Shila Sharps was elected by a margin of nearly 1,500 votes in 2021, and lost by a margin of 2,000 in this year's election. She says she didn't realize how large the conflict between council, the mayor and the city manager loomed until she saw the discourse in the month leading up to the election. Sharps smiles after being sworn into office in this November 2021 file photo.--NEWS FILE PHOTO
zmason@medicinehatnews.com
Shila Sharps initially ran for council because she was a downtown business owner looking for more input on the decisions affecting the city’s core.
Over the years of operating her business downtown, Sharps says she saw the bodies making decisions about things like construction and parking, and the downtown business-funded City Centre Development Agency had little to no representation from downtown business owners themselves. She wanted to change that.
She had been a careful observer of city hall before running for office herself. She says she knew the system could be convoluted and difficult to navigate, but she campaigned on making processes easier and more user-friendly for Medicine Hat business owners.
Overall, she says she feels like she accomplished what she set out to do.
“Downtown business owners started to speak up. There was a bigger spotlight on stuff. Does that make the administration happy? No. But whatever. We’re not here for them. Actually, it’s the reverse,” Sharps said in an interview with the News on Thursday.
“Administration is here at the will of council. But damn it, that’s not where the sentence ends. Council is here for the will of the people.”
Sharps was elected in 2021 by a considerable margin. Although she was the seventh of eight councillors elected, around 1,500 votes separated her from ninth place. This year, she finished 24th, the worst performance among incumbents and more than 2,000 votes away from victory.
It’s no mystery why she wasn’t re-elected, Sharps says.
The turbulent last half of her council’s term, which included the confrontation between Mayor Linnsie Clark and city manager Ann Mitchell, and the subsequent firestorm of headlines, including sanctions, a code of conduct complaint and a lawsuit, turned many Hatters against incumbents.
Sharps became synonymous with the scandal of the last term. But she says she wasn’t as central to the debacle as many people think.
“When Mayor Clark took (council) to court for the sanctions – justly so, she got a murder conviction for running a red light. How come I’m the only one with no legal fees? The rest of council has legal fees.”
It’s true she was the proponent of the code of conduct complaint. And Hatters found it difficult to reconcile that fact with her support of the mayor in other respects, including in her pursuit of reimbursement for her legal fees. Sharps says the code of conduct complaint was a matter of principle.
“That could have been the devil themselves, I would have done the same thing. That was a personnel matter. You go into closed (session), you deal with it like adults. I’m not saying (Clark) was wrong – she wasn’t wrong – but she was wrong about how she executed it. And execution is important.
“As much as there is so much more nuance, and people are divided over me, I dare them: if that was their daughter, mother, sister, brother in the hot seat that day being grilled on live TV. Would they say that’s OK?”
Perhaps more than any other councillor, Sharps inspired passionate polarization. Her supporters were steadfast. Some lingering “Re-Elect Shila Sharps” signs are still kicking around downtown. But her detractors were numerous and vocal.
Sharps says some of the ire directed against her is misplaced, or at least misinformed. She might have filed the code of conduct complaint, but she didn’t vote on the sanctions.
“Mayor Clark and I were not in the room. We had no say,” said Sharps. “She knows damn well I would never have agreed to those sanctions.”
When asked if the whole situation got overblown, Sharps was concise: “100 per cent.”
“This was an easy fix. I wanted her to just apologize. All of council would have let this go. Nobody wanted this to go any further. But when you don’t apologize – I liked the mayor. I’m one of her biggest fans. I was, openly. Do you think this was easy?”
She thinks the way the conflict was managed dragged out a process that could have been much more straightforward, although she believes they ultimately ended up with the right result.
“Ann Mitchell isn’t with us. And that was very much the right decision, but that was also two years later. If things were handled properly on August 21st (2023), maybe that would’ve happened sooner.”
If there’s one thing Sharps says people should take away from this whole affair, it’s the distorting effect of social media.
Sharps says from talking to voters, it was clear some people revoked their support of her on the basis of things they read online that suggested she started the whole confrontation, claims she says are patently untrue.
