The Public Deserves Full Attention - Especially Before a Tax Hike

Editor's Note: City Council meets tonight to deliberate the 2026 tax rate. Residents are bracing for a significant increase. The city has spent recent days preparing the public with messaging about "past decisions" and "lost revenues." Meanwhile, as the following article details, a recent council meeting saw a member introduce information from a message received during debate on a million dollar project. The public is asked to sit silently. The question tonight: who else is getting messages, and what are they being told?‍ ‍

Councillor Brian Varga - From City of Medicine Hat website

At the April 7 council meeting

during debate on a million dollar trail project, Councillor Brian Varga introduced information he had just received:

"I just got a message that said that this land was donated..."

In most workplaces, this would be unacceptable. At city hall, it was Tuesday.

Exhibit A: The Mystery Text

Councillor Brian Varga, attending remotely via MS Teams, said at 1:35:30 of the video:

"Sorry. Sorry about that. Through the chair. I just got a message that said that this land was donated. So it's donated land. So there's no cost to the land where the trail's supposed to go."

Screenshot of City of Medicine Hat Youtube Video at time of discussion. Varga normally sits beside Councillor Stuart Young, his seat is empty.

Mayor Linnsie Clark responded: "That hasn't to our knowledge been transacted at this point in time. Did you get that, Councillor Varga?"

Varga doubled down: "Yes, I did. Just wondering where this came from then. Because it must be some truth behind it."

Mayor Clark said : "There was discussions about that at one point but nothing has been transacted or transferred to the city."

He Could Have Just Asked

Varga had a normal option. He could have said: "Through the chair, I understand the land may have been donated. Can staff confirm?"

That is a standard question. Instead, he chose to perform the receipt of the message. Someone was feeding him information in real time, whether from the gallery or watching the YouTube livestream from their couch.

The Insult to Staff - and the Mayor

The Mayor told him the land had not been donated. A senior manager backed her up. Varga's response was essentially: "But someone messaged me, so there must be something to it."

Let's pause on the dynamics here.

Mayor Linnsie Clark is the only full-time member of council. At the April 7 meeting, a part-time councillor attending remotely chose to publicly challenge the Mayor's word.

On camera.

For the record.

Based on a private message.

There is a difference between questioning something in private and doing it in a recorded meeting streamed to the world. One is governance. The other is performance. When Varga said "it must be some truth behind it," he wasn't just dismissing staff. He was telling the Mayor, in public, that an anonymous message from outside the room carried more weight than her word.

That is rude.

It is unprofessional.

What Was Actually Being Debated

Council was discussing a $1 million walking trail to a leapfrog development of 22 homes built beyond the city's natural growth boundary.

Staff recommended killing the project. Their reasons were clear:

• The trail ranked 77th out of 97 priority gaps in the Active Transportation Strategy.

• That same million dollars could fill 2.5 kilometres of sidewalk gaps where people actually walk.

• Every trail built creates permanent maintenance costs.

Councillor Bill Cocks put it plainly: "If you want country living, it's going to be country living. You shouldn't be expecting a municipal trail system to connect you."

The motion to stop the work failed. Only Cocks and Mayor Clark voted to kill it. Council approved an extra $14,000 to continue design work, with construction money expected by late 2026.

A million dollars. For a trail ranked 77th in priority. To serve 22 homes.

Meanwhile, Downtown

The Heron Fountain in Riverside Veterans Memorial Park has sat broken for over a decade. The park sits across the street from city hall, along the South Saskatchewan River with a view of the historic Finlay Bridge.

Three years ago, a resident started caring for the park voluntarily, weeding the poppy garden by hand. Before that, it was a pile of weeds. Now the parks department maintains it. They even plant poppies.

The fountain features a mural by James Marshall, a Medicine Hat native and recipient of the Alberta Order of Excellence. His work has defined this community's visual identity for decades. And his fountain, across from the chamber where these decisions are made, still sits broken.

