Cost of Council Infighting Set to Rise as Indemnity Policy Scrutinized

City council during its April 22 meeting. (Photo Kelly Allard)

Compromise might be the cheapest lawyer but that skill appears to be in short supply at Medicine Hat City Hall as the legal fee fallout from council infighting continues.

A notice of motion filed earlier this week is now seeking to remove the city administration’s role from the municipal indemnity policy when it comes to councillors incurring legal fees.

“(I’m) looking for a revision on the indemnity policy for council to seek independent legal advice without requiring city administration approval,” stated Coun. Shila Sharps at this week’s council meeting. “The current policy has us going to the city manager. It just seems we shouldn’t be going to our employee for an indemnification clause.”

The notice of motion comes as Mayor Linnsie Clark announced a postponement until the next council meeting on her notice of motion seeking repayment of $75,000 of legal fees. That notice comes following her successful court action against councils’ sanctions against her in August 2024.

Clark remarked Sharp’s notice motion should indicate the matter should return to council, “since it’s kind of pressing.”

Council passed a motion on Feb. 3 referencing a discussion during an in-camera meeting and directing the city solicitor to, “respond to the cost proposal made by the applicant.”

The “applicant” was later revealed to be Mayor Linnsie Clark. Council has not indicated publicly whether that response has been provided, when it was submitted or any other information associated with the motion.

However, Clark filed her notice of motion for debate on her request earlier this month.

In an interview with the Medicine Hat Owl, Clark indicated that regardless of the city’s indemnity policy, it can be overridden through a council vote.

“Council does have the authority. Even if the policy says one thing, we can do another,” said Clark in an interview with the Owl earlier this month.

The first of six-pages of a “Refusal Notice” released as part of a freedom of information request filed by Nicole Frey regarding city manager Ann Mitchell’s legal expenses. All six-pages are redacted with the exception of the letterhead and page numbers.

That statement is consistent with the Owl’s reporting on how the city’s indemnity policy is being utilized. That reporting includes taxpayers paying a $12,000 legal opinion on whether to pay a $6,500 legal bill for city manager Ann Mitchell. That opinion resulted in a refusal notice but council subsequently voted to pay it anyway.

Those costs are on top of legal expenses incurred by city councillors in their failed defence of their sanctions against the mayor which earned a stern rebuke from a King’s Bench justice for lack of reasonableness. While taxpayers covered those legal costs, councillors have yet to publicly state how much they are.

Those costs also don’t include the Kingsgate Legal investigation into the code of conduct complaint stemming from an August 2023 dispute between the mayor and Mitchell. Nor do they include the price of the provincial investigation into city operations which Coun. Andy McGrogan linked to the dispute in his September motion seeking the province to step in to review city operations.

Both Clark’s motion and Sharps’ notice of motion are scheduled to be heard at the May 5 council meeting.