Now that the dust has settled, she says she just wants to see the new council succeed, and that starts with this council clearly defining its goals.
“Everyone says we haven’t had growth these past four years. Actually, we haven’t had growth in 20 years. But do we want to be 100,000 or a city of 80,000? What does this city want?”
She says she expects the same kind of advocacy and accessibility she tried to deliver.
“Don’t get me wrong. I am blunt. I know I’m not everybody’s cup of tea. But as a politician, I should be exactly what you want. I answered every email, I met with every individual and I followed it through.
“That’s what I want from my politicians. That’s what I want from (Cypress-Medicine Hat MLA) Justin Wright. That’s what I want from all these guys.”
Her advice to the new council?
“Speak the f*** up. If you don’t stand up for citizens, who does?”
So councillor mean girl wants everyone to understand she isn’t a mean girl at all — just a misunderstood (but principled) victim of circumstances. She wasn’t even there!! Ms. Sharps, we read your facebook posts contemporaneously. We read what you and your supporters were writing. We saw the comments you and other council members made to CHAT TV News. Your revision to history doesn’t explain the facts. Ms. Mitchell was acting beyond her authority. She took actions that were not explicitly voted on by council. This opened the city up to legal liabilities and violated provincial municipal governance regulations. The Mayor brought this up outside council chambers but did not have the backing of Council – leading to the Mayor’s public questions, denied request for city solicitors to review the issue, hiring of independent legal counsel and the confrontation during a public session of council. We also remember the embarrassing, shameful response of council to an actually misunderstood and principled Mayor pointing out the overstepping, incompetence of the City Manager — who was removed from her duties two years too late. You and your fellow councillors are a case study in the Dunning-Krueger effect where those with the less competency over estimate their abilities. The Mayor knew exactly what she was talking about, but a group of councillors, for whatever reason, did not ‘like’ the mayor thus over estimating their own competence. Had the City Manager asked the city solicitor to engage external legal counsel when the the Mayor first asked, this whole shameful, ridiculous event would have been avoided. Had Councillors supported the Mayor in her request, Ms. Mitchell’s deception would have been confirmed before anything was made public.
Ms. Sharps, you played a key role in this mean girls approach to city governance. This is why you did not get re-elected while the Mayor did (and rightfully so).
Thank you for your response:) however, it is inaccurate. I am not a victim in this situation, but it seems that when you are looking for a specific narrative, you’ll find exactly what you want.
You claimed to have read my Facebook posts? Seriously, I haven’t posted anything regarding the sanctions or related matters, so that is misleading. in fact, you are right out lying.
There is no revision of history here; just because you assert something doesn’t make it true. You can claim that the council was unaware of Ms. Mitchell’s actions, but we were informed every step of the way, and that won’t change. I believe Clark had a right to question things, and I now understand that the Mayor had information that the rest of us did not—it’s unfortunate we didn’t know. Communication among council is crucial, however still doesn’t change the fact that we were part of the conversation every single one in that room, including the mayor.
For you to say that the Mayor brought this up outside of council chambers indicates you may know something we do not. Congratulations, then. However, you have never seen any derogatory comments from my supporters because that is not who my pure group is, they are not online calling people names or doing anything of the sort it’s childish and they have a much better understanding that reading article articles on social media is probably not the best place to get all their information.
Regarding legal liability, what are you suggesting? No one, except for one, was foubd guilty of violating municipal governance regulations. She was found guilty by the law firm, and even during her judicial review, the judge upheld that she was guilty of a breach of conduct. I understand that this may be an inconvenient truth right now, but it doesn’t change the facts. it also doesn’t change the fact that with all the new information presented much after the fact I do believe that she should receive compensation for her legal fees because I failed the sanctions were unfair because I was not in the room so whether you like that or not, it doesn’t change that it is in fact, a fact:)
So enjoy your narrative, but I assure you—there is no victim or fight here. You continue to sit in your backbench seat, believing you know the full story when we have repeatedly shared it. Let’s not forget the inspection that confirmed we were not operating as required, but I suppose that’s a problem for you too. ( both administration and Council)
I do find it amusing, though. You would think that, given all the evidence, people would acknowledge that there is more to the story. Involving yourself in something where you had no part in the conversation is truly ridiculous.
