Mayor Linnsie Clark speaks during an April city council meeting. A one-day judicial review of sanctions put on the mayor by city council in March heard arguments from both sides Tuesday.--NEWS FILE PHOTO
@@CollinGallant
Lawyers for Mayor Linnsie Clark told a review hearing Tuesday that sanctions against her are “outrageous” and would chill municipal politicians from oversight obligations, while the legal team for the City of Medicine Hat called penalties proportionate and the controversy one of Clark’s own making.
The one-day judicial review heard at the Calgary Court Centre centred on city council’s decision last March to censure Clark for a series of pointed questions to city manager Ann Mitchell over how corporate restructuring was undertaken one year ago.
A written decision by Alberta King’s Bench Justice Rosemary Nation is tentatively expected on Sept. 30.
Clark argues that proper process would be to have council approve changes in open meeting before hiring, firing or transferring takes place, and her lawyers say the chief elected officer was surprised by an admission of such by Mitchell at the Aug. 23, 2023 meeting, about a month after it was enacted.
Clark stressed the potential issue several times to Mitchell in meetings that spring, according to her lawyer, and was told the city solicitor’s office had signed off on the process.
That opinion was apparently never offered by city staff attorneys, court heard, but Clark also procured an outside legal opinion before the meeting and chose to delve into the issue that night, said her lawyer, Grant Stapon, of the firm Bennett Jones.
Other councillors shut down the line of questioning at the time, and the city legal team argued Tuesday that Mitchell’s actions are not the subject of the current review, but rather how Clark handled an issue which other councillors apparently accepted as minor.
“It was not a personnel issue, it was an issue of what-happened-here?” said Stapon. “That is something that should be disclosed to public scrutiny … it was all true and a reasonable issue. She felt she was bringing it up in a reasonable time.
“This council already made up its mind that it would support the city manager.”
Representing the city, Diana Young, of Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer said the city manager answers to all of council, not just one member, and Clark should not have been able to interject with a job review during general debate.
“She and she alone was trying the comply with her duties (of oversight in the MGA) … but there were other options available to the applicant (Clark) outside of publicly chastising the city manager,” said Young.
“Clark could have asked council to obtain an outside legal opinion, external audit of the action … She could, as mayor, have called a special council meeting to evaluate the city manager’s performance at a closed meeting.”
The hearing was attended virtually by Clark, in the Bennett Jones offices, several members of city council as observers and members of the local media.
It was requested in May by Clark who objected to stiff sanctions laid down in March – including her removal as council chair, as official spokesperson, limits to staff interactions and a $64,000 cut to base pay.
Young argued that should Nation decide on remedy, the issue should go back to Medicine Hat city council for reconsideration.
Clark is asking that the council motion to sanction her be quashed, court costs and a return of duties and to full pay retroactively.
“She’s been stripped of her duties and half of her salary and castigated in the eyes of the public, who may be asked to vote for her again,” said Stapon.
“They are an absolutely outrageous set of sanctions no mater how you cut it.”
“This council is clearly biased and you should set aside the sanctions,” he concluded.
Young argued that penalties determined at a March 2024 meeting of council are meant to “reduce friction” between Clark and Mitchell, implying the city’s duty to reduce harassment, and called the pay cut commensurate with the reduction in her duties.
Justice Nation questioned city legal reps about the penalties, saying Clark seemed capable of presiding over the rest of the August 2023 meeting and also said the $64,000 pay reduction could be considered a penalty.
“It seems aggressive,” said Nation. “It seems like council went down the list (of penalties allowed by the Municipal Government Act) ticking boxes.”
Clark was found in a third-party report to have breached council’s code of conduct by failing to treat Mitchell with due respect during the exchange, but not for acquiring the outside legal opinion regarding the corporate changes.
Stapon argued the report, done by Kingsgate Legal, was flawed and didn’t provide due process to his client.
Young said the proper process was upheld and both Clark and Stapon were present at a closed-door meeting where they had an opportunity to respond to its findings before council considered the report and subsequent penalties.
