. Staff could have had some valuable insights on this especially since they had already been through another reorganization not long before. Reorganization Fatigue is a real thing. Sharps says she has HR experience, one would think she would know about that. Why didn’t Council Speak Up and Speak Out on behalf of the staff who would be affected by the reorg? —

Making resolutions to ratify decisions isn’t new. We are doing a resolution on Oct 3 to approve 3 letters that were already sent to the Minister. So, what’s the difference here?

— I can’t believe I have to spell this out for a Council Member but here I go.

Here’s the difference.

The letters did not cost anybody their jobs or the use of public monies for rebranding departments. —