Chris Clegg
South Peace News
The Alberta government’s mandated code of conduct to help govern the province’s elected officials was never meant to be used as a “weapon” and remove duly elected councillors from performing their duties on committees, says Municipal Affairs Minister Rick McIver.
But that is exactly what High Prairie town council did last year when it suspended two councillors – Sacha Martens and Judy Stenhouse.
McIver introduced legislation (Bill 50, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act) April 8 which will abolish code of conduct.
Codes of conduct are sometimes “weaponized” for spats between elected officials and prevent necessary business from getting proper and timely attention, McIver said.
“And in some cases, it’s worked fine. In way too many other cases, though, it’s been used as a weapon to diminish other members of council, to take away their voices, to silence them, to even hurt them, like getting them off committees because of some position they take on some issue. That was never what it was intended for,” said McIver.
Mayor Brian Panasiuk, and councillors Donna Deynaka, John Dunn, James Waikle and Therese Yacyshyn voted at a special meeting June 3, 2024 to suspend Martens and Stenhouse from committees until the end of 2024. Panasiuk and each councillor was contacted by email twice to comment on McIver’s comments but no one responded. The removal of the code of conduct would no longer allow a mayor and four councillors to use the policy as a “weapon” as McIver suggests.
Martens and Stenhouse did respond with their personal opinions, however. Both feel vindicated by McIver’s statements and move to eliminate the code of conduct and remain steadfast their fellow council members acted inappropriately.
Martens, who strongly supports the reforms suggested by McIver, previously called the actions of council a ‘kangaroo court’ and a ‘witch hunt.’
“The Province’s move to eliminate municipal codes of conduct is a necessary and prudent corrective measure,” she says. “High Prairie’s case proves the system is broken.
“I know all too well how these codes enable retaliation, not accountability.
“Minister McIver is absolutely right to call out how municipal codes of conduct have been misused as weapons for councillors to target fellow councillors, and to silence dissent,” Martens adds.
Stenhouse says the purpose of the SAGE Report was to silence her and Martens.
“This council hired a private consultant/investigator with taxpayers’ money, to ensure that these two council members who were asking the hard questions, prying into Town operations, were to be silenced,” she says.
“Through (the SAGE investigation), concerned citizens were labeled hostile, our emails were hacked, read, and manipulated out of context, other people’s emails were inserted,” Stenhouse charges.
“False statements, allegations, testimonies were made by council in her report,” she adds. “All of which there is no proof, her findings based on presumption and probabilities.
“They (council) had a goal to which they wanted to accomplish by whatever ever means possible.”
Stenhouse agrees with McIver when he said sometimes the code of conduct was used to silence councillors. In High Prairie’s case, Stenhouse adds, council was trying to “silence, gag, and discredit us as honest, ethical council members. It was used as a control method, for scorned egos, and obedience tactic. That we fall into place, do not cause waves, or question bad behaviour or practices.
“In my opinion and belief, the taxpayers of this town are due a refund of their misused/abused money. Along with answers they are seeking,” Stenhouse adds.
The Sage Report did find Martens breached 11 of allegations while Stenhouse breached 13 of 16 allegations. Councillors filed the complaints, hired the consultant and made the decision.
Like Stenhouse, Martens also says citizens who attended meetings and/or asked questions were also branded as ‘hostile’ by the rest of council.
“While elected officials (Martens and Stenhouse) who dared to speak out, ask questions, and represent their constituents with courage, were sanctioned, sending a clear message: ‘Comply or be punished,’” says Martens.
As McIver suggests, Martens adds councillors should not be punished for being the voice of the people.
“The five councillors (Mayor Panasiuk and councillors Deynaka, Dunn, Waikle and Yacyshyn) who signed their names to this fiasco owe the public an apology for their disgraceful misuse of power and public funds,” Martens says.
“These five councillors that chose the punitive approach had an opportunity to show leadership and engage in restorative dialogue. I wonder if they had to open up their own wallets, if perhaps they would have chosen differently. It’s all too easy to spend (or misspend) public funds.”
Council hired a consultant to compile the SAGE Report and ignore suggestions to hire a mediator to come in and help council work out its differences. Even during the SAGE Report process, and after $17,000 had been spent, mediation was suggested by Deynaka. At the June 25, 2024 council meeting, she asked if council got the process “backwards” by not going to mediation first instead of proceeding by spending taxpayers’ money on the SAGE Report.
Council also never reached out to Municipal Affairs for help. Municipal Affairs is the governing body of council and available to help.
