Tuesday was the deadline for candidates to file with the city’s election office, and when the list of candidates was released I was most excited about the candidacy of Angela Jones in District 4- Cole Harbour. I wrote:
Up until the last moment, it looked like sitting councillor Lorelei Nicoll, a moderate who hasn’t made a lot of waves, would be unopposed. But the biggest surprise of the election, so far, happened Tuesday when assistant city solicitor Angela Jones dropped her name in the hat. Jones has a million degrees and a Cole Harbour pedigree that runs deep (judging by her Facebook page, she is Sidney Crosby’s lover).
I’m not judging Jones’ politics, which need to be more fully expressed before I form an opinion, but her resume is as impressive as they come for a council candidate. She was going to give Nicoll a good run for the money.
But this morning, city clerk and election officer Cathy Mellet sent out a press release saying that Jones has been disqualified as a candidate. Here’s the release:
NEWS RELEASE
Candidate Ineligible to Run in Municipal Election
(Friday, September 14, 2012) – Upon review the Returning Officer for Halifax Regional Municipality today advised that Angela Jones is not eligible to seek office in the upcoming municipal election.
Ms. Jones, an HRM employee, filed her nomination papers for District 4 Councillor by 5 p.m. on September 11th but had not requested the permission for leave to run as required under Section 17 C (2) of the Municipal Elections Act. Under the Act municipal employees who choose to run in the municipal election must request leave to run no later than the date he or she officially becomes a candidate. There is no discretion in this matter and it is the sole responsibility of the candidate to ensure they are in compliance with the Act.
“As the Returning Officer it is my responsibility to uphold the provisions set out in provincial legislation and that is what I have done in this case”, said the Returning Officer Cathy Mellett.
-30-
Contact:
Cathy J. Mellett
HRM Returning Officer
490-6456
At first read, this is astounding news: a lawyer working for the city wanting to run for council failed to meet the legal requirements of the election act. What does this say about the quality of the city’s legal department?
But Jones rejects the ruling in no uncertain terms, and says she has hired a lawyer and will fight it in court.
“This is crazy,” she tells me over the phone. “This is your typical HRM foolishness that I’m running to try to put an end to. I just cannot believe—This is so egregious, it’s really outrageous.”
Jones says she’s been on maternal and parental leave since last November, and her parental leave is scheduled through November 16.
“I was fully aware of this section 17 of the municipal elections act—of course I was aware of it, I’ve written legal advice on it!” she says.
Jones says she went into Mellet’s office on nomination day, that is, last Tuesday, the last day candidates could submit their names to be on the ballot, and discussed her situation with Mellet.
“I was fully prepared to send an email to the CAO requesting leave,” she continues. “I had a strong conversation with Cathy Mellet and I said, ‘Cathy, I’m already on leave,’ and she said, ‘actually, you’re on parental leave.” It was apparent they had already looked at it. And I said, ‘yes, that’s right, and when a woman is already on leave, she does not need to request leave from her employer.”
Jones maintains the intent of the election code is that city staff do not run for election without a leave of absence, and her maternity and parental leave satisfies that intent.
“I was told very firmly and clearly—and I have evidence of this—by Cathy Mellet, she agreed that I was on a leave of absence, that I did not need to do anything further, that everything was fine, the nomination was in good standing. We discussed my leave at length—and I’m talking at length.”
Jones declined to say what her evidence was, saying she’s waiting for that to come out in court, if need be.
“Late the next day,” Jones continues, “I’m hearing from my friends at city hall that they are freaking out that I am running.”
Jones won’t say who “they” are, at least for the moment.
“I’m going to fight this in court,” says Jones. “Because they are trying to take away my democratic rights. You’ve seen them make legal mistakes in the past. This is another one. They don’t even have the authority to tell me I’m disqualified. This whole thing is so ridiculous, that I can’t even wrap my head around it.
“So I’m asking myself the question: Why don’t they want me to run?”
Jones says she doesn’t have an answer to that question.
The next step, says Jones, is to ask the court for an injunction against the city.
“I’m a fighter. I’m excited about running. I’m excited for the district.”
After I spoke with Jones I called Mellet. Asked about Jones’ assertion that the two discussed her leave situation at length, Mellet says she doesn’t want to get in a back-and-forth about who said what.
At issue, says Mellet, is that Jones is disqualified under the elections act. “The requirement is clear under the act. It’s clear in the [candidate] handbook.”
And what about Jones’ claim that Mellet has no authority to rule Jones disqualified?
“The question is not about my authority,” answers Mellet. “It’s about whether she is qualified. There’s no discretion in the act. I have no discretion.”
This article appears in Sep 13-19, 2012.
Whenever something happens at city hall its always a surprise, but then it isn’t a surprise either. What a wacky place Halifax is.
A smart person employed at HRM and seeking to run for council would have sought approval of a leave of absence long before deadline day.
A leave of absence does not include paid leave. Maternal leave at HRM includes taxpayer top up of the EI payments to a level set out in the terms of employment. Candidates who work for the federal government take unpaid leave of absence. We need to know if Ms Jones was in receipt of financial compensation from HRM on deadline day and if she had been granted permission by her superiors to take an absence to run for council.
http://www.appffa.ca/Halifax%20Collective%…
(Firefighters collective agreement 2004 – 2016 )
Pages 19 and 20 delineate the paid Pregnancy and Parenal benefits for HRM firefighters.
A leave of absence request from an HRM employee to run for council requires the written permission of the CAO, which cannot be denied. Permission for parental leave is not required.
Significant difference in the two issues and Ms Jones would have been well advised to have sought CAO approval well in advