Sundre’s mayor found himself on the defensive last week after being accused by one of his colleagues of being in breach of council’s code of conduct.
“A council can only act by resolution of council or by bylaw,” said Coun. Cheri Funke during the June 10 meeting.
“This includes direction of council, statements by council and agreements on behalf of council,” said Funke, pointing to a section of the Municipal Government Act that reads a council may only act by resolution or bylaw.
The councillor expressed her concern about correspondence Mayor Terry Leslie had prepared for publication in the Sundre Round Up as well as the municipality’s monthly utility bill that includes a letter from the mayor to residents.
“Both were made without the knowledge of council,” she said.
Furthermore, she added the mayor’s expression of support in his letter for the Sundre and District Aquatic Society’s request that the municipality take over operations of the Aquaplex as the best option moving forward, demonstrated a bias.
Following a phone call to Municipal Affairs, Funke said she believed the mayor was in breach of several sections of the bylaw regulating council’s conduct, including, “To consider the welfare and interests of the Town as a whole, and to bring to council’s attention anything that would promote the welfare or interests of the Town.”
The mayor then inquired whether Funke brought the matter forward with any expectations in mind.
“I am bringing it to the attention of council and our residents that you are in breach of your code of conduct,” said Funke.
Leslie wondered why the councillor had not first approached him in person regarding her concerns.
“I see that as a violation and breach of the code of conduct,” the mayor said.
“Can I ask why you did not give me the common courtesy of a conversation, when we have all sworn an oath to have that conversation here first?”
Leslie also asked if any other members of council were involved.
“I was aware that this was going to happen,” said Coun. Rob Wolfe, who was not at the May 27 council meeting when members of the aquatic society first presented their request to transfer operations of the Aquaplex over to the municipality.
“With me not even being here, and for you to put out a public apology on behalf of council, I wasn’t even here, so how can you speak on my behalf?” said Wolfe, asking the mayor if he would seek council’s endorsement in such matters in the future.
“Do you believe in freedom of speech?” the mayor replied.
“You’re apologizing on my behalf and I wasn’t even here,” said Wolfe.
The mayor said his letter had, for accuracy’s sake, first been circulated to administrative staff, and that no recommendations to send the correspondence to council arose as a result of that process.
Leslie said he decided to write the letter of apology in recognition of the frustration expressed by the society following the May 27 meeting.
“There was offence taken by the board,” the mayor said, adding he thought a response to the society’s concerns was warranted to defend council’s reputation.
“I didn’t believe anybody on this council intentionally wanted to offend the board, so I apologized because when you do something unintentionally, you apologize.”
Leslie pointed out he attempted to clarify that council had struggled with the society’s requested motion and that he had his own opinion and position on the issue.
“Just as any member of council that might want to put their position or their opinion out on social media without authorization from admin or council. There is not a double standard here,” he said, welcoming any concerns to be discussed in person.
“The code of conduct says that we have those conversations one on one. It disappoints me to hear that members of council have conspired behind my back to do this publicly,” he said, also expressing dismay over a call being placed to Municipal Affairs before being given a chance to talk first.
“We resolve personal issues among ourselves,” he said.
“Council members criticizing, judging and attacking each other in public is not the best way for councils to operate.”
The mayor then asked again what expectations council had.
Clarifying her position, Funke said she contacted Municipal Affairs because the situation was not an isolated incident and that attempts had previously been made to express concerns behind closed doors.
“It has happened not once, but a few times,” she said.
“I do not have an issue, personally, with you. I have an issue with your conduct as mayor. I do not agree with you speaking on behalf of council.”
Leslie asked for specific concerns to be submitted to him in writing so he might address them and respond.
“I will publicly apologize to the community as a whole for any breach that I may have done by way of the writings that I have put forward,” he said.
Coun. Paul Isaac, who also had been unable to attend the May 27 meeting, asked if that meant the mayor felt he did something wrong.
“I’m apologizing because I’ve just been told that I’m in breach because of a conversation with Municipal Affairs that I had no knowledge of,” the mayor responded, adding a public apology is typically issued in such instances.
Being unaware of specific accusations against him, Leslie said he felt council had also breached the code of conduct by not first extending him an opportunity to have a conversation about it.
“We’re going to blindside each other?” he asked.
“Do I think that I did something wrong? I don’t believe that I acted in anything but the interests of council, trying to put council’s perspective out there,” he said, adding that in the letter, he apologized personally and not on behalf of council.
Isaac expressed the opinion that premeditated correspondence such as what the mayor had written in response to the aquatic society’s concerns should be brought before council.
“You should have sent us an email,” he said.
The mayor said he had the best intentions in mind when he wrote the letter and that he takes his responsibilities seriously.
“I didn’t believe anybody on council wants to see the Aquaplex closed.”
Coun. Charlene Preston, who joined the meeting by phone, said the mayor talks about not wanting to be blindsided, but added his letter had blindsided council.
“We did nothing wrong as a council,” Preston said, adding council had been caught off guard by the society’s requested motion following the board members’ presentation on May 27.
Preston, who sits as council’s representative on the aquatic society’s board, said she had especially been blindsided because for the past many months, she had been asked to leave the board’s meetings when they went in-camera.
“I didn’t know what was going on either, and so for that motion to come forward the way it did, we were blindsided,” the councillor said, adding she felt the followup letter of apology “threw us completely under the bus.”
The mayor reiterated his earlier position that if there was no intent to offend, an apology is warranted.
“I don’t think council intended to offend the Aquaplex board,” he said, adding the society seemed, in light of that evening’s earlier presentation, to feel appreciated and looked forward to more meetings with administration on coming up with proposals for council’s consideration.
In a followup interview with Funke, she said her call to Municipal Affairs was not to submit an official complaint, but rather a verbal expression of concern, and had nothing to do with the content of the mayor’s letter.
However, Funke said council should at the very least have been informed about the correspondence so as to be aware, even without necessarily requiring council’s approval.
“I have no doubt we probably will take over the pool,” she said.
But, she said the situation is not so cut and dried and the municipality needs time to explore options.
“We need all of the facts for a final decision on the pool so we can all move forward together.”
