Councillor Robert Dumanowski - In His Own Words

*The following article is a letter sent to Sun City Sentinel by Councillor Dumanowski and has been published verbatim.

-

While the mayor’s legal counsel portrayed the defense in the judicial review as simple and straightforward, it is evident that there was a deeper layer of truth understood by city council that was not fully disclosed to the public. The judicial review process was deliberately focused on the events of August 21, 2023, however, in reality, the entire proceedings leading up to the review obscured critical facts that remained concealed from the general public, but were clearly understood by the rest of council. 

After taking some time to reflect on the judicial review proceedings and the subsequent comments by the mayor, I find it necessary to speak out. I find it deeply troubling that many of the points being communicated portray senior city hall administration and the councillors as the root cause of the complaint. The suggestion by the mayor that council had the ability to prevent the judicial review and its associated costs to the citizens of Medicine Hat is utterly absurd. What the public may not know is that numerous efforts were made to avoid the need for a judicial review. These included one-on-one discussions, group conversations, and even bringing in the highly experienced and respected George Cuff to facilitate a resolution before resorting to a public legal dispute. We even reached out to Municipal Affairs to assist, which is now public knowledge. At no point during these mediation attempts was there any indication of agreement or respect for constructive dialogue from the mayor. It is highly concerning that instead there seemed to be a desire to engage in public political conflict (in the form of a judicial review) rather than seeking resolution behind the scenes. I want to emphasize that there were eight councillors who shared a unanimous and unified position in levelling a the code of conduct violation against the mayor. This should clearly illustrate the challenges we had been striving to address over the past several months. I personally reached out to the mayor prior to the events of August 21, cautioning her that she was dangerously close to isolating herself at City Hall. While each elected official has the right to represent their constituents as they see fit, it is perplexing to me to understand how one could think that working in isolation could benefit the public. The councillors have been steadfast in ensuring that the welfare of our public and senior administration is and remains our top priority.

The highly contentious and disputed topic of accountability surrounding the recent reorganization appears to be at the heart of the events of August 21. There has been a subtle attempt to portray this as a failure on the part of our City Manager, but nothing could be further from the truth. Having spent nearly 23 years around the council table and having participated in multiple administrative reorganizations at City Hall during my tenure, I can unequivocally affirm that the process used for last year's reorganization was consistent with previous organizational reviews/changes. It is important for the public to understand that a reorganization is not something that can be magically implemented in a single council meeting, with everything seemingly falling into place immediately afterward. As in past practices, the city manager approached council with suggested changes well in advance, operating on the premise and in good faith that when the final decision eventually came before an open council meeting, it would receive the necessary support and pass. This is how it’s done - period. A reorganization cannot happen overnight, like flipping a light switch. There are weeks, if not months, of background discussions, shifts/adjustments, departmental and broader organizational changes that must take place well before a final decision is made around the council table. The same approach was followed in this instance. In my view, the root cause of the regrettable discord that took place on August 21 stems from the fact that, as part of the reorganization, the position of the public relations employee (who worked closely with the mayor) was eliminated. It was felt that this position, among others, had little direct impact on the broad citizenry. Therefore, in our ongoing efforts to save the taxpayer money, difficult decisions had to be made regarding a variety of positions. None of these cuts were meant to be personal in nature. Council’s intent was simply to streamline operations to save money for other projects and service improvements within the organization. I believe that the elimination of the public relations advisor may have acted as the tipping point for disagreement with the city manager, as this individual largely served as the mayor’s personal assistant (managing her emails, calendar, and assisting with social media content, etc). However, up until this term, no sitting mayor in the city's history had ever had a personal assistant of that nature (other than the executive assistant who sits immediately outside the mayor’s office and one who works for the benefit of all of council). It was when this position was cut, that a challenge with the reorganization issue began, with claims that it was not being conducted democratically or in a transparent fashion. Having served many years in public office, I have been on the receiving end of many decisions that were deeply challenging and in some instances where the outcome was even personally troubling. Such is the nature of democratic governance. There have even been times when I fully committed to a position only to find it at odds with my colleagues, yet I had to move forward for the greater good and the will of the majority of council and the public. 

The public interrogation of a senior bureaucrat during the meeting on August 21 was profoundly distressing for me to witness. Simplistically speaking, while there may have been grounds for a healthy procedural debate, the fact is, that council was thoroughly informed of the changes that were taking place, well in advance—weeks, if not months, before that open meeting. In my view, this public spectacle was an attempt to humiliate the City Manager, the individual responsible for making difficult decisions on behalf of the majority of city council, such as the elimination of the public relations role among others. However, these decisions were undertaken in the interest of streamlining operational decisions that would achieve financial savings strongly desired by the rest of the council.

The subsequent and highly contested sanctions imposed on the mayor following a challenge under the code of conduct were implemented without any desire for public attention or fanfare. In all my years around the council table, it was difficult for me to imagine that such measures and interventions initially even proved necessary. However, after a thorough third-party (independent) review and confirmation of the code of conduct violation, consistent with the Municipal Government Act (MGA), I was obligated to let the facts speak for themselves. This was not a personal vendetta, as has been shamefully suggested, but rather the outcome of one person's words and actions beyond my control. What I find most troubling about this entire situation is that a simple and contrite public apology could have entirely mitigated and prevented this public discord, and the necessity for a judicial review in the first place. While I understand that it is human nature to challenge that which one believes needs to be challenged, entering public office requires looking beyond one’s own singular perspective. Instead, it requires one to consider the broader public interest at every corner. To that end, I find myself with no other choice but to remain hopeful that the final year of this term can be salvaged, and that the fractured relationship between the mayor, the councillors, and senior administration can be repaired. Regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, there will be no clear winners or losers. Fundamentally speaking, if we are to move forward and work effectively on behalf of the citizens, personal differences must be set aside so that we can focus on the more important task of governing effectively. The public deserves absolutely nothing less.