Mayor Linnsie Clark speaks during a council meeting in April at city hall. Clark was one of three council members to vote against getting a non-financial city audit done.--NEWS FILE PHOTO
@@CollinGallant
Medicine Hat city council will engage Alberta Municipal Affairs to look at how the rules spelling out administrative powers at city hall are written and how they have been applied.
The request, approved at the five-hour mark of Tuesday’s meeting by a 6-3 vote, comes after a year of controversy and public jousting between Mayor Linnsie Clark, council and top administrators.
That included a judicial review of code of conduct complaint made against Clark, and running commentary in town about bureaucratic power at city hall.
The issue arose again on Tuesday’s agenda, beginning with an apology offered by Clark, then ended with an emergent motion to call in provincial analysts to examine her accusations that the city manager usurped council’s authority during layoffs last year.
Coun. Andy McGrogan made the motion stating the non-financial audit was a route to restore public confidence in council and city hall while potentially addressing any shortcomings.
“It’s not just whether council gets along with the mayor (but) are we aligned to properly govern this city?” he said. “I think the community needs to hear what we want to look like and what we want to do in the last year of our term, and what the next council will look like.”
The half-hour discussion at the end of the agenda featured eight of nine council members providing thoughts as well as a charged exchange between Coun. Shila Sharps and Clark.
Six councillors in favour said they see it as a way to find definitive answers about the he-said-she-said controversy, with those voting against, including Clark, citing concern over scope and the risk of continuing this dispute.
“I feel like there’s more information that I need about what the risks are,” said Clark, who said she had an “open mind” about the issue and could support it.
“Specifically, I’m concerned about some areas this city engages in (the energy business units) other municipalities don’t. I’d like to know what the risks are, even in closed (council) … that staff sees that we need to be live to before we agree to this.”
The core of the disagreement is Clark’s assertion that city manager Ann Mitchell bypassed the city’s “Administrative Organization Bylaw” during a corporate reorganization last summer when council should have provided final say before layoffs, transfers and promotions took place.
Such an audit would be a non-financial review of the local legislation, how it is and was applied, and would make general findings public then recommend or order corrective action.
Couns. Alison Van Dyke and Ramona Robins also voted no, citing cost and time line that could bring the report back after the October 2025 election.
Voting in favour were Couns. McGrogan, Sharps, Allison Knodel, Cassi Hider, Darren Hirsch and Robert Dumanowski, who said a “broad but expedited” review “would enable a clear path forward.”
“It’s difficult for everyone – it’s sown issues of distrust and bitterness in some,” said Dumanowski, who felt the judicial review – which removed the harshest sanctions on Clark but generally upheld council’s decision she mistreated Mitchell – had created more controversy.
“Facts should speak for themselves,” said Dumanowski. “I believe we’re on our way to moving forward, but for the sake of current state of affairs and staff, having a clear review and understanding with recommendations will truly create a reset, which this council and community desperately needs.”
Robins said the audit could be costly, time consuming and backward-looking.
“I understand why (an audit is being discussed), but it’s not something I can bring myself to support,” said Robins.
“With a municipal inspection would be broader reputational risks,” said Van Dyke. “The city (at large) wants us to look ahead.”
Council met with Minister Ric McIver in late June when Municipal Affairs officials suggested either training, mediation or an audit as available resources.
“Inspection is the only viable option,” said Sharps. “It’s crucial for us to clarify and stabilize the situation.”
Debate took a dramatic turn when Clark challenged Sharp’s statement that council had previously been offside with the bylaw when it approved two positions – a communications staffer and chief of staff – to work in the mayor’s office as staff of council, not the city manager.
That created animosity between Clark and Mitchell, according to Sharps and several other councillors, though Clark said Tuesday she “didn’t know what (Sharps) is talking about.”
Sharps later directly asked Mitchell for her opinion, and was told public confidence in city hall is a concern among administrators.
An inspection would “open up the closets … I would welcome a third party coming in to look at how we are doing things and we would take those suggestions,” said Mitchell.
“My staff would support this. They see the damage that erosion of public trust is doing on recruitment, retention, economic development – it goes on and on.”
Knodel said an audit would be “an opportunity to see some external recommendations.”
McGrogan said the request for inspection was drafted before the judicial review decision.
“Some of it is irrelevant,” said McGrogan. “The mayor did apologize, and I have to tell you I appreciate that.
“I think there are deeper issues between council, administration and the mayor and I’m not sure if they’re going to be resolved unless we do an inspection.
“Let’s bring it out and talk about it.”
Hirsch said the decision is hard.
“We must restore public confidence in what is going on at city hall,” he said. “Councillors will come and go, me included, but it’s hard-working staff who will remain.”
Municipal Affairs has perviously told the News the ministry was awaiting a city council decision on an audit.
