Mayoral Candidates Weigh in on “Open” Session of Council

Mayoral candidates for Medicine Hat’s upcoming election are speaking out regarding city council’s July 28 meeting in which two motions were passed without public access to the open session.

The municipality announced on July 29 that an open session of council was held the day prior where two motions were passed.

Those motions involved relieving city manager Ann Mitchell of her duties and gave councillors Shila Sharps, Alison Van Dyke and Ramona Robins directions to hire and instruct an investigator.

Despite open sessions of council required to be publicly accessible, the city has yet to produce an agenda of the meeting or disclose where it took place.

“Just declaring an open meeting if it cannot be accessed is wrong,” stated mayoral candidate Alan Rose.  “This would be like me having a huge sale at a store but not unlocking the doors to let people in. This action also raises questions about transparency.”

Drew Barnes, who announced his intent to run for mayor this week, also took issue with council’s actions.

“Obviously there are times when personnel matters have to be in closed (session). So why is there the double talk of an open meeting when it’s clearly not,” said Barnes. “If I’m successful in being mayor, it will be fully transparent and we will be involving Medicine Hatters as much as possible.”

Coun. Andy McGrogan, who filed his papers this week for his mayoral candidacy, did not respond to requests for comment.

McGrogan took part in the July 28 special council meeting, voting with seven other councillors to pass the two motions concerning the city manager.

As the open session of that July 28 special council meeting is not publicly accessible, it is unclear whether he raised any concerns.

That meeting followed a special council in camera meeting on July 25 which was held online with an agenda and the public allowed to observe.

The Municipal Government Act (MGA) defines, in part, that a closed session of council is occurring if, “any members of the public are not permitted to attend the entire meeting or part of the meeting.”

The city’s July 29 release revealing the nature of the meeting the day before stated the municipality was following section 194 (4) of the MGA.

That section outlines the ability of municipal councils to call special council meetings without 24-hour notice to the public if two-thirds of council approve in writing that such a session is required.

Section 194, however, does not provide exemptions to the requirement that, “when a meeting is closed to the public, no resolution or bylaw may be passed at the meeting, except a resolution to revert to a meeting of a council or council committee held in public.”