Your news this week: Volunteers get high praise by FCSS - 2 County preliminary review begins - 7 Maschmeyer gets another shutout - 9 OPINION: NDP leadership gets serious - 4
Proud to be an Independent CANADIAN Publication
FREE
Vol. 19, No. 22, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 www.LamontLeader.com
Webinar featuring Lamont County Reeve, CAO, discusses impacts of recall petitions David Diduck says he was embarrassed after getting recall notice from a petitioner he’d never met and for no reason - but reputation put on the line BY JOHN MATHER There were a couple of surprise revelations that came out during a webinar: Recall Act: Impacts of Legislation hosted by Alberta Counsel and featuring Lamont County Reeve David Diduck, and Chief Administrative Officer Peter Tarnawsky. At the start of the presentation April 24, Dr. Moin Yahya with Alberta Counsel discussed the technicalities of the legislation and then Diduck and Tarnawsky were brought in for their insights. The webinar was attended by 75 interested persons, CAOs, and others from around the province Diduck was the subject of a recall petition to remove him as the County Division 3 Councillor recently. The petition was unsuccessful and did not proceed. “It has a significant impact on the organization,” said Tarnawsky of the recall legislation. “I had people leave during that period because they didn’t want to be part of what was going on in this community. “They decided they didn’t appreciate the tone of what was going on with dedicated administrators working hard and the potential of someone to derail the process. Obviously the Reeve was strongly supported.” He said it was important to communicate with his staff that people have to realize the legislation is a legal process and staff shouldn’t interfere in the process and only participate if they are residents in the division.
him, but suddenly Diduck suggestout of the blue he ed, as written, he decided he had felt the legislation cause for me to be should be scrapped. recalled.” He said people didDiduck said with n’t have to give any the way the legislareason for a recall tion is written the and a single person petitioner didn’t could start the have to give a reaprocess. son for the recall. “I have to get at “So essentially I least five signatures received notice I to begin my camwas being recalled paigns for council, and no reason was so I can’t see why a given for the recall recall petition and you couldn’t shouldn’t have a Lamont County Reeve David Diduck even make any minimum number beof signatures to get said there is a flaw in the recall legis- assumptions lation when one person can cause cause I had never started as well.” When he started so much reputational damage and met the individual.” the accused has no idea what they He said after he speaking on the may have done wrong. thought about it it webinar, he said he was embarrassing was very shocked when he was told a petition was under to him. “I’ve lived in Lamont County for 63 way. “Basically I was doing what I nor- years and probably know about 75 per mally do and I received an email from cent of the residents of the County,” he our CAO telling me a recall petition said. “I’ve been on council for six years had been filed against myself.” stated and all of a sudden your reputation is Diduck. “It was filed against me as the put on the line.” “You still have to function on your Division 3 councillor and not the Reeve. Quite honestly, what runs council, function in your community, through your mind is why me and but you’re placed on the front page of what did I do wrong and who is the the newspaper. “You have to continue to function petitioner?’ He said when they found out who yet the reputational harm was fairly far the petitioner was “quite frankly I had reaching.” He added he was chair of Alberta’s no idea who this individual is.” “I had never met him and had never Industrial Heartland and you have to received any communications from deal with it on an ongoing basis.
He said he read up on the legislation as outlined in the Municipal Government Act and he acknowledged the petition was legitimate. But still, he said, you had to do damage control. “You talk to people on your staff, people you work with and community residents. You try to indicate you’re not aware of anything you did wrong.” He said he still didn’t know what he might have done wrong to have the petition levelled against him and he feels that is a flaw with the legislation as it is currently written. “If someone is going to be recalled, and I do feel there is merit for recall, but I think a reason for the recall should have to be provided.” He added that for the 60 days that the petition was circulating it weighs very heavily on you. “You’re thinking, I ran for council to represent the people not only of my division, but as Reeve of the entire County,” he said. “You still go about your job but you’re wondering why this is happening.” He said he didn’t know how many signatures were received but “to this day, I haven’t talked to anyone who signed it.” Tarnawsky said he found the process interesting. “I had no basis to inform the Reeve until seven days later,” he said when it was determined the petition was valid. The Reeve, he said, was the second email after the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he received notice of the petition. Continued on Page 15