Residents notice what gets fixed and what gets ignored. Sometimes they grab a weed bucket and fix it themselves.

The Appearance of Impropriety Is the Impropriety

The public cannot know whether that message changed votes. Maybe it did not. But in public life, it is not enough to act with integrity. You must be seen to act with integrity.

When a councillor reads a mystery message during debate and then votes against the staff recommendation, it looks like someone has a direct line to the dais. Residents are left to wonder: who has Councillor Varga's number?

The Inspection That Proved the Skeptics Right

Medicine Hat was already dragged through a provincial inspection that found the city was being run in an "irregular, improper, and improvident manner." The report described a "hostile environment" and a "culture of fear."

A 2024 survey found satisfaction with municipal government plummeted from 81 percent to just 49 percent in two years. Only seven percent expressed high confidence in local leadership.

Same Faces, Same Chamber

Voters cleaned house in the last election. Every incumbent councillor was shown the door except Mayor Linnsie Clark. The new council includes returning faces: Ted Clugston, a former mayor; Bill Cocks, who served pre-2021; and Brian Varga, who lost his seat in 2021 and has now returned.

It took decades to get into this mess. It will take more than one term to get out. Repair starts with small acts of discipline, like paying attention.

The Law Says What It Says

The Municipal Government Act requires that all discussion happen in open council. Not in the hallway beforehand. Not in a group chat. Not in a text thread during the meeting. In the chamber. On the record.

Past council members have reportedly admitted to discussing matters privately to "save time." That is an admission of conducting public business in private. That is an end run around transparency.

If a debate takes four hours, it takes four hours. That is the job.

The Accountability Vacuum

If you are wondering why council has not simply banned phones during meetings, you can thank the UCP government. Then Minister of Municipal Affairs Ric McIver told the world that municipal codes of conduct had been "weaponized." When reporters asked how, he said: "Google Medicine Hat."

Bill 20 did not just remove the requirement for a code of conduct. It explicitly prohibits municipalities from passing any bylaw about councillor behaviour. The Integrity Commissioner is gone. No complaint mechanism exists. No sanctions are available.

Could council pass a procedural rule restricting device use during meetings? Probably. A rule stating devices are for meeting materials only is a procedure, not a conduct bylaw. But it would require political will to pass and courage to enforce. A chair would have to call out a colleague publicly.

A provincial ethics commissioner is supposedly coming in "late 2026 or potentially later." Until then, the Wild West.

It Is Not Just One Councillor. It Is the Culture.

What happened with Councillor Varga was not an isolated moment. It is how business is done at Medicine Hat City Hall.

File photo - Jan 6 2025 Council Meeting, City Manager Ann Mitchell on Linked In

Former city manager Ann Mitchell, the city's top administrator, was frequently observed during council meetings with two phones out at once, scrolling and texting. On at least one occasion, she was browsing LinkedIn while public business was conducted in front of her.

This was not subtle. It happened so often that regular watchers of council meetings developed a running joke. During OWL News broadcasts, when Mitchell reached for a phone, viewers would hear: "Everybody drink!"

A drinking game. Based on a city manager's inattention during public meetings.

This is the culture modeled from the top. When the highest ranking staff member treats a council meeting like background noise, it sends a clear signal to everyone else at the horseshoe: this is not serious. Whatever is on your phone matters more.

Councillor Varga reading a message mid debate is not an anomaly. It is a predictable outcome of an environment where distraction has been normalized, tolerated, and joked about.

The public deserves better than being a punchline in their own governance.

The Experts Say Put It Away

If you think this is just the griping of a local news outlet, consider what the experts say.

George Cuff is one of Canada's foremost municipal governance consultants. He has conducted audits and inspections for municipalities across the country. In a June 2024 interview, he was asked about cell phone use during council meetings. His answer was unambiguous.

