ATHABASCA – Athabasca County councillors deemed a public apology from Reeve Brian Hall was inadequate after a closed session discussion Oct. 15 and will be bringing the topic back to a future council meeting.
Councillors voted 4-2 in favour of a motion to forward Resolution CC 24-329 to county council for further discussion — with an amendment from Hall to discuss the topic in open session — after an earlier motion to consider the apology resolved was defeated in a 3-3 tie.
Hall and Coun. Camille Wallach were opposed to the motion to bring it back to council, with councillors Joe Gerlach, Ashtin Anderson, Rob Minns and Tracy Holland in favour. Natasha Kapitaniuk, Kelly Chamzuk and Cromwell were both absent from the committee of the whole meeting.
The resolution, which states “to request a public apology be made to Aspen View School Division (AVSD), council, and Administration by Reeve Hall as discussed in closed session,” was passed during the June 27 meeting.
After a third-party investigation — which Hall maintains found him free of any Code of Conduct breach for a Jan. 25 call with his local school trustee — council passed a 5-4 vote requiring the apology.
During the Sept. 17 committee of the whole meeting, Hall said he thought the motion was invalid, since it violated “a number of provisions of the Code of Conduct."
“I accept the investigator's conclusions that I did not breach the Code of Conduct, and because of that and because I have already apologized to the affected school board trustee, no further apology from me is required,” he said. “I decline to make whatever apology was discussed at the closed session at which I was not present.”
What we know so far
On Jan. 25, Hall called his school board trustee, Brenda Fulmore, to discuss the closure of the Rochester School. Following a board meeting, Aspen View sent a letter to each county councillor detailing the call but not naming the affected parties.
“It is inappropriate for an elected official to question the actions or decisions of the Board of Trustees, other than by formally contacting the board chair,” wrote AVPS chair Candy Nikipelo.
“While the trustee acknowledges that the conversation was short and respectful, the unexpected nature of the conversation, as well as the timing of the conversation, was interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the trustee prior to the Rochester School decision.”
Council referred the issue to a third-party investigator during their Feb. 29 meeting following a Feb. 20 committee of the whole discussion. The initial motion to refer the complaint passed with the same 5-4 split — Hall, Kapitaniuk, Anderson and Wallach opposed, and Holland, Cromwell, Minns, Chamzuk and Gerlach in favour.
Councillors were presented with the investigator's report during the June 27 meeting.
What we don’t know
The contents of the investigator's report have not been released to the public. While Hall has said the investigator’s conclusions absolve him of a Code of Conduct breach, Town and Country has been unable to independently verify his statements.
Hall has argued he doesn't need to apologize since Section 18.4 of the county Code of Conduct bylaw reads, "Sanctions may be imposed on a member, by the Decision Committee, upon a finding that member has breached this Bylaw."
The Oct. 15 discussion occurred in closed session on — an agenda item labelled “Advice from Officials – Deliberations) was covered under Section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP), although county administration was unable to say if it was related to the apology or not.
Councillors also didn’t publicly elaborate on why they felt Hall’s apology was inadequate — Minns, Holland, and Gerlach all voted against a motion that would have considered the item resolved, but didn’t state reasons for their position in open session.
