Inspection Report Shines Light on City Dysfunction

Mayor Linnsie Clark remarking on the inspection report during Monday’s council meeting. (Photo Alex McCuaig)

The overall theme of the provincial inspector’s report will come to no surprise to Hatters – council isn’t functioning as an effective body and at the centre of the issue is the mayor and the city manager’s relationship.

Secondary to that, issues between staff and council have a ringside seat to the dysfunction.

Both Mayor Linnsie Clark and City Manager Ann Mitchell took a beating in the report through multiple interviews conducted within the confines of city hall.

“I can’t explain enough about the toxicity,” read one excerpt from an anonymous staff interviewee speaking about Clark. “Everyone is exhausted from having to deal with her. The false narratives she puts out are cruelly intended. It’s not just ineptitude, there’s a ruthlessness too.”

“I am fearful of the city. That’s a sentiment for many former employees. That fear should speak to the culture of the city,” said an anonymous interviewee regarding the city manager. “People don’t want to lose their jobs. They are scared of Ann, not council. I’ve never seen someone in leadership treat some people the way I’ve seen Ann treat people.”

City manager Ann Mitchell during Monday’s council meeting. (Photo Alex McCuaig)

Council as a whole also received some licks in the report while giving a few to administration as well for gatekeeping information which elected officials require.

According to one councillor, Mitchell has, “consistently been vague – “it’s coming”, “we’re working on it”, or “do you know how much progress we’ve made?”. . .this (asking for information) is literally our job, and we should be able to make such requests ; How many times does the mayor have to ask for this? Do we need to make this a motion?”

Conversely, administration raised issues of councillors not able to keep confidential information from being leaked or publicly used against staff.

“I am not a hoarder of information. It’s the misuse of information and the damage it can cause. We are considering if it will be used to pick us apart. It’s not used for what they say they want it for,” said Mitchell as part of her interview with inspector Ian McCormack.

An un-named former city manager also made claims of a similar nature, according to the inspection report.

“(It was) pretty clear that (behaviours displayed by council) caused management to feel that we had a hostile and adversarial relationship with council, and that if we ever stepped out of line or if anything went wrong, or if there was opportunity to criticize, that there was going to be a public ridiculing that ensued that. That would make anybody cringe, and subsequently, that's what happened with Ann Mitchell.”

While councillors released a video in the spring of 2024 imploring respect a civility regarding engaging with city hall, that message didn’t appear to have been internalized.

“People are punished if they try something and it doesn’t work,” stated one anonymous city staff member. “Staff get dressed down publicly. That still happens – watch any council meeting. Staff just pull in and keep their heads down. We are not a psychologically safe organization.”

But it was Clark who took the brunt of criticism in the report.

Municipal inspector Ian McCormack address council. (Photo Alex McCuaig)

From Clark chronically not being on time for meetings to getting into administrative duties and a general lack of understanding of governance principles, McCormack concluded the issues started with the mayor.

“The primary impediment in the good governance of the city has been the mayor,” he concluded. “She was duly elected by a populus who may have been aware of her background and relative inexperience on any type of board and on a governance board in particular. Coming with a background working as a lawyer for the city gave her insights into the legal aspects of running a municipality, but it did not seem to provide the idea of how governance by a team of nine colleagues needs to work.”

That issue has been compounded by high turnover of senior city officials, reorganizations and bylaws as well as policies not meeting the needs of citizens, according to the report.

“This inspection has illustrated that Medicine Hat’s shortcomings are primarily within the areas of human relationships rather than in structure, or role, or even in documentation,” concluded McCormack. “Without the mayor leading in terms of modeling the behaviour that (is) expected of a solid visionary chief elected official, council is not set up for success, and that cascades throughout the city’s organization.”

The 207-page report contained 68 recommendations for improving the city’s governance and administration.

Three directives issued by Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Williams in light of the report will require the city act on the recommendations or provide reasons why they aren’t doing so.

Directive 1 requires the city manager to review all the recommendations, findings of irregularities and improper management while providing that report to the minister and to discuss it in an open council meeting by Oct. 1. The directive also requires a detailed action plan and timeline be developed entirely within open council meetings and approved by council resolution.

Directive 2 requires the city manager to provide a copy of the report to the public and to post it on the city’s website until all the directives have been met to the satisfaction of the minister.

Directive 3 will require the city manager and designated officers of the city to participate in respectful workplace training that is approved by the minister. That will also be expected to be complete by Oct. 1.

The entire municipal inspection report is currently posted on the Municipal Affairs website.