Mayor Linnsie Clark sits alone at the council table after councillors voted to recess following a tense exchange between the mayor and city manager Anne Mitchell on Monday night.--NEWS PHOTO COLLIN GALLANT
cgallant@medicinehatnews.com@CollinGallant
Major rifts between Mayor Linnsie Clark, the rest of council and city hall administrators came into public view Monday night during a series of exchanges over the handling of the city’s corporate reorganization last month.
Clark directed a long line of questions at city manager Anne Mitchell accusing her of moving unilaterally without council’s formal approval, while eight other council members endorsed the changes after using a procedural tactic to cut off Clark’s speaking time.
The tense confrontation subsided after a brief recess, but later on councillors rejected a Clark proposal to maintain time debate limits in a separate overhaul of council procedures. Those changes include new limits on the mayor in chairing council meetings and taking part in committee work.
Clark told the media after the meeting that she’s concerned administration overstepped its authority, and while she may disagree with councillor-led amendments to remove some powers, she will accept the result.
“It’s important for elected officials to hold the line with what their authority is and that their roles are well defined,” said Clark after the meetings
“(Procedural changes have) passed and I voted in favour of it. Different people have different opinions … It’s the will of council and I’m willing to go with it.”
Comments from other council members point to some level of dysfunction between themselves and the chief elected official.
“We have things to do and we need to get our work done – we can’t be stymied,” said Coun. Shila Sharps following the meeting.
She interjected during the exchange between Clark and Mitchell, calling the mayor’s questions “a diatribe.”
“We all add value to committee meetings and when one person comes in and takes over a meeting, other council members and administrators aren’t equally heard.
“There were eight of us voted in, plus the mayor, and it’s important that all of our skills are at the table and communicate (our thoughts) at the table.”
Clark, a lawyer for the municipality before she was elected in 2021, has often spoken about reworking procedures to improve transparency and operations at the city. It was a major campaign promise, along with examining the role administrators play in city decision making.
On Monday she said the letter of the city’s bylaws were not followed when the re-organization took place on last month. She presented an outside legal opinion that suggested the renaming of the divisions and movement of operating departments to new managers may be nullified upon legal review.
“In this case, the reorganization happened before it came to council (for a vote),” she said. “It isn’t much of a choice at that point.”
On July 10, the city communications department announced the changes, which had been a topic of general conversation at city hall since Mitchell was hired in February. Mitchell told Clark she discussed it with a closed meeting of council last month then proceeded. Clark’s position was that a resolution of council was required before work proceeded.
Mitchell responded that council was informed last month, and if there was a misstep, it could be attributed to her.
“It’s how it happened previously under other city managers,” she said.
“People have lost their jobs already. Why is this only coming to council now?” Clark asked.
After several more minutes, Sharps interjected with a point of order saying the mayor was engaged in a “diatribe.”
“This is starting to be an inquisition,” said Sharps. “With all do respect, we’ve already talked about this. We talked about it at our strategic meeting … we’ve all moved forward. I’m not happy that this is happening the way it is, and I’ll call a recess if this continues.”
Clark, having been asked to rule against herself, engaged Sharps.
“I find it disappointing that no one else is concerned” that a council responsibility had been handled independently by administration, said Clark.
“Is the point of order that I just stop talking about this?”
At that point, Coun. Andy McGrogan, who originally moved the item, made a non-debatable call for a vote. The motion passed through second reading with only Clark opposed.
After a 15-minute recess, a procedural vote to allow third reading and then third reading itself passed with all in favour, including Clark.
The exchanges come a month after councillors proposed a raft of amendments to council’s procedure bylaw that would reduce Clark’s ex-officio status as a member of all standing committees and limit all non-members’ ability to participate in committee meetings.
Committee assignments made each fall will now be approved by council vote rather than at the mayor’s discretion.
