Medicine Hat city council delays decision on mayor’s legal fees reimbursement ask

“I do have a right under the code of conduct to ask council to refund me,” Clark said during a fierce half-hour debate.

Clark is attempting to get reimbursed for $76,017.62 she spent to acquire a third-party legal opinion in 2023 and to take council to court over restrictions placed on her last year.

Both expenses are related to a broader leadership crisis that started with an exchange between Clark and chief administrator Ann Mitchell and led to a series of sanctions that limited the mayor’s powers.

While Clark delayed debate on her repayment request several times since she first brought it forward in March, council was finally able to deliberate her motion.

Coun. Ramona Robins kicked off deliberations by saying Clark’s list of fees wasn’t clear enough to make a final decision.

“I’m not going to support the motion because I don’t think the breakdown for legal fees is transparent enough for the public to understand how those fees were incurred and for council to reasonably discuss them,” Robins said.

Clark responded by asking if the item could be postponed so she has time to bring more information forward. She referenced for the first time an apparent legal counsel representing council.

“Your counsel didn’t contact my counsel until Wednesday and then this is what he produced,” said Clark. It was not immediately clear if she was referring to the internal city solicitor.

Coun. Robert Dumanowksi said he believed Clark was breaking conflict of interest rules by making the proposal and so council should shoot down the motion.

“The municipal government act uses common law principles showing anyone with pecuniary interest should refrain from even putting forward a notice of motion on the matter,” Dumanowski said.

Political consultant Jim Groom agreed it wouldn’t make sense for Clark to have a vote on whether the city will reimburse her legal fees.

But, Groom said, council should have talked about the issue in advance.

“Why do you need to ambush the mayor in council in front of everyone? Is it not something you could discuss with her in-camera?” he told CHAT News.

Clark, a former city lawyer, said in response to Dumanowski that she’s not trying to violate the law.

“Coun. Dumanowski, you’re saying that I can’t request my legal fees in this manner. I am asking: what manner can I request them in?” she said.

“I have a claim to them both in the code of conduct and as this council evidenced when they provided the city manager with her legal fees,” she added.

Coun. Allison Knodel, who agreed there was a penecinary conflict that should disqualify the mayor from voting, argued against Clark’s premise regarding the city manager.

Council last October approved reimbursing city manager Mitchell for the money she spent on sending Clark a cease and desist letter.

Knodel said Clark and Mitchell had legal fees for different reasons.

“The city manager sought legal counsel primarily due to the reputational damage arising from the public accusations related to her official role while carrying out council’s directives,” said Knodel.

“While there are valid criticisms of reimbursing those fees, the legal costs were incurred defending her professional reputation as an employee acting on council’s instructions.”

By contrast, Clark’s fees were incurred in part to contest the sanctions placed on her by council in March 2024 after councillors found her guilty of misconduct.

Knodel argued the distinction is crucial.

“The city manager’s legal process of reimbursement of ($6,520.50) was related to public defamation. The mayor’s was an individual defense against institutional accountability,” Knodel said.

“Treating these cases the same would misrepresent food benefits and risks misusing public funds.”

The mayor, frustrated by the opposition, said she expected council to be more apologetic.

“I am having a hard time understanding the lack of remorse,” Clark said.

While some councillors were strictly opposed to a reimbursement, others wanted more information.

Alison Van Dyke said she was expecting more than a list of four items provided to council by the mayor ahead of Monday’s meeting.

“For me, having that breakout is important,” Van Dyke said. The mayor’s list was not made public in the council agenda.

With eager support from the mayor, Van Dyke proposed council defer the vote so both sides could consult with their respective lawyers and get more information.

Couns. Cassi Hider, Darren Hirsch, Knodel and Dumanowski made up the four votes against delaying the reimbursement request to another meeting.

After the vote, Hirsch questioned whether Clark should’ve had a vote in the motion to delay.

“Optically, I’m not sure if it would have been appropriate for you to vote on a matter that is actually in front of you regarding yourself,” Hirsch said, gesturing towards the mayor.

“Well, it was a motion to postpone an item,” she quipped back.

Hirsch replied: “But the item was specific relative to yourself, madame mayor.”

“I don’t know relative to the city clerk or our city solicitor the appropriateness of what we just did,” he added.

Clark repeated her argument earlier that she is able to vote because it’s excluded from being a conflict of interest from her reading of the Municipal Government Act.

She said her participation on the reimbursement item is similar to members of council voting to give themselves a raise.

City Solicitor Ben Bullock said it’s up elected officials to police themselves on pecuniary interest.

“They have to make that judgement call on their own,” Bullock said.

“If council were to think that something was done contrary to the MGA, they would have to consider getting some legal advice about that.”

The tension felt during council’s deliberation on Clark’s reimbursement request was reminiscent of similar exchanges in 2024, when the mayor was fighting sanctions placed on her by council.

“This was an embarrassment again,” said Groom, a former political science teacher at Medicine Hat College and longtime council watcher.

“This is still animosity from Aug. 21 years ago and they haven’t got past it and they continued to let it fester.”

by Olivia Thorington

Medicine Hat city council delays decision on mayor’s legal fees reimbursement ask

Our Community