Mayor Linnsie Clark (far left) listens to points made by Coun. Allison Knodel at Monday's meeting about arguing whether the mayor's legal bills from a 2023 judicial review should be covered by the city.--News Photo Collin Gallant
@@CollinGallant
A heated and at times emotional debate on whether Mayor Linnsie Clark should be reimbursed for $76,000 in legal bills incurred while challenging council sanctions was taken up Monday, but postponed before a final decision until late July.
The issue has hung over council since last August, but was only formally put on the council meeting agenda in April.
Clark said she’s been stymied in recouping legal bills that were being negotiated by lawyers for the two sides since she requested a judicial review of a code of conduct violation finding, as well as heavy sanctions that were mostly voided by a King’s Bench Justice.
Several councillors argued Monday that Clark’s costs were her own, that only the sanctions were overturned, not a finding that she acted inappropriately.
Several questioned the legal validity of Clark introducing a motion to a public council meeting that would benefit her financially.
Clark responded that her case determined council was acting in an “unreasonable” manner, it should feel a sense of “remorse,” and now, public debate is the route to recover her costs.
“I’m not trying to violate anything, I’d be very open to another option but none is provided to me,” she said. “In what manner can I request them? I have a claim to them … I’m open to suggestions.”
Coun. Alison Knodel said the sanctioning decision was made after “multiple informal attempts to resolve ongoing workplace issues” with Clark, and paying her legal bills would set a bad precedent.
“The mayor was sanctioned following a clear finding (she breached the code of conduct) … while the court ruled the sanctions were excessive in scope it affirmed the breach itself,” said Knodel. “There was no finding of innocence or unfairness.”
To pay the request, along with two other legal bills related to the 2023 controversy, said Knodel, would “undermine council’s authority” and “create a precedent shielding officials from financial responsibility for personal misconduct challenges at public expense.”
Coun. Shila Sharps said she filed the initial complaint and wants the issue settled.
“Anything that comes to the table should have a robust debate, and sometimes you have to be adult enough to say, ‘Mayor Clark, you called it’,” she said. “I don’t want to spend more money on this … but I’d love to get back to business, and I’ll support the motion (to reimburse) now or later.”
In March 2024, council voted 7-0 to sanction Clark for contravening council’s code of conflict in a public dispute with city manager Ann Mitchell, including a 50 per cent pay cut, removing her ability to chair meetings and barring her from staff areas of city hall.
Those were “unreasonable” according to a Court of King’s Bench judicial review, and mostly overturned, but with the justice leaving the two sides to discuss costs in the case.
Also involved in Clark’s legal bills is a third-party opinion requested by the mayor on the CAO’s authority to enact a corporate reorganization. That disagreement was the basis of the August 2023 exchange between Clark and Mitchell.
Clark has also said she incurred costs responding to the threat of a defamation suit from Mitchell’s lawyers. She has said that issue hasn’t proceeded, but required an initial response. Mitchell told council on Monday her costs were $6,500.
Coun. Andy McGrogan said there are differences in his mind between the mayor’s legal costs and the city’s, and between the different issues.
“We didn’t go off on our own and said we all need lawyers,” he said. “I think some (of Clark’s costs) should be covered, but it’s postponed and I won’t go into it now.”
Clark said she has a right to request reimbursement, and council is mis-framing the issue.
“The reality is the court found this council acted in a way that no reasonable council would act,” Clark responded to Knodel. “The sanctions were overwhelmingly disproportionate, and those sanctions are the reason the judicial review was required … that’s the whole issue.”
Her pay cut was “punitive,” she said, and others prevented her from doing her job.
“I’m having a hard time understanding the lack of remorse, or understanding how that had a negative effect on the community as well,” said Clark.
Coun. Alison Van Dyke motioned to postpone the decision, in part to study a breakdown of costs provided by the mayor as Monday’s meeting began.
The motion was accepted by a 5-4 vote, including Clark, which created a legal query about her potentially conflicted status and ability to vote.
Couns. Dumanowski, Hirsch, Hider and Knodel voted against postponing debate.
Dumanowski said the entire notice of motion request could be considered out of order with provincial conflict of interest rules that require elected officials to remove themselves from discussion or voting on matters where they have financial interest.
“That’s inconsistent with what’s happening right now,” said Dumanowski. “(Taking part) shapes the discussion … and invites legal and reputational consequences.”
City solicitor Ben Bullock told council the legislation requires elected officials to determine their own exposure to conflict of interest guidelines. Other councillors could challenge that however, he said. None did Monday, and the issue was set over until the second meeting in July.
Coun. Ramona Robins said more time is needed in her mind to go through the bills, considering there are several legal actions.
“We’ve adjourned it a few times,” she said. “I don’t think the break down of the legal fees isn’t transparent enough for the public to understand.”
