Tensions rise at Edmonton city hall over budget process, partisanship accusations

Article content

Tensions on city council were on display at Edmonton city hall this week leading up to December budget debates, the last budget this council will set before the 2025 municipal election.

Disagreements arose over a process first introduced by Mayor Amarjeet Sohi at the budget table two years ago where he pitched a suite of amendments — cuts and additions — all at once before councillors attempt their own changes. There were some terse comments with councillors arguing and prompting the chair of the meeting to intervene.

Article content

On Thursday, the mayor said he worked with his colleagues behind the scenes to reach a consensus and plans to do the same this year. Most were in favour. All 15 items on Sohi’s budget amendment list passed last year, which shaved $8 million off the total while increasing bus service and funding to remove homeless encampments. Sohi’s entire 36-item list also passed for the 2023 budget.

But Coun. Tim Cartmell wanted to stop it. Cartmell said his experience was not collaborative, that he’s made suggestions but they didn’t end up on Sohi’s list.

Cartmell accused council of partisanship despite many councillors’ public opposition to bringing party politics to the municipal government.

“When a subset of council gets together and makes a list, and then presents it to the others on council and says, ‘Hey this is what we are thinking, what do you think, or feel free to amend if you like,’ that feels like a party process,” Cartmell said, introducing his motion.

“I have heard a lot, a lot of talk here about how we don’t want subsets, or parties, or one group of council effectively taking control of the agenda and taking us away from what is supposed to be a 13-person consensus table. I don’t support that part of it because it has not worked the way it has been presented, at least not in my experience.”

Article content

While some councillors supported Cartmell, others pushed back on his remarks, including those about partisanship.

Coun. Erin Rutherford said there was a vote earlier in the day that challenges the notion that council is separated into parties already. Earlier Thursday, the mayor unsuccessfully moved to cut his own salary and was supported by Cartmell, and councillors Michael Janz, Aaron Paquette and Jennifer Rice.

“There’s not party lines in our votes,” Rutherford said. “We vote in very diverse ways. And that’s where we represent our constituents.”

Coun. Keren Tang said if councillors felt left out “it may feel like party politics,” but she disagreed, emphasizing the value of the mayor’s efforts to build a consensus.

“I also think it’s a two-way conversation. We are presented with options, we can choose to be participatory, we can choose to be collaborative, or we can choose another way around,” Tang said.

Cartmell’s motion ultimately failed with only councillors Hamilton, Rice and Coun. Karen Principe casting a vote in favour.

Not included?

Councillors Sarah Hamilton and Rice agreed with Cartmell’s concerns of not being fully included in the behind-the-scenes discussions. Hamilton said she didn’t think the process has been fair or collaborative, while Rice said she had a similar experience despite the mayor’s good intentions.

Article content

Article content

“To be honest, it has felt baked at times. If you were on the right side of something being baked, then that’s great, but if we are talking about transparency and working things out in the room, I think that there is something to separating out a motion (for debate),” Hamilton said. “I don’t think it’s particularly fair that the mayor just gets to table stuff that gets to be unanimous or near-unanimously tabled.”

“I have similar experience with them,” Rice said. “I appreciate the great intention but sometimes between the great intention and experiences, there is a gap there.”

The mayor apologized to councillors who felt they weren’t adequately consulted and defended the process.

“If some of my colleagues do feel that I missed the mark, I am sorry for that, because that is not my intent,” Sohi said, adding he has put out numerous requests for councillors to meet with him to discuss this next budget. “I hope that we take on that opportunity and we can sit together and figure out a desire to move forward together, to focus on the priorities of Edmontonians that they want us to work together.

Article content

“(Edmontonians) expect me to provide that citywide leadership in the role of the mayor, to advance our shared collective goal of building a great city. I will continue to do that.”

Tang, Rutherford, Paquette and Coun.Andrew Knack supported the mayor’s efforts. While some said they understand councillors who felt left out, they think the process is a good one.

Paquette said his experience has been collaborative. He’s had agreements and disagreements with the mayor.

When it comes to council members discussing what they may plan to do at the council table but behind closed doors, Paquette said there is an argument that could be made about transparency.

“But the reality is that we do this all the time and then we debate the final iterations in public,” he said. “It doesn’t serve the public interest to hear every permutation of every idea. I think what this does is allows us to slice through all of the extraneous stuff and get to the meat of the matter of the things that we would like to debate.”

Knack pointed out most of the mayor’s 15 amendments passed unanimously last year “which suggests to me that through those one-on-one conversations that there did seem to be a general alignment about where folks wanted to go … that felt like it was efficient.”

