Your news this week: Andrew Garlic Festival this weekend - 7 Frost rolls in as winter approaches - 8 Fall migration (bye bye birdie) - 10 OPINION: Teetering on the brink - 4
Proud to be an Independent CANADIAN Publication
FREE
Vol. 18, No. 46, Wednesday, October 11, 2023 www.LamontLeader.com
Recall Petition started against Lamont County Reeve Diduck Division 3 ratepayer Theo Wallace charges county with bullying and ignoring complaints BY JOHN MATHER A Notice of Recall Petition has been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs seeking the recall of Lamont County Division 3 Councillor and County Reeve David Diduck. The notice was launched by Theo Wallace. Wallace presented his Notice of Recall to Lamont County CAO Peter Tarnawsky Sept. 28 and it was forward to Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIvor’s office Oct. 5. Tarnawsky in a release through Lamont County communications said he wouldn’t be available for any interviews. Diduck said he was totally blindsided by the petition when he was informed of it. “I was totally surprised when I received the Notice of Recall petition,” stated Diduck. “Even more surprised when there was no reason for the recall.” “I don’t know who the petitioner is,” he continued. “Or where he lives. He
has not brought forward any issues or allowing the public to petition for the complaints for resolution in the six recall of elected officials. The first was for the successful years I’ve been the Division 3 councilremoval of Mayor Nik Lee and the reslor.” He said he reviewed the recall Act of ignation of Deputy Mayor Nola Wood Herrick of Ryley last the MGA and agreed April and the second the petition as prewas received from sented was valid. residents in the “I remain confident Village of Carbon. I have the support of On a Lamont my constituents and Facebook page, some the petitioner won’t are questioning the be able to secure the population number of required 40 per cent 684 for Division Three of signatures on the in the County which petition to successfulis Diduck’s conly have me removed stituency. as Division 3 councilIn an email, lor.” McElheran pointed to Graeme McElherthe Recall of a an, director of comMunicipal Councillor munications for Lamont County Reeve Handbook which Municipal Affairs, David Diduck states “in determining told the Leader this is population numbers the third recall received by the. Ministry since rules for a petition’s sufficiency, municipaliwere changed more than a year ago ties must make use of the Municipal
Lamont County ratepayer wants to ‘break the chain’ and starts recall petition against reeve BY JANA SEMENIUK Lamont County division three ratepayer, Theo Wallace, submitted paperwork plus a $500 fee last week to start the process of recalling Lamont County Reeve David Diduck. Wallace will need to secure 40 percent of the ratepayers’ signatures from his division within the next 60 days to proceed with recalling Diduck from his position on Lamont Council, but says there is already a problem with the population number stated by administration. “I think they ballooned the numbers because they're going by the quarters, and they're all the same people on
some of the quarters, so I think they balloon the numbers so that we can't do it,” said Wallace. Lamont County Chief Administrative Officer Peter Tarnawsky is assigned with determining the population number in division three. “We have enlisted our Global Information System (GIS) provider to identify the number of parcels with residences within Division 3 as a proportion of total parcels with residences in Lamont County,” stated Tarnawsky in his letter to Municipal Affairs. “This analysis has identified 329 parcels of a total 1,875 or 17.55 percent of population. Continued on Page 15
Affairs’ Population List available at www.alberta.ca/municipal-population-lists.aspx. Further Ministerial Order No. MSD:021/23 orders that the determination of population of the ward is delegated to the CAO of the municipality.” In his letter to McIvor, Tarnawsky stated he used the County’s Global Information System to determine the Division Three population. While this is no perfect population number without a current census by electoral division, this figure is likely more accurate than simply taking 20 percent of the County population, which would be consistent with the requirement of the Act that electoral divisions be approximately equal. Presumably if the petitioner or the Councillor subject to petition disagrees with the calculation, their remedy would be to appeal to the Minister for direction under section 240.96 or an application to the Court of Kings bench for judicial review.
Reeve Diduck’s council colleagues react to recall petition BY JOHN MATHER With one exception the four councillors in Lamont County not hit with a recall petition are totally surprised by it. The exception is Division 5 Councillor Neil Woitas. “He was told four weeks before, at the LUB meeting this could happen,” said Woitas. “He was told if things weren’t straightened out it would happen, so I’m not surprised. “From what I understand Roy (Division 4 Councillor Roy Anaka) and Dan (Division 1 Councillor Daniel Warawa) could be next if they don’t do anything tomorrow (Tuesday).”
A council meeting was held Oct. 10 and the recall item was on the agenda to be discussed during Committee of the Whole. “There is other stuff people are concerned about besides the Land Use Bylaw people are concerned about,” he said. “Tomorrow I plan to bring up the use of County vehicles for personal reasons because I’ve heard people are concerned with that.” He added people feel administration is acting too harshly within the County and Diduck is supportive of the administrator, which might be the cause of concern. Continued on Page 14