Medicine Hat Mayor Linnsie Clark is asking for her legal expenses to be reimbursed stemming from the complaints and sanctions from last year that went to a Court of King's Bench hearing last August.--NEWS FILE PHOTO
@@CollinGallant
Mayor Linnsie Clark is requesting the city cover legal bills she incurred fighting a council decision to sanction her, a defence against a threatened defamation suit from the city manager and her move to unilaterally seek outside legal options.
On Monday, Clark introduced a notice of motion asking that her full $76,000 legal bills be covered by the city, explaining later to the News that civic officials who “act in good faith for the city” shouldn’t be left to pay their own legal defence.
“Council had their legal fees paid for and despite my substantial win in the judicial review, I have not,” Clark told the News, regarding the case of Clark vs. City of Medicine, where council was technically the respondent.
Clark cites costs as well for soliciting an outside legal opinion regarding the city’s organizational bylaw, and potential defamation action against her described by lawyers for city manager Ann Mitchell.
“The city manager has had her legal fees paid for, so it seems appropriate that mine would covered as well,” said Clark.
The notice of motion comes two months after the two sides failed to come to terms on cost settlement asked for by a Court of King’s Bench justice, who reviewed and mostly reversed the penalties levelled by council which found Clark broke council code of conduct rules in 2023.
Such a notice moves the issue to debate at council’s regular meeting on April 22, though Clark will likely not take part as elected officials are barred from discussing or voting on items that could benefit them financially.
That would leave councillors to discuss the merits of the request in an open meeting, but only if it is seconded by another member of council.
The move aligns with a series of motions put forth by other councillors to move forward some of the issues where Clark has expressed concern, and during the period when strain on council was increasingly obvious between the mayor and others.
During that time when she was barred from charing council as mayor, Clark requested human resources and staff expense data from administration but couldn’t muster support from other councillors.
On Monday, motions introduced by Coun. Andy McGrogan to publish expense data passed unanimously, and other requests for HR information have been introduced.
Coun. Shila Sharps also forced council to act on altering one of few remaining sanctions left over from the judicial review decision, and Clark is now allowed more access to staff areas at city hall.
Clark said Monday she’s pleased the issues are being addressed, but reiterated she has also sought updates to the city’s indemnification policy, which involves whether legal costs are covered when council members or staff face legal challenges.
“It’s woefully insufficient,” said Clark. “Council members and employees … should someone come after them for their good faith actions; that should be covered by the city.
“Individual members of council or staff shouldn’t cover their own (legal) costs if they are acting in good faith for the city.”
Court documents submitted by Clark revealed a letter from an Edmonton-area law firm on behalf of city manager Ann Mitchell stating that Clark may face a civil defamation suit from their client.
Clark told the News on Monday that there has been nothing further since the initial letter, but she believes that since council agreed to cover Mitchell’s legal costs in the matter, hers should also be covered by the city.
The issue of court costs was discussed to some degree on Feb. 3 – a meeting where Clark was absent – when Coun. Cassi Hider and Sharps moved that council direct the city solicitor to “respond to the costs proposal made by the applicant as discussed during closed session.”
Clark’s request includes costs of mounting her case in the judicial review, heard in August 2024, as well as her soliciting an outside legal opinion that in part formed the basis of the code of conduct complaint.
Other council members cited the brief during the controversy – and that it had been obtained without council’s knowledge – but said after the sanctioning rationale that it was not a mitigating factor.
Clark presented it to support her point that Mitchell lacked the authority to proceed with enacting corporate reorganization before council approved new terminology in its organizational bylaw.
The exchange between the two at the August 2023 council meeting resulted in a complaint and eventual sanctioning in March 2024.
A third-party investigator determined that Clark had breached the code by failing to treat Mitchell with due respect, but not for soliciting the opinion without council’s consent, which formed the second part of the complaint by Sharps.
Clark took the decision to a judicial review in August 2024, and largely won her points that the sanctions were unreasonable after a Court of King’s Bench hearing.
Her pay was cut in half but restored retroactively in the Court of King’s Bench ruling from August 2024.
