ATHABASCA – Town of Athabasca councillors will get their pay for several budget meetings they attended between 2019 and 2021.
At their March 2 regular meeting, councillors resolved the back-pay issue by reconsidering a Feb. 2 motion that was defeated in a 3-3 tie vote, to pay for their attendance at five budget meetings going back to 2019, after a motion from April of that year was passed, but never incorporated into the town’s official policy book. A new vote on the Feb. 2 motion then passed by a 4-2 margin, with the added support of Coun. Rob Balay who helped defeat the motion in the first vote, but voted in favour the second time around.
Councillors have been going back and forth since January when Coun. Tannia Cherniwchan brought it to the attention of council saying it is a matter of principle that councillors be compensated for attending those budget meetings that occurred since the 2019 policy change.
Between the seven who were elected to council in 2017, the back-pay added up to $4,080 for five meetings that took place in December 2019, February and March 2020, and January 2021. When it went to a vote Feb. 2, it was a 3-3 tie, with Cherniwchan, Coun. John Traynor, and Coun. Ida Edwards in favour, and Coun. Rob Balay, Coun. Dave Pacholok and mayor Colleen Powell voting against, saying they would rather start paying for budget meetings from that point forward.
At council’s Feb. 23 meeting, Cherniwchan and Traynor reported they had spoken with representatives at Municipal Affairs who advised them the Feb. 2 vote was improper and never should have taken place as per the Municipal Government Act.
At that time, council directed administration to contact the ministry for clarification.
CAO Rachel Ramey’s request for decision to council noted the adviser she spoke to was not able to speak to the conversations he had on the matter with other councillors to maintain confidentiality.
“After I explained what had transpired, I asked if I could e-mail him our motions for comment, to which I was told that it was outside of their scope (and) if we are looking for validity on our motions that we should seek a legal opinion. He did comment that it was good that the issue of back-pay was brought back for a decision. He also suggested contacting the casual legal line that is available through AUMA,” the RFD read.
In an e-mail to the Athabasca Advocate, Municipal Affairs press secretary McKenzie Kibler said: “Bylaws or resolutions of council typically remain in effect until such time as they expire (if they contain dates), are amended, or are repealed/overturned by the courts. If a discrepancy between decisions of council exists, and if the discrepancy is not resolved by amending or repealing one or both resolutions, Municipal Affairs recommends the municipality obtain legal advice on the status of the previous and current resolution.”
Mayor Powell did speak to a lawyer, through AUMA, and brought her findings back to council. The lawyer pointed out the MGA also specifies a municipality may only make an expenditure that is included in an approved budget or otherwise authorized by council; or for an emergency; or if it is legally required to be paid. Since the back-pay goes back to 2019 and hasn’t been budgeted for since, “payments cannot and should not be made unless someone is able to establish a legal entitlement to them.”
Coun. Balay made his position clear.
“So, what the AUMA person is saying is it shouldn't be regular practice, but it's not like you can't do that, so I say let's move on. Let's respect the motion that was made on February 2. Let's pay the back-pay, and then let's move on in this issue,” he said before the vote.
Coun. Traynor and Coun. Cherniwchan agreed, and along with Coun. Edwards, voted with Balay to honour the 2019 motion and pay for budget meetings going forward. Mayor Powell and Coun. Pacholok voted against.
“Based on principle and that we should be following our own policies, I’m wholeheartedly in favour of us continuing on with the original motion of being paid for those meetings, and for us to carry on as a professional group that we have been for all these months. We should be compensated for those hours and that's how I feel about that,” said Traynor.
“I don't understand how a motion can be made and passed by this council, and yet not upheld,” added Cherniwchan. “This is the part I do not understand. We are the ones who made the motion. We are the ones who voted on it. It's not as if this came to us from a past council. We did this, and yet now, it's a divisive issue for us and it should not be, because to me, it's plain and simple black and white.”