After first declining to release the cost of the SAGE Report, council relented in mid-July and released it at its July 19 meeting: $41,406.86.
However, that was only the cost to the consultant. South Peace News asked what the real cost was to taxpayers including the CAO, mayor and councillors’ time, meeting claims, meals and staff time. An answer has yet to be provided.
Last year, all members of council were asked if they felt the SAGE Report was money well spent. Marten ands Stenhouse opposed the spending of the money while the mayor and rest of council did not respond and have still not responded to this day brining into the question accountability and transparency.
Martens favours McIver’s suggestion of a standardized, independent ethics oversight system to resolve disputes.
“. . .based on facts, not feelings, and requiring evidence-based investigations, not rulings based on ‘probability.’ The SAGE Report and subsequent sanctions constitute a gross violation of the laws of natural justice, an abuse of taxpayer funds, and an assault on public trust,” Martens adds.
“I’ve gone on record calling the SAGE report baseless, biased, and built on hearsay. There is zero proof of wrongdoing – only conjecture and narrative manipulation by five councillors acting as both complainants and adjudicators. Councillor Stenhouse and I were denied due process and equal footing. While our colleagues had unlimited access to taxpayer-funded legal and administrative resources, I had to mount my defense after-hours, alone, and under extreme emotional distress.”
Martens also questions the human cost and impact on the community. Although not specific to mentioning McIver, his actions do strongly suggest the actions of council certainly got his attention. Recent incidents in Alberta also occurred in Chestermere, Medicine Hat and Rocky Mountain House.
“I’m speaking out today . . . to protect future councillors who wish to serve their communities,” Martens says. “It’s about ensuring that no councillor or citizen is silenced for asking tough questions.
“High Prairie deserves a council that debates openly, governs accountably, and puts taxpayers first. I’m ready to work with anyone willing to make that happen.
“Despite this troubling chapter, I remain hopeful, optimistic, and committed to serving High Prairie on a platform of transparency, fiscal responsibility, and collaborative governance,” Martens concludes.
Stenhouse says the entire conflict on council arose when she began asking questions regarding three issues: the theft of a Town employee, the sale of the old hospital land and recall petition.
“Concerned, tax paying citizens came to council meetings asking for information, answers and general understanding,” says Stenhouse.
In its Jan. 24, 2024 edition, South Peace News reported the old hospital land was sold for $1.75 million. Council was earlier offered the land for $148,00 but declined the offer. Questions quickly arose who made the decision.
“Why was there no public consultation on the old hospital land, who made the decision, when was decision made, how long did council know the land was offered to the Town at a discounted price, were tax dollars spent on land evaluations?” asked Stenhouse.
A week later, Panasiuk said council’s concerns when debating the $148,000 offer turned out to be non-issues.
When given the opportunity, council also never expressed any regret about not buying the property for $148,000 after it sold for $1.75 million. Although the offer was made in April 2023, Deynaka and Waikle told a private citizen (Sharon Cox) they did not know about the offer until September. They have never denied what the told Cox but it did raise questions about the decision and if all councillors had all the facts. Martens and Stenhouse also claim they did not know about the $148,000 offer.
Council later said the decision was reached at an April 22, 2023 meeting. South Peace News asked for the agenda and approved minutes of the meeting. Neither were provided and have never been posted on the Town’s website. To this day, council cannot provide an approved motion on the decision to not buy the land, yet they insist the meeting occurred.
Stenhouse also asked the same questions.
“That’s when myself and councillor Martens were tagged and used as a diversion of the real issues taking place by the code of conduct. We asked the questions for the people; on the operations of the Town, policies, procedures, budgets, expenses, CAO attendance and job performance, email from AHS (which has never been produced),” Stenhouse says.
And, later, the SAGE Report.
Despite many instances of not answering questions, council remains steadfast it is open and transparent.
“Council strives to maintain an open and transparent disclosure of information to our taxpayers.”: – A message from the council of High Prairie published Jan. 31, 2024 in South Peace News.
McIver says abolishing the code of conduct will not give councillors free reign to misbehave.
“Absolutely not,” McIver told a news conference last week.
“It means we need a better, more impartial system to deal with conduct issues, one that can’t be misused for political gain or personal rivalry.”
McIver adds the Province will work with municipalities to develop common procedures whose “primary focus” will be to handle council conflicts. Of importance is the creation of an independent ethics commissioner to deal with conduct issues. The way it works now, chief administrative officers often do the work.
“The poor CAO depends upon council to keep their job. It’s just not fair to have that person forced to referee things among their bosses. So I think it’s an obvious area of fairness,” McIver said.