Though one of his constituents is demanding his resignation from council, a Rocky View County councillor will retain his seat for now.

Al Sacuta, a Bearspaw resident, told councillors Jan. 26 that his representative on council, Coun. Hopeton Louden, had violated the Municipal Government Act when he excused himself from a vote on a conceptual scheme last summer.

Louden had declared a pecuniary interest with respect to a proposed subdivision last July, because he said he owned property within the direct notification area.

But Sacuta claimed that because the exact nature of his pecuniary interest was not recorded in the minutes, it contravened the act.
In a series of correspondence between Sacuta and Rocky View County Chief Administrative Officer Robert Coon, Sacuta wrote he believed the violation was one of two grounds for disqualification from council.

“I ask that you ensure he either resigns or is removed,” he wrote, adding he did not believe Louden even had a pecuniary interest since living in the same notification area as hundreds of other residents was not justification for a pecuniary interest.

Coon argued that although the nature of Louden’s pecuniary interest should have been recorded in the minutes, and admitted that not to have done so was an oversight, the county council continues to support his decision to excuse himself from the vote.

“It’s up to the council to decide if the person has acted in accordance with the Act,” he told council on Jan. 26.

Springbank-area councillor Mitch Yurchak was frustrated with having to debate the issue.

“Is there another more expedient way to resolve this without wasting taxpayers’ time and money?” he asked.

Louden, who wasn’t present during the discussion, was dismayed his actions had been questioned.

“It’s a matter of ethics,” he said Jan. 31.

“It’s disappointing because just look at the ethics of some politicians these days, and I’m being attacked for taking the moral high ground.”

Sacuta may still appeal the decision to allow Louden to remain on council, but he said it will depend on feedback from local residents.
“I don’t agree with their analysis of the issue, but I haven’t decided yet if I’ll appeal,” he said.

“My feeling is if people in the community don’t have a problem, I’ll let it go, but if they’re unhappy I may have to take the next step.”
He added that next step would be to file a motion in court.

“The next step would be the last step,” he said. “We’ll have to wait and see.”

No related stories.

• Filed under News | Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.