Article content

The 2025 budget, if unchanged, will result in an 8.1 per cent property tax increase. Council is set to begin budget debates the first week of December.

Heated debate

The debate was heated at times.

Cartmell, in his closing arguments, said in the past there was a “vindictive exchange” around budgets. Some councillors recalled votes after items they wanted didn’t pass, he said. He claimed the same thing almost happened again this spring, saying he was pressured into supporting the budget amendments.

Cartmell said he was told if anything was done to reduce the budget “then we could expect the same potential vindictiveness” to force council to reconsider voting for something they had already approved.

“All of these things happened behind the scenes,” Cartmell said. “They aren’t part of the public record and that creates a problem now because it’s essentially a matter of who do you believe?”

Paquette took issue, saying Cartmell’s remarks were “beyond the pale” and included “an extraordinary amount of rumour-mongering that cannot be verified.”

“If there’s a complaint, it should have been brought to the proper process. Otherwise, what is to stop me or anyone else from making up things and stating them in the public forum on record?”

Article content

Rutherford, as the chair, was asked to rule on point of order because of Cartmell’s remarks. She asked Cartmell to respond to Paquette.

“This isn’t the first time that Coun. Paquette has taken exception to something I’ve said publicly,” Cartmell said.

Paquette interrupted, saying Cartmell said something “that I must take exception to.”

Cartmell began replying, saying “this is precisely my point,” before Paquette interrupted: “So your point is to engage in bad action because you’re alleging bad action.”

Rutherford told Paquette to give Cartmell an opportunity to speak. Cartmell said he can prove who was at particular meetings but admits some comments he made were conjecture.

“That is exactly my point. These things are moving … out of public, and that is wrong,” Cartmell said. “I can’t prove these things because they’re not part of a public record, and quite frankly Mr. Paquette, you weren’t at those meetings when those things were said to me.”

Paquette interjected again, saying his issue is about what Cartmell is saying. Rutherford said the public can determine what they think about what Cartmell said.

Article content

“We all need to heed more caution. This is the second time in a short period of time we’ve had two point of orders,” Rutherford said. “I don’t want to keep having these. We need to be more mindful of decorum in general and postulating about anyone on councils’ intentions. Period.”

The other point of order was made against Janz earlier in the debate. He said Cartmell added items to the budget last fall that ultimately ended up increasing the tax levy and said there is “the ego temptation” for councillors to get credit for changing the budget.

“You have councillors jumping on each other to get to the mic, that’s not fair. This puts the ‘we’ ahead of the ‘me,’ it takes the ego out of it. I think that’s really important. It’s focusing on good, collaborative decision-making, not somebody chasing in their own headlines here,” Janz said, supporting the mayor’s method.

Knack called a point of order.

“I think suggesting motivation, suggesting ego is part of that is not necessarily a fair comment to put onto the mover of the motion,” he said.

Rutherford agreed with Knack. She pointed Cartmell was not the only councillor who made amendments after Sohi’s omnibus last year.

Article content

The fact other councillors’ also made amendments after Sohi’s motion, Janz said, strengthens his argument that having the mayor table his omnibus motion doesn’t prevent other councillors from making their own suggestions.

“I commend Mayor Sohi for being the first mayor to do this. That’s a testament to bringing everyone together and soliciting feedback and listening and doing that,” Janz said.

Debate raises good questions: expert

Despite the heated exchanges, Michael DeMoor, political science professor at the Kings University, said questions around if this is the right process for council to deal with the budget are fair.

“There are substantial questions at stake,” he said. “It’s not just a matter of simply personalities, if people get upset.”

DeMoor said it is difficult for the public to figure out what they think about these issues if council members are discussing things in private, but he doesn’t think every negotiation needs to be public.

He thinks Cartmell’s remarks about political parties sparked the tension.

“Almost all of the councillors that I know of … have publicly suggested that they don’t like that idea, that this becomes partisan, and yet Cartmell is accusing some of the councillors of essentially hypocrisy on that ground,” he said Friday.

Article content

DeMoor said the method Sohi is using isn’t something mayors have to do. It’s a way he can show leadership. Challenging the process in a way also challenges what the mayor is doing, he said.

There’s also the incentive for councillors to show they are doing something to lower the tax increase, DeMoor said.

“There is some jockeying there to position oneself as standing strongly for what people like to portray as fiscal discipline,” he said, noting Janz’s comments about Cartmell’s motions increasing the tax hike.

“Certainly Cartmell seems to want to debate as much as possible about the budget … that gives more chances to (have) your say and take your general position as a councillor.”

lboothby@postmedia.com

@laurby

Article content