ATHABASCA – Athabasca County will be releasing a copy of a third party investigator’s report into a phone call between former reeve Brian Hall and an Aspen View Public Schools (AVPS) trustee that has been an ongoing issue since February.
In a closely contested vote, councillors voted 5-4 in favour of a motion from Hall to release the report, as well as all related correspondence between Aspen View and the county since Feb. 26. Councillors Ashtin Anderson, Camille Wallach, Brian Hall, Natasha Kapitaniuk and Joe Gerlach voted in favour of the motion, while Reeve Tracy Holland and councillors Gary Cromwell, Rob Minns and Kelly Chamzuk were opposed.
The Oct. 31 meeting was the first time the issue had been formally addressed in open session.
Holland reminded councillors that under the code of conduct bylaw, matters discussed in closed must remain confidential.
However, Section 8.1 of the code of conduct bylaw removes the confidence from closed sessions matters once they have been discussed in a public meeting.
“I think it needs to be discussed fully and put up there,” said Gerlach. “Just about everything about this was unnecessary and avoidable, and that’s where the concern is. It’s dragging us through something that was unnecessary and avoidable and that’s why it should see the light of day.”
Councillors have been back and forth on the issue for months since the report was finalized in late June. Hall has maintained that the report clears him of official wrongdoing and as such, the following sanctions were illegal under the county’s code of conduct bylaw.
“Sanctions that may be imposed on a Member, by the Decision Committee, upon a finding that the Member has breached this Bylaw may include one or more of the following … requesting the member to issue a letter of apology; publication of a letter of reprimand or request for an apology and the Member’s response,” reads Section 18.4 of the conduct bylaw.
On the other side, Holland and Coun. Gary Cromwell have been vocal about expecting an apology from Hall, which was requested under resolution CC 24-329.
“The decision committee have been sensitive and respectful of all parties, directly and indirectly impacted by this code of conduct (complaint) as we work through difficult circumstances. The committee made their decision in good faith following the code of conduct bylaw,” said Holland.
“The accusation that council violated a number of provisions of the code of conduct while passing resolution CC 24-329 is inappropriate and unfounded.”
A motion to deem the resolution concluded was defeated in a 5-4 split, with Holland, Cromwell, Chamzuk, Minns and Gerlach voting to keep the matter open. While Hall has apologized to his fellow councillors — and he said he’s apologized to the trustee privately — the five want to see more.
“If we release this information to the paper, or the public, all it’s going to do is just keep this going. It’s going to fire everything up again, and for what reason I don’t understand, other than for a person to accept that maybe they did something wrong,” said Minns.
“If a person would maybe just stand up and just hey, ‘Hey I’m sorry,’ I think this would end right now and go away. I wish it would go away and we could be done with it.”
What we know so far
On Jan. 25, Hall called his school board trustee Brenda Fulmore about a Rochester School council meeting. According to both Hall, and Aspen View, he asked two questions: why neither the trustee, nor the entire board, attended the meeting, and why the media was asked to not come. The meeting was for community stakeholders and parents to discuss the potential closure of Rochester School.
“I regret and am sorry that a call described by all parties as “short and respectful,” caused the trustee to feel intimidated. This impact on the trustee was clearly not my intention when, as a parent, I made the call to the trustee for my area,” said Hall.
Following a board meeting, Aspen View sent a letter to each county councillor, detailing the call but not naming the effected 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 investigators report during the June 27 meeting. Following the closed session portion of the meeting, Holland moved to, “request a public apology be made to AVPS, council, and administration by Reeve Brian Hall as discussed in closed.”
The motion passed with the same 5-4 split.
During a Sept. 17 committee of the whole meeting, Hall stated the motion was invalid, noting 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.”
The statement was deemed insufficient during an Oct. 15 committee of the whole meeting and was forwarded to the county council for discussion during the Halloween council meeting.
