Mayor Clark Sanctions Were the Correct Decision

It was a hard lesson that you'd hope Mayor Clark would learn...humility.

After 2 days of deliberations in closed council sessions, city council unanimously agreed Thursday that Mayor Clark would be Mayor of Medicine Hat in name only on a go forward basis, or at least until she accepted some responsibility for her actions.

Other local news outlets have asked Hatters if they thought the sanctions were too "harsh" or have asked former councilors what they thought of the outcome of the code of conduct review. To their credit, most Hatters said they didn't know enough to comment on the issue. Some felt that if council unanimously decided on this course of action then maybe there is more to the story. Some of course felt it was over the top.

Former councilor Turnbull felt that it may deter others from running for the Mayor's seat in future elections and is concerned about council being able to manage the affairs of the city with a rotating acting Mayor. These sanction only apply to Clark and when this council's term end so will the sanctions.

As stated when the Sentinel published the outcome of the special council meeting to decide Mayor Clark's fate, sources that wished to remain anonymous for a number of reasons, said there has been an ongoing pattern of behaviour by Mayor Clark inside city hall that needed to be addressed.

The Sentinel has been told that Clark has continually disrespected city administrators at multiple levels of authority, from the CAO on down, when it came to policy or procedures she felt should be changed. This is even after the code of conduct incident that occurred in August 2023. It was mentioned to the Sentinel that she has been trying to do the CAO's job, which is outside her job description as Mayor, nor is she qualified to do.

The code of conduct complaint, and outside legal council's determination that Mayor Clark breached the code, was the trigger to try to deal with a number of Mayor Clark's behaviours that had created a working environment in city hall that neither the rest of council nor administration were willing to let continue.

The reality of the situation is that council UNANIMOUSLY decided on the sanctions. There were no dissenters when the vote was called which should reinforce for Hatters that council was unified in what they felt was necessary. Councilor Sharps recused herself from the vote to remove any appearance of influence in the outcome of the vote.

Probably the most telling of all regarding Clark's behaviours was her response to the decision that she published on social media. The response in itself shows she is unwilling to respect the will of council and reflect on that fact that 8 of her peers were united in sending her a message. She needed to hear in the strongest terms that her behaviour was unacceptable, to reflect on the decision and eat some humble pie. Unfortunately she decided to do the opposite and has shown in writing her insolence, disrespect of the law and the right of council to do what it did.

The decision of council was not easy and not taken lightly. Councilors have told the Sentinel that there has been a number of hate emails received after the decision and that they were prepared for backlash.

The lesson to be learned in this exercise is that in municipal governance the Mayor does not have the same level of power as "Prime Minister" or "Premier". The Mayor is one of 9 votes on city council. The Mayor is to speak on behalf of council and the community.

Clark can state she is fighting for her vision of the city. There are procedures to do just that. Clark needed to work with others, stay in her lane as far as her role, and lead by creating and fostering a good working environment for council and administration to get things done that Hatters feel are important to them and their community.

Clearly council felt Clark was unable to change her behaviours and therefore exercised their legal right to do it for her.