by Jeff Burgar

Does it hurt to have a lawyer on the company payroll?
If one lawyer is a good idea, why not two lawyers?
The idea for this is, they would each have to argue out the merits of a position. Each would take a side. The people involved could then see what kind of arguments they could produce. Then they would decide the merits of the arguments.
This is more expensive than having one lawyer. But at the same time, it would be cheaper than ending up in front of a judge. Then, we sort of have “professionals”, usually known as judges making the decision, who is right and who is wrong.
So you have to keep in mind, because we do in the free world, have this so-called adversarial system. It can be interpreted as meaning, a lawyer is not automatically right. He or she can present an opinion.
But another lawyer can present a different opinion. At the end, a judge or a jury will decide which side is right.
So, working backwards, to basically save money by not wasting time in court, two lawyers on the payroll, forced to take opposing, give better advice than one lawyer. In fact, one lawyer who might even be asked to present both sides. That’s our take on it.
One side of the story
Anyway, a few weeks ago on June 22, Big Lakes County found itself, unknowingly it seems, on the wrong side of the law. Councillors were walking in and out of a closed door in-camera.
At least one point, there were not enough councillors to have a legal quorum.
The Municipal Government Act, written by the Province of Alberta, is the authority on such things. Section 167(1)(a) of MGA says, … when there is no quorum, the meeting is ended. This seems clear enough.
No quorum, which would be five of the nine members making up the Big Lakes County council, are a quorum. When there are not five members, there is no quorum. When there is no quorum, the MGA says the meeting is over.
Ah, but not so fast. According the legal advice given to Big Lakes County, this is actually about as clear as mud. How so, you may ask? Read on.
The lawyer speaks
Legal advice for Big Lakes County says it is quite alright to sit around, waiting to see if there will be a quorum.
1. The lawyer quotes the county’s own Procedure Bylaw … “where there is no quorum at the commencement of a council meeting, council shall wait 30 minutes to see if a quorum is attained.”
The lawyer goes on to basically say, “while this doesn’t specifically apply to the in-camera session,” [you know, the one at which councillors were walking in and out and which started this whole topic] it is OK to extend this rule to the in-camera session. You know, the old “if it doesn’t specifically say you can’t do it, you should be able to find something to say you can do it!”
Guess what? We did!
So, sit around waiting to see if people are going to show up again. Meaning, if they do show up, even though the meeting is actually ended, [which has to happen automatically, according to the MGA] the meeting can start up again.
Unintended consequences
So reason [1] is fine and dandy. But it seems then, this lawyer is also making a statement that once a meeting has ended, either by motion or by lack of quorum caused by people going home, it’s okay to start it up again. All that is needed is an expectation there will be a meeting.
There is nothing about who has to expect this. How many have to expect this? Nothing said about this at all. Maybe just the five. Maybe just one, who manages to talk the rest into staying.
So for example, three councillors leave the chambers after a meeting is ended. Five remaining decide it’s a good idea to start the meeting again, maybe to deal with some unfinished business. The five are a quorum. So, the five just start making motions without those three who left.
Isn’t that sort of the same thing as people going in and out of the June 22 meeting? Once the quorum was lost, the meeting was over. Done. Finito. Right?
Apparently, no.
One can now have meetings with no advertising, no scheduling, no notice and no agenda. Nothing at all that is legally required by the MGA. All that is really needed is just an “expectation” of a meeting.
Cool, eh?
If in doubt
2. The county lawyer says the minutes do not say if there was a break or not. This is interesting. Usually, one has to come out of in-camera sessions, because motions cannot be made inside in-camera. Such a motion to take a break would usually then be recorded. Suffice to say, there is no record of any break even though there is a complete record of people shuffling out of, and back into the chambers.
Shoot the messenger
3. The lawyer says basically, a request by reporter Chris Clegg for information about a certain motion related to the in-camera session “appears to be improper” if it would require disclosure of matters discussed in-camera that are protected confidentiality.
This is a foolish statement in the extreme. Clegg asked a perfectly legitimate question. The only “improper” happening would be if somebody answered the question.
And then only if indeed the answer breached a confidentiality.
What is an “improper question?” Well, some folks might say, “So, Mr. Mayor, when was the last time you changed your underwear?” is an improper question. Asking questions of government should never be considered improper.