On June 5, 2012, the Town of Athabasca’s council passed a motion asking that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs conduct a municipal corporate review.
In a letter dated March 13, 2013, then-Minister Doug Griffiths states the review is a co-operative effort between council, administration and the ministry to examine opportunities for improvement in the town.
The review came a list of 31 recommendations.
On that list, there are recommendations like council familiarize themselves with Section 172 of the Municipal Government Act, which deals with matters of pecuniary interest.
That councillors and key members of administration participate in a Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships workshop.
That motions be structured more clearly, and that councillors implement a Code of Conduct for themselves.
Sound familiar?
Some of the recommendations follow almost word-for-word the recommendations that came out of the 2017 municipal inspection report on the town, which was released publicly Aug. 28.
Former councillor Lionel Cherniwchan made the motion to ask the province for the municipal corporate review. He also was the powerhouse behind the petition that resulted in the municipal inspection. He said it looked like the review had been pushed by the wayside.
“A lot of stuff that was in there, is still in there,” he said. “They did nothing with it.”
The 2013 review notes that “in the reviewer’s opinion, councillors experience some challenges in working together collaboratively,” even stating that the majority of councillors referred to a “divided council.”
The 2017 report made this one of its focuses, stating that “council dysfunction consumed a large amount of time, energy and public resources during the 2013-2017 council term.”
The 2013 report recommends that councillors and key members of administration participate in a Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships workshop. It also recommends that a Code of Conduct be implemented.
According to documentation provided by Mayor Roger Morrill, council responded in 2013 with a note about each recommendation. The note dealing with this particular point was “council’s discretion.”
He also said in an email that he thought as much as possible, personal feelings and vendettas need to be put aside to try to work together in the best interests of the community.
“There is no magic formula for accomplishing this, particularly if not all members of Council buy in,” he wrote. “It requires a cooperative and collaborative effort by all to work. My mediation proposal was one approach not supported by all around the Council table.”
The 2017 report also recommends that councillors attend training and team-builiding events, and that council review its Code of Conduct.
In 2013, the review recommended that council look at its procedural bylaw annually to ensure that council and the public are aware of the rules. It also states that all discussion at council meetings should be addressed to the chair.
In 2017, the report recommends that council update that same bylaw to ensure that council conduct and meeting decorum follows a consistent, orderly, respectful process. It also notes that public participation in meetings should be only from delegations.
“I am certain that I could have done some things better as chair, for example, possibly I could have been more strict with protocol instead of letting Council members speak several times to the same issue, but I felt it was important to let all members of Council be fully heard,” Morrill said in an email. “I do feel with gained experience I have improved as chair.”
Both the 2013 and 2017 documents note the need for a policy review. The 2013 document also specifies a bylaw review is needed.
“If you look at most of our bylaws and policies, they need to be reviewed,” Coun. Tanu Evans said in an interview. “Council was trying to do that, but you go through four CAOs, and you just sort of lose track, and there was no leadership or direction on the issue, and it sort of fell short, which, I mean, I take responsibility for as well.”
“Policy review should absolutely be on the list of priorities. As to how high a placement should be taken in the context of what the other priorities might be,” Morrill stated in an email.
