Sechelt Coun. Alice Lutes is trying to save Sechelt some money by avoiding duplication of legal requests, but a motion to that effect was defeated May 1.
"I'm concerned with our growing legal fees and concerned that if there isn't one overseeing group the possibility of having duplicate charges on any one issue could arise," Lutes said at the May 1 council meeting before proposing no one on council should engage or consult legal council unless "prior approval is given" by the chief of innovation and growth (CIG), the director of corporate services, the chief financial officer or the director of human resources. She also asked that all members of council be advised of any legal advice "promptly and at the same time."
Coun. Chris Moore took offence to the motion.
"I don't know where this stuff comes from. I just don't understand this. This is like stripping politicians of their power to go back to legal counsel to help determine course and direction," Moore said. "You are essentially in this motion giving staff full authority over elected politicians, meaning you're giving the bureaucracy the right to drive the truck. This is social engineering to the highest level. It's a political system that has failed throughout the world through Europe, South America and Africa last time I read history. To bring a motion like this forward is ridiculous and I certainly won't be supporting it."
Coun. Mike Shanks suggested limiting the number of approvers to one, with the CIG having the final say over whether legal counsel should be contacted for a particular issue.
"I see the need for this to some degree because we've run rampant to some degree, well a considerable amount, with our legal expenses and this would give some direction and we would have some control over our legal expenses if they're run through, I'm saying one individual," Shanks said.
Mayor John Henderson took exception to the suggestion Sechelt is "running rampant" with legal fees saying the statement was "factually and fundamentally incorrect."
"We have incurred legal costs for a number of different items, natural disasters and others that were done with the full support and guidance of this council," he said.
Shanks conceded some of the legal fees have been warranted.
"But I think the feeling of Coun. Lutes and myself and potentially other people in the public is in some areas we feel we've lost control and I think this would address that," Shanks said.
When the question was called only Lutes and Shanks were in favour of her motion so it was defeated.
Coun. Darnelda Seigers then asked if the issue could be referred to staff so they could come back with a report and recommendation to the next committee of the whole meeting.
"I prefer that we have a policy in place of some sort, but I'd like staff to kind of work on something for us," she said.
Moore and Coun. Doug Hockley were against the motion, but a majority vote in favour means the issue will come back for more debate in the future.