"They need to have their own rules on what is decorum, one of which should be you put your cell phones on silent; you don't refer to them during the course of a meeting," Cuff said. "You can have a little basket and everyone put their phone in a basket and can retrieve them when the meeting is over. You should pay attention to the meeting. You shouldn't be distracted."

In a formal governance review for Red Deer County earlier that same year, Cuff's firm went further, recommending that council members "not utilize your cell phones or other devices during a Council meeting (for texting those inside and external to the meeting or for conducting your own 'research' into the reports of your administration)."

This is not a radical suggestion. It is basic professional decorum. It is the standard expected in boardrooms, courtrooms, and workplaces across the country.

Medicine Hat, apparently, prefers a different standard. One where a drinking game is the public's only recourse.

The City's Own Policies: A Structural Gap

The city has three policies governing technology use, cybersecurity, and social media. They spell out what employees can and cannot do with city devices.

And every single one exempts council. From the Social Media Use Policy: "Employees means any permanent, temporary, full time, part time, or casual employee on the City payroll, but does not include Members of Council."

At the time these policies were written, council had its own Code of Conduct. Exempting councillors from staff policies made structural sense. Then Bill 20 repealed the Code of Conduct. The exemption remained. The result is a policy void. Employees are bound by clear rules. Councillors float above them.

The ATIA Dodge

The city issues councillors phones and laptops. Those devices are subject to ATIA requests. If a citizen wants to know what a councillor was doing during a meeting, those records are, in theory, accessible.

But if a councillor conducts city business on a personal phone, those messages vanish into a legal black hole. No ATIA. No transparency. No accountability.

Councillor Varga received that message during a public meeting. City phone or personal phone? The public will never know.

If it is city business, do it on the city device. Let ATIA apply. Let the public see.

The Technology Fix

Council laptops can be locked in kiosk mode during meetings. The device only opens the agenda package, staff reports, and a note taking app. No browser. No email. No social media. The device simply will not open them.

For smartphones, the solution is simpler: a locked box at the chamber door. Councillors drop personal devices in before the meeting. They retrieve them after. City staff can notify councillors and staff members about genuine family emergencies. If it is a lobbyist messaging about land donations, it can wait.

What This Signals

Locking down laptops and parking phones will not fix Medicine Hat's culture overnight. But it signals something important: this council understands that trust is earned, not assumed.

Councillors are paid over $60,000 a year plus benefits, exceeding what many full time workers earn, for what is ostensibly a part time job. That money comes with a reasonable expectation: when you are overseeing a half billion dollar budget, you are present. Not scrolling. Not texting. Not taking live feedback from an invisible peanut gallery.

If you need information not in the agenda package, ask staff. Out loud. On the record. Let the public hear.

If the answer cannot wait a few hours, it probably was not urgent. If it was, it should have been on the agenda.

Changing the Culture

This is about a culture where back channel communication is normal and meetings are theatre while the real work happens elsewhere. That culture produced a provincial inspection. It produced a satisfaction rating that fell off a cliff. It produced a council nearly swept from office.

And some of the same faces are back. The same habits linger. The phones are still out.

Culture change happens when elected officials decide that the public's trust matters more than their convenience.

Put the phone in the box. Keep the debate in the chamber. Let the public see the work.

The public has to sit quietly and watch. The least council can do is put down the phones and do the same.

Tonight.

Council will debate Bylaw 4878-2026, the property tax rate bylaw. First reading happened on April 7, the same meeting where a councillor introduced information from a message received mid debate. Tonight, they may give it second and third reading, or they may send it back to staff.

Either way, the information councillors need is in the agenda package. The staff are in the room. The public is watching.

Our hope is simple: that every councillor at the horseshoe makes their decision based on the evidence before them, the debate among their colleagues, and the public interest. Not on a message from someone who is not elected, not sworn in, and not accountable to anyone in that chamber.

The public deserves a tax debate conducted in the open. Nothing less.