Taxpayer Bill for Council Dispute Likely to Rise as Issue Moves Into Second Year

Councillors Shila Sharps (right) and Alison Van Dyke. (File photo)

The Medicine Hat’s mayor request for legal fee reimbursement is once again exposing deep fractures at city council as well as an unlikely ally in her fight for repayment.

But it’s unclear how much the taxpayer is continuing to pay for the legal drama as the public heard Monday night both Mayor Linnsie Clark and councillors have their own lawyers wrangling over the matter.

The request by Clark stems from a more than $75,000 legal bill. Those costs are associated with obtaining a legal opinion on whether council was following its own bylaw, to defend against a defamation allegation by the city manager and a judicial review of code of conduct penalties leveled against her.

Coun. Ramona Robins indicated it was unclear what the breakdown of costs were.

 “I don’t think the breakdown of the legal fees is transparent enough for the public to understand how those fees were incurred and for council to reasonably discuss them,” stated Robins.

Clark shot back that the issue had been discussed with council’s legal counsel and hers.

“If there were more detailed items, I would say that should be requested.”

Coun. Robert Dumanowski raised conflict of interest issues as to whether the whole issue of legal fee reimbursement could be raised by the mayor at all.

Coun. Robert Dumanowski (foreground) and Coun. Cassie Hider. (File photo)

Dumanowski stated the public officials, “must place public duty above personal gain. Taking any step to advance a motion breaches that duty and erodes confidence in the citizenry.”

The mayor stated she is not in violation of any rule or regulation, and she’s been open to options to resolve the matter, “but none has been provided to me.”

She went on to state to Dumanowski, “you’re saying I can’t request my legal fees in this manner. I am asking what manner I can request them?”

The mayor stated council had its legal fees covered in defence of what a King’s Bench justice found was extremely disproportionate sanctions by councillors.

As for her obtaining an independent legal opinion regarding whether council was following its own procedural bylaw when a City Hall reorganization took place, she said that was justified.

“We were told there was a different legal opinion,” stated Clark about city manager Ann Mitchell’s claim that she has sought and received advice the city was following its bylaw in relation to the reorganization. “And that turned out not to exist.”

“All of you have had your legal fees paid so it’s not a pressing issue for you but it is a pressing issue for me,” said the mayor.

Coun. Allison Knodel called the legal fees incurred for the judicial review a “personal expense” and the court upheld there was a breach of the city’s code of conduct policy.

Despite legal submissions and public statements to the contrary, Knodel also indicated the sanctions leveled against the mayor were not just about the exchange at an August 2023 council meeting.

“The misconduct was not isolated. It reflected months of problematic behaviour that council sought unsuccessfully to resolve,” stated Knodel.

The mayor took issue with Knodel’s statements focused on the court’s finding there was a breach of the code of conduct and council does have the ability to place sanctions in response.

“The reality is the court found that this council acted in a way that no reasonable council would act. And that their sanctions were overwhelmingly disproportionate. And those sanctions are the reasons that the judicial review was required,” responded Clark.

She reiterated the court’s decision that found no reasonable municipal council would act in the manner Medicine Hat’s did, and councillors had their legal fees reimbursed despite their improper behaviour.

Coun. Shila Sharps, whose code of conduct complaint sparked the issue which resulted in the mayor being stripped of her powers and subsequent judicial review appeared to have changed her opinion on the situation.

Regarding the issue of whether council breached its own procedural bylaw during the reorganization, Sharps stated, “in retrospect, the bylaw was broken.”

I don’t ever remember voting to have our legal fees covered,” stated Sharps regarding councillors’ legal fees. “At no point was there a motion of council to cover our costs. So, what would the difference be? I can’t find one.”

As for the exchange between city manager Mitchell and the mayor at the August 2023 council meeting, Sharps added, “there are days where I regret stopping that conversation.”

She indicated she will be supporting the mayor’s request for reimbursement.

Mitchell ended the debate by correcting a statement by Knodel regarding her legal fees being $12,000, “it was actually $6,500,” stated Mitchell.

The city paid $12,000 for a legal opinion on whether to repay the $6,500 as per the procedure outlined in the city’s indemnity policy.

That opinion recommended the city not pay Mitchell’s legal fees with council passing a motion last year to do so anyway.

The mayor’s reimbursement issue is anticipated to be before council again at its second meeting in July.