The issue of who will be ultimately responsible for Mayor Linnsie Clark's legal costs from a dispute with city council has been put on hold, but the issue of how elected officials can access outside legal advice is up for debate.--NEWS FILE PHOTO
@@CollinGallant
A council debate on whether Mayor Linnsie Clark’s legal bills should be covered is on pause, but a debate on how elected officials go about soliciting outside legal brief is now on the agenda.
Earlier this month, Clark formally asked council to consider covering $76,000 of legal costs she incurred during a year-long dispute where she challenged council’s code of conduct sanctions against her. As well, she solicited and paid for a third-party legal opinion regarding city manager Ann Mitchel’s authority to act on a corporate restructuring ahead of council approval of changes to an operational bylaw.
That was to be on Tuesday’s agenda, but was removed by Clark at the start of the meeting.
Shortly thereafter, Coun. Shila Sharps announced a new notice of motion to discuss updating a policy to allow councillors to seek outside legal opinions without top city hall administrative approval.
Both say the topics may be similar, but are not reliant on each other, and are brought up separately.
“It was a timing issue,” said Clark, referring to a long agenda Tuesday and her hope for a detailed discussion. “I want to provide a full brief.”
Clark has said she likely won’t take part, as she has an obvious financial interest in the outcome.
Sharps told reporters that her notice of motion to discuss the indemnification policy – which currently states a council member seeking a legal opinion needs to submit the request to city managers – isn’t tied to the discussion of Clark’s legal expenses.
Sharps said it creates some jeopardy if the outside legal opinion focuses on senior manager roles or personnel.
“When you read the policy, a councillor would need to go to the employee (for approval of indemnification),” said Sharps. “That doesn’t make any sense if it is regarding them.
“In all fairness, it was brought forward in 2022 and still hasn’t been done. It’s time.”
Last summer, Court of King’s Bench Justice Rosemary Nation asked Clark and the city to discuss costs after a judicial review that largely landed in the mayor’s favour.
It reversed most of the sanctions and financial penalties after council’s decision to impose penalties for a code of conduct breach, but six months of talks on costs have not resulted in an agreement.
Those court costs apparently make up most of $76,000 in legal bills that Clark announced earlier this month she would like reimbursed.
An undisclosed amount refers to an outside legal opinion about Mitchell’s administrative authority.
That was at the centre of an exchange between Clark and Mitchell in August 2023, and formed part of the complaint against the mayor, but wasn’t, according to a third-party investigation, part of a breech against the code.
Clark is also seeking remittance for costs related to her defence against the threat of a defamation suit from a law firm engaged by Mitchell. Council approved the city manager’s costs in relation to that matter. Clark has said no further action has been taken.
