Coun. Andy McGrogan speaks at a May 21 council meeting at city hall. The first-term councillor says he will push for a Municipal Affairs audit of city operations.--News File Photo
@@CollinGallant
Both sides of a council controversy have claimed some measure of victory in a court decision this week, but a municipal consultant who recently worked with Medicine Hat council on the issue says it is now on everyone to move past it.
That comes as Coun. Andy McGrogan says he will push for council to request a municipal affairs inspection of city hall operations when council meets for the first time after going to court in a dispute between eight councillors and the mayor.
This week a judicial ruling found that council imposed “unreasonable” sanctions on Mayor Linnsie Clark for a code of conduct violation during an argument with city manager Ann Mitchell, but also found that council’s decision to find she acted inappropriately was reasonable.
George Cuff advises local councils, works with municipal groups and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and met with all nine members of Medicine Hat council this spring in an attempt to outline responsibilities and potentially walk the two sides toward a resolution.
He told the News on Tuesday that he considers the judgment “balanced and sound” but also that an audit could provide valuable insight for council going forward.
“If the scope and terms of reference are right, there could be nuggets in there that would be valuable,” said Cuff. “I’ve been clear, I think this is on all of council.”
The court ruling removes prohibitions on Clark from chairing meetings, attending administrative committee meetings and acting as council’s spokesperson, as well as retroactively restoring her full salary after it was cut it in half.
It doesn’t remove a letter of reprimand, but that letter only suggests an apology could lead to a removal of sanctions. However, those sanctions largely no longer exist, leaving some question that the request for apology is in limbo.
“I suppose she could dig her heels in, but that appears to be the next step,” he said.
“It takes a big person to apologize … I’m not naive enough to think that all of a sudden people are going to have a great relationship, but people expect (elected officials) to do their best and conduct the business of the municipality in a congenial manner.”
Councillors and Clark have said since March they planned to continue to do their best to work together in the interests of the community, but some members have increasingly commented on the dispute since the Aug. 13 hearing was held.
McGrogan released a statement Tuesday stating he has planned to call for a municipal inspection since before the hearing and will “look forward to council’s debate.”
“It has been over a year since the mayor has had opportunity to apologize to serve our community more effectively, yet no attempts have been made as of yet,” he wrote.
A notice of motion at could come at council’s next meeting on Tuesday, which would place it on the Sept. 16 agenda.
It was an option presented to council and top administrators when they met with Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver in late July to discuss provincial resources available to help end an ongoing controversy.
Other councillors who the News has contacted said they held reservations about an audit relating to timelines that may return a report after the next election, set for October 2025, and the cost which would be paid by the city.
Such an “audit” would review council and administrative actions, determine if proper procedure has been followed and recommended corrective action, if required.
It would not necessarily examine financial matters.
A similar audit was conducted at the Town of Redcliff in 2012 and recommended changes to in-camera meeting practices and minutes taking.
