Decision on Mayor’s Legal Fee Reimbursement Delayed Again

(File photo)

A decision by council whether to repay Medicine Hat Mayor Linnsie Clark’s legal fees will be on the agenda in a month following a vote to delay the matter to the next meeting.

The agenda item was up before council on Monday regarding the $75,000 legal bill with councillors having sought and received a legal opinion directly. That action was sparked by Coun. Robert Dumanowski’s objections last month to the notice of motion moved by Clark initially in April.

For at least one resident present during Monday’s council meeting, they expressed their frustration at another delay on the issue verbally from the gallery.

“Not acceptable,” said the individual whose statement is audible in the city’s broadcast of Monday’s meeting. “Deal with it.”

The initial April motion includes a request for repayment following Clark seeking an independent opinion regarding the legality of the city not adhering to its own procedural bylaw regarding a reorganization. That opinion found it was not legal which a provincial inspection report presented on Monday confirmed.

That legal opinion was presented at an August 2023 council meeting, unleashing a cascading litany of internal city hall complaints and counter accusations over the past two years.

That included a code of conduct complaint investigation resulting in punitive sanctions against the mayor and subsequent judicial review removing those restrictions. Additionally, there was a threatened defamation case by city manager against the mayor.

Following debate at the June 16 council meeting, a motion was passed for council to seek further legal advice. That opinion was provided to council a month ago with the mayor stating she only received just prior to Monday’s council meeting.

While that legal opinion was not presented as part of the agenda package, the mayor stated it should be.

Clark summarized the council-sought opinion regarding her motion for repayment as inconclusive. The mayor stated the opinion indicated her motion could be considered a pecuniary interest and if it’s unclear, the recommendation would be recusal from the discussion.

Coun. Ramona Robins explained administration was not involved in the request for a legal opinion which she undertook on behalf of council as she held the position of deputy mayor.

Robins indicated following discussions and information provided by Clark regarding the breakdown of her costs, council will be once again consulting with their lawyers.

Image of the cover page of a seven-page redacted refusal notice regarding city manager Ann Mitchell’s legal expenses obtained through a FOIP request by council critic Nicole Frey.

She also indicated the opinion will be in the agenda package at the next council meeting scheduled for Aug. 18 and the item will be prioritized.

Council has not volunteered cost estimates regarding further incurred expenses relating to the matter. Nor has there been a full breakdown of costs incurred by council regarding its defence against the judicial review. Council did vote to reimburse city manager Ann Mitchell $6,500 legal costs despite a more than $12,000 legal opinion resulted in a refusal notice regarding the action.

Monday’s debate followed questions being raised last month regarding the appropriateness of the mayor’s motion for reimbursement.

“I believe the request/notice of motion should be denied,” stated Dumanowski during June 16’s council meeting, citing the Municipal Government Act’s (MGA) sections regarding pecuniary interests. As the motion includes financial reimbursement, Dumanowski stated those sections in the act should apply to the request.

“A mayor or councillor who knows they have a pecuniary interest must not bring forward a notice of motion or a request on that subject because doing so amounts to prohibited participation, breaches fiduciary duty and invites legal and reputational consequence,” stated Dumanowski on June 16.

Clark responded that she would be open to another option but none has been provided while citing her own sections of the MGA which she believes are applicable to the issue during last month’s meeting.