Chris Clegg
South Peace News
The cost of the SAGE Report which prompted High Prairie town council to suspend two councillors for misconduct was released July 19 but questions are arising regarding the real cost of the report.
CAO Bill McKennan wrote in his report to council for its July 23 meeting that the cost was $41,401.86.
However, questions are arising if the $41,401.86 is the actual cost. South Peace News emailed Mayor Brian Panasiuk and all council members July 19 asking if the number cited includes the mayor and council members’ fees for attending extra meetings and interviews conducted by SAGE, plus meals, etc.
A caller to South Peace News is also asking if the $41,401.86 includes staff time involved in the investigation and lawyer’s fees. The question: is the $41,401.86 is the “real” cost to High Prairie taxpayers and if not, what is?
The SAGE Report found Councillor Sacha Martens breached 11 of 15 allegations while Councillor Judy Stenhouse breached 13 of 16 allegations. Both are critical of the report and the spending of taxpayers’ money. It prompted Panasiuk, and councillors Donna Deynaka, John Dunn, James Waikle and Therese Yacyshyn at a June 3 meeting to vote and suspend Martens and Stenhouse from all committees until the end of 2024 for breaching Code of Conduct Bylaw 09-2022.
On July 19, South Peace News emailed Mayor Panasiuk and each member of council asking if they felt the $41,401.86 on the SAGE Report was money well spent and if the citizens of High Prairie received good value for their money. The question was also asked if council felt the SAGE Report has made them better councillors in terms of governance.
Panasiuk, Deynaka, Dunn, Waikle and Yacyshyn (the five how voted to proceed with spending money on the report) did not reply to their decision to spend $41,401.86 or defend the value to town citizens.
Stenhouse did respond.
“This was a complete waste of taxpayer’s money, it was a setup right from the word go,” wrote Stenhouse in an email July 21.
“No RFD or cap on money to spend, it was all by design. It is a red herring, to what?” she asks.
Martens is also critical.
“Waste of money! Big time!” wrote Martens in a July 21 email.
“Council’s job is to be good stewards of public funds (tax dollars) that our citizens work hard for. Instead of putting the hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars to good, practical, and productive use,
council have decided to waste tax dollars on a lawless, illegitimate, and reckless report,” she added.
Martens added taxpayers should hold the rest of council accountable.
“And owe an apology to the taxpayers of this town.”
South Peace News asked council in late May, early June to release the cost of the report but received no reply.
“Council strives to maintain an open and transparent disclosure of information to our ratepayers,” cites a Town of High Prairie news release published Jan. 31.
Council did vote on June 3 to release the cost, however.
Formal complaints against Martens and Stenhouse began in early 2014. On Jan. 23, council directed administration to retain a third party to investigate potential Code of Conduct violations. There was no limit cited in the motion to limit spending on the investigation. SAGE was contracted Feb. 7. Formal complaints were initiated by council in March.
Martens insists she is innocent and calls the allegations “vexatious and frivolous” and questions the process.
“I am the one being intimidated, ostracized and dragged through the mud,” she says.
“The psychological harm . . . I have experienced is insurmountable – all for doing my job with diligence, asking questions and doing the right thing.”
Martens wrote in a statement in early June a similar sentiment and questioned the process.
“The investigation was conducted in breach of our bylaw, which requires a written and signed complaint. The investigation was initiated on Jan. 23, 2024 without a written or signed consent. It was on April 9, 2024, that the consultant procured the signatures from (Panasiuk, Deynaka, Dunn, Waikle and Yacyshyn).”
Stenhouse adds the report was clearly directed at only herself and Martens.
“I ask each individual (mayor and councillors) and I have, how they stand and put their name to a document full of deception and false statements,” says Stenhouse, adding it has destroyed trust among council.
“This has driven a wedge between us as colleagues beyond repair,” Stenhouse concludes.
Martens calls the entire process a kangaroo court. Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, agrees.
“. . .politicians should never be allowed to judge the actions of other politicians as that is, by definition, a kangaroo court,” he wrote in an email July 17.
Democracy Watch is a Canadian national non-profit, non-partisan organization. It bills itself as Canada’s leading citizen group advocating democratic reform, government accountability and corporate responsibility.
Democracy Watch is the most effective and successful national citizen advocacy group in Canada at winning systematic changes to key laws since it opened its doors in 1993. It has won more than 200 changes to federal and provincial good government and corporate responsibility laws, may of which are world-leading, its website states.
In her July 21 email, Martens writes she has been the subject of slander and vicious false attacks since the report was issued. She added it continues to take an emotional and psychological toll on her.
“It is clear there are two different sets of rules for councillors,” she writes.
“Council has lost its way.”
Martens earlier suggested mediation as a way to work out its differences but Panasiuk, Deynaka, Dunn, Waikle and Yacyshyn proceeded to spend money on the SAGE Report.
“Council was invited to reverse course, mend fences, talk it out openly, heal, and move forward in a good way,” wrote Martens.
“Every attempt to reconcile and remediate has been denied.”
Martens also wonders about the real cost to taxpayers. She cites staff time, council pay, and the number of legal opinions sought. She reiterates that signed consent is required before initiating an investigation which did not happen.