by Laura Walz [email protected] City of Powell River staff have received a second legal opinion that indicates a mayor may require council to reconsider a motion, without a seconder to the motion.
Staff received an opinion from Donald Lidstone, of Lidstone and Company, on October 14 in response to a question from Marie Claxton, city clerk. Council voted at the November 3 meeting to release that opinion to the public.
Stan Westby, chief administrative officer, explained to the Peak that Claxton approached him with some concerns about Mayor Stewart Alsgard’s intention to bring forward reconsideration of a motion passed at the October 6 council meeting that removed an item about a referendum question from the agenda. Alsgard had attempted at that meeting to bring forward a resolution about posing a question to the public on the November 19 civic election ballot.
“We received the legal opinion and I’m not sure that Marie and I had much time with it,” Westby said. “But I can tell you unequivocally that we did not share it with mayor or council. Marie and I had it privately in case it did come up.”
Alsgard attempted to have council reconsider the October 6 motion at the October 20 meeting. But he had no seconder for his motion and the issue died. George Orchiston, a concerned citizen who has been pressing the city to hold a referendum on the co-treatment issue, interceded during the council meeting, asserting Alsgard didn’t need a seconder, under Section 131 of the Community Charter. Alsgard explained that, according to the city’s procedure bylaw, he needed a seconder. Orchiston disagreed and raised the issue again during question period. A heated discussion ensued, during which Westby revealed he had a legal opinion about the issue. Orchiston pressed for the opinion to be released to the public.
The day after council voted to release Lidstone’s opinion, Westby said Lidstone provided a second opinion that same day. It stated if the mayor is seeking to return a matter under Section 131 and the mayor satisfies all the requirements for that section, then that section supersedes the local procedure bylaw and a seconder is not required.
“The long and the short of it is that we were incorrect in applying the local procedure bylaw as posed to the mayor,” said Westby.
Westby said council has to deal with another matter in-camera and he will suggest to councillors that the city call a special meeting. “We would deal with the in-camera item, but prior to that, the mayor would have an opportunity with this new information to bring the matter forward, supersede the requirements of the procedure bylaw and make an application under Section 131 for reconsideration,” Westby said.
Lidstone told the Peak that he thinks council and staff did what every other municipality does. “So now the question arises whether municipalities in BC are following the proper procedure or not,” he said. “I think council and staff did what everyone else does and what one would normally expect. So then the question is whether or not that is exactly what the act says and why is it so controversial?”
Orchiston told the Peak that the first legal opinion supported his assertion that the mayor didn’t need a seconder. “It’s my assertion that [staff] did not want the mayor’s motion to see the light of day. And they failed to give proper guidance,” he said. “It’s my assertion that both of them have failed in their duty under the charter to properly advise council and the mayor. I assert that both of them have removed themselves from the employer-employee relationship and become political.”
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)