So one day I do hope Chuck that you will avail yourself to the knowledge that a good person did something that did not fall in line with good employment practises that does not make them a bad person and unlike you wishing bad on people I wish Mayor Clark nothing but the most successful term.
So councillor mean girl wants everyone to understand she isn’t a mean girl at all — just a misunderstood (but principled) victim of circumstances. She wasn’t even there!! Ms. Sharps, we read your facebook posts contemporaneously. We read what you and your supporters were writing. We saw the comments you and other council members made to CHAT TV News. Your revision to history doesn’t explain the facts. Ms. Mitchell was acting beyond her authority. She took actions that were not explicitly voted on by council. This opened the city up to legal liabilities and violated provincial municipal governance regulations. The Mayor brought this up outside council chambers but did not have the backing of Council – leading to the Mayor’s public questions, denied request for city solicitors to review the issue, hiring of independent legal counsel and the confrontation during a public session of council. We also remember the embarrassing, shameful response of council to an actually misunderstood and principled Mayor pointing out the overstepping, incompetence of the City Manager — who was removed from her duties two years too late. You and your fellow councillors are a case study in the Dunning-Krueger effect where those with the less competency over estimate their abilities. The Mayor knew exactly what she was talking about, but a group of councillors, for whatever reason, did not ‘like’ the mayor thus over estimating their own competence. Had the City Manager asked the city solicitor to engage external legal counsel when the the Mayor first asked, this whole shameful, ridiculous event would have been avoided. Had Councillors supported the Mayor in her request, Ms. Mitchell’s deception would have been confirmed before anything was made public.
Ms. Sharps, you played a key role in this mean girls approach to city governance. This is why you did not get re-elected while the Mayor did (and rightfully so).
Thank you for your response:) however, it is inaccurate. I am not a victim in this situation, but it seems that when you are looking for a specific narrative, you’ll find exactly what you want.
You claimed to have read my Facebook posts? Seriously, I haven’t posted anything regarding the sanctions or related matters, so that is misleading. in fact, you are right out lying.
There is no revision of history here; just because you assert something doesn’t make it true. You can claim that the council was unaware of Ms. Mitchell’s actions, but we were informed every step of the way, and that won’t change. I believe Clark had a right to question things, and I now understand that the Mayor had information that the rest of us did not—it’s unfortunate we didn’t know. Communication among council is crucial, however still doesn’t change the fact that we were part of the conversation every single one in that room, including the mayor.
For you to say that the Mayor brought this up outside of council chambers indicates you may know something we do not. Congratulations, then. However, you have never seen any derogatory comments from my supporters because that is not who my pure group is, they are not online calling people names or doing anything of the sort it’s childish and they have a much better understanding that reading article articles on social media is probably not the best place to get all their information.
Regarding legal liability, what are you suggesting? No one, except for one, was foubd guilty of violating municipal governance regulations. She was found guilty by the law firm, and even during her judicial review, the judge upheld that she was guilty of a breach of conduct. I understand that this may be an inconvenient truth right now, but it doesn’t change the facts. it also doesn’t change the fact that with all the new information presented much after the fact I do believe that she should receive compensation for her legal fees because I failed the sanctions were unfair because I was not in the room so whether you like that or not, it doesn’t change that it is in fact, a fact:)
So enjoy your narrative, but I assure you—there is no victim or fight here. You continue to sit in your backbench seat, believing you know the full story when we have repeatedly shared it. Let’s not forget the inspection that confirmed we were not operating as required, but I suppose that’s a problem for you too. ( both administration and Council)
I do find it amusing, though. You would think that, given all the evidence, people would acknowledge that there is more to the story. Involving yourself in something where you had no part in the conversation is truly ridiculous.
So one day I do hope Chuck that you will avail yourself to the knowledge that a good person did something that did not fall in line with good employment practises that does not make them a bad person and unlike you wishing bad on people I wish Mayor Clark nothing but the most successful term.