Westlock County Coun. Dennis Primeau has been censured by council. The issue will be revisited by council in the spring.
It started with a letter to the reeve from Westlock County Coun. Dennis Primeau outlining his concerns with what some describe as development, and what some describe as maintenance, at the Tawatinaw Valley Ski Hill, only one of which would require a development permit.
It ended with Primeau being censured by his fellow councillors after a nearly 90-minute in-camera session in the middle of council’s Oct. 22 meeting.
His fellow councillors were in favour of the censure and voted 6-1 to go ahead with it once the regular meeting resumed.
As per Westlock County’s Councillor Code of Conduct Bylaw, Primeau may no longer represent council on committees and boards. Upcoming budget committee meetings will be the exception.
He is also restricted from communicating with county staff and third parties such as the provincial or federal governments and other municipalities.
He must also adhere to the statutory obligations under the Municipal Government Act and the code of conduct bylaw. He also may not attend any conferences on behalf of the county.
Council will review the censure motion six months from now on April 30.
Previously, on Sept. 23, Primeau had addressed a letter to reeve Lou Hall expressing his concerns with the construction of two ski jumps at the ski hill and asked that CAO Leo Ludwig answer 10 questions regarding what appears to be “unauthorized work,” what county administration knew about it and the potential legal liability issues involved if the work was not completed by a professional.
Ludwig provided written responses to each question which were then available in council’s information package as well as to the public as part of the meeting agenda Oct. 22.
A significant portion of the fourth and final page was blacked-out as it reportedly regarded a personnel issue.
“There’s certainly a lot of clarification needed here. It’s cloudier than ever,” Primeau told council, adding that after speaking with the former operator of the hill, who he said required permits for much of the work he did while he was there, he thought he should be reimbursed.
“We need a consistent way of doing business. We can’t do it one way one time, and then do it a different way next time. This is causing nothing but problems. My belief is they need permits. That’s all there is to it.”
Coun. Jared Stitsen did not agree and he was not the only one. Stitsen pointed out residents did not need permits to dig a dugout, or built a motocross jump on their property, for instance.
“There’s no permit required because you’re not actually building a structure ... just throwing that out there,” said Stitsen.
“You basically built something that wasn’t there before and you do have to have a permit,” said Primeau, adding that he would like to see the county’s legal team weigh in on the subject.
“All we’re doing is creating questions in the community and we need to follow proper process.”
CAO Ludwig replied: “Clearly under the land-use bylaw, the works that were carried out there for those ski jumps, do not require permits. It’s black and white. It’s very clear. There’s no double standard, there’s no questionable item here, there’s no legal opinion required. The land-use bylaw is very clear, that work does not require a permit.”
Primeau then attempted to bring forward a motion to refund the previous operator for the money he paid for development permits while he was there. It went no further. Stitsen then motioned to receive Primeau’s letter as information.
Deputy reeve Brian Coleman then gave his opinion on the matter.
“We know that the previous council, of which Coun. Primeau was a part of, made many mistakes and we’re aware of that so if the previous operator felt that he paid in error or shouldn’t have paid, he has the right to sue the county to get that money back. The county does not have an obligation to go back and give him that money. He can sue us and if he’s in the right, he’ll get his money.”
“That is a pretty brutal way to do business here your lordship,” Primeau said through the reeve, adding he believed there were false statements throughout the request for decision as well.
Ludwig challenged him to provide examples of false statements, saying he found the accusation “troublesome.”
Primeau immediately pointed to the fact he believed a development permit was needed to construct the jumps.
Coun. Fred Slobodian was then granted the floor and made a forceful statement.
“I’m tired of coming here to just about any other session and having to deal with nonsense about the ski hill. The ski hill has thrived and the organizers have worked very, very hard to make it work. The CAO has done his job as an administrator as far as conferring with his team as to what needs permits and doesn’t need permits. Every opportunity that Coun. Primeau gets he tries to drag this council through the mud,” said Slobodian.
“I’m tired of it and it has got to stop. There’s no reason for it. The public is tired of watching, reading the newspaper and reading about the garbage that comes out of here. We should be here dealing on subjects that are important to everyone in this county such as floodplains, such as budgetary processes coming up, what we have to look forward to. It’s a lot of trash and you keep bringing this up and today, it has to stop.”
Primeau went on to say his concerns were “far from trash” and went on to share more concerns about liability to the county should someone get hurt on the new jumps.
Reeve Lou Hall then spoke and said she believes the right process has been followed.
“I believe there is someone out there who is not happy with the process and so is making this your problem Coun. Primeau and I think it is their problem and not your problem,” she said.
“I have every belief in what is said in her. I’ve read it, we’ve all read it, we’ve all agreed with it and we all need to be on the same side of the fence ... I agree with Coun. Slobodian that there’s always something about the ski hill and we are all aware that we have an agreement with them and the agreement, in my opinion, is being followed to the letter and there should never be any further discussion on it, unless something is brought to our attention.”
Coleman read from the county’s code of conduct bylaw (5.3), which reads in part, “The decision of council or a board must be accepted and respected by all elected officials and board members even if some individual elected officials or board members do not agree with the majority decision.”
“What we have here is a breach of the code of conduct, under 5.3., so I think council has to deal with that,” he said.
Coleman then went on to read from the Municipal Inspection Report: “Council members commonly focussed on operational matters rather than remaining focused at a higher level of policy-based governance. This improper action shows a propensity for some council members to jump into operational matters with a lack of respect for proper roles or responsibilities.”
“That’s what we have happening right here,” said Coleman.
Coun. Victor Julyan said council had spent enough time on this matter.
“Coun. Primeau has conducted a war against the Tawatinaw ski hill. His actions have not been rational and I think it’s time we got on with our business. This matter as far as I’m concerned is done,” said Julyan.
Primeau then went on to say Ludwig had breached the Municipal Government Act in his dealings on the issue.
Ludwig recommended council go in-camera due to the “comments, and what I strongly state are false allegations against me ... It is improper to have discussions about the conduct of staff, especially in that vein, in a public session of council. It’s entirely inappropriate.”
