ATHABASCA — A motion to send the recently-approved councillor remuneration policy for review sparked tense debate in Athabasca County council chambers, chiefly between reeve Brian Hall and Coun. Tracy Holland.
A livestream recording of the meeting can be viewed online on Athabasca County’s YouTube page (Regular Council Meeting Live Stream - February 13th 2024 (youtube.com)). Discussion around the remuneration policy begins at timestamp 16:28. Here are some excerpts.
HALL: This item looks like the reconsideration of a unanimous decision made in October of 2023.
HOLLAND: Actually —
HALL: Having discussed this at seven public meetings —
HOLLAND: Chair, may I interrupt?
HALL: Can I finish?
HOLLAND: It’s not a reconsideration request.
HALL: The substance of the motion ultimately leads to the reopening of a debate and contradicts the approved policy. While the proposal mentions 5.1 c), it fails to mention 6.4 i), which is the section dealing with the review of policy, so it really, the substance of this is to reconsider. You cannot do indirectly what you can’t do directly, like this is really, we’re looking to (trails off). So if we think it’s not a reconsideration, then approve it.
HOLLAND: It’s definitely a point of information, when you refer to section 6.4, please state what that says.
HALL: It’s in the policy, you can look at it in the book right there.
HOLLAND: Let’s go there –
HALL: This is —
HOLLAND: This is not a reconsideration at all, this is following policy —
HALL: Council members need to accept that in a democratic environment, all decisions don’t go your way. And regardless of the strengths of ones arguments, it can and often happens that the votes in a different view prevail. This is the basis of any democratic institution, positions are debated, information is cited, and arguments are heard and a decision is made, which often results in some who are prevailing and some who may need to re-examine their arguments and determine what might have been lacking. In this case, this came forward unanimously, so decisions made in this way should be respected and accepted. A decision legitimately made is really one that is expected to be taken as a decision of council, and not one that’s open to continuous discussion or debate, that is not the essence of democracy, and it’s the role of the chair to preserve order and decorum and to continue forward. The motion contradicts policy, it amounts to reopening the policy, and I think we need to remember it passed unanimously after seven open meetings —
HOLLAND: Um —
HALL: Councillors have a duty to read and understand the policy when you’re approving it, not three months later.
HOLLAND: I will challenge the chair’s decision once again, as this is not a reopening of the policy, it’s actually following the policy as the policy is written. So if the chair would like to —
HALL: The —
HOLLAND: Not follow the policy —
HALL: Councillor Holland, you’re out of order —
HOLLAND: (continues)
HALL: The policy was just approved, so —
HOLLAND: Yeah, so we should go forward with following the policy. It’s exactly —
HALL: OK, councillor Holland thinks that we should, is challenging the chair’s decision that this is a reconsideration of the policy. Those who would view this not a reconsideration, vote Aye now.
(Councillors Holland, Kelly Chamzuk, Rob Minns, Gary Cromwell, and Joe Gerlach vote in the affirmative. Councillors Ashtin Anderson, Natasha Kapitaniuk, Camille Wallach, and Hall vote in the negative.)
HALL: OK, so councillor Holland’s challenge is successful and we will not consider it a reconsideration, even though (trails off). So then we’ll open the floor to discussion. Councillor Holland, the floor is yours.
HOLLAND: Who asked for this to come forward?
HALL: I asked for it to come forward because it’s a reconsideration.
HOLLAND: And is not a reconsideration —
HALL: So —
HOLLAND: As a matter of fact I will carry forward with this then …
28:40
HALL: Council examined this, and I think that this really serves nothing more than creating additional administrative work, and disruption and disharmony at our table. Even if there is a review of information approved by, we reviewed information and approved it barely three months ago, so we’ve done this work. We now have a policy in place that is forward looking, not a backwards-looking policy that puts in place a future review date at the mid-point of the term, which we are past. So this is nothing more than an attempt to reverse a decision that was unanimously approved. What can be the result of a review except to reconsider the policy which, as you know, requires a two-thirds vote? For me this is a waste of time and money, it’s a waste of energy —
(HOLLAND calls for a point of order off mic).
HALL: What’s your point?
HOLLAND: Point of order.
HALL: What’s your point of order? What part of the bylaw am I off of?
HOLLAND: My point of order here is that your accusations —
HALL: Nope —
HOLLAND: are uncalled for and not necessary —
HALL: (Interjects)
HOLLAND: I take offense.
HALL: The point is not well-taken. Points of order are about departure from the bylaw, and to say that it is a waste of time and money to engage this without knowing whether we’d reopen the debate (trails off). We have more important big picture things to work on, and after months of work it does not seem to be a good use of resources to keep churning on an internal issue. What actually is the expected outcome? We do the review and then what? Can we achieve a two-thirds vote to reopen the policy? I don’t know, ‘cause we won’t test it. I think we should reject this, and get on with the more important things that we need to do — as we all know, there’s no shortage of those.
30:37
HOLLAND: Thank you, once again I find that your argument is very offensive —
HALL: Sorry, we are going to not make personal attacks at the table.
HOLLAND: I find it very offensive, there is no attempt to reverse a decision … yes I made a mistake when I first looked at that in October in this unanimous decision. More information was given to us, which of course opened up a whole new look through another lens. We have a very big responsibility to our public, we have a responsibility in our council Code of Conduct … So there is really no concern of any reversal and I really do take offense to that, reeve Hall. The other point as well —
HALL: (interjects)
HOLLAND: (continues)
HALL: Councillor Holland, for clarity, you don’t get to make personal jabs.
HOLLAND: Excuse me?
HALL: Now you can finish your comments and —
HOLLAND: Excuse me?
HALL: And then we’re going to vote —
HOLLAND: I took offense to what you said —
HALL: Councillor Holland, are you finished speaking?
HOLLAND: No, I am not finished speaking —
HALL: OK, then please stay on point and on motion.
HOLLAND: The bullying needs to stop in this room, and I would appreciate if it did … third party does not mean some administrative reports that have come forward with comparisons from our CAOs, it comes from a third party —
HALL: As a point of order —
HOLLAND: (continues)
HALL: As a point of order, the review is required at the mid-point of the term, so that we’re clear. Please —
HOLLAND: As again, the policy is very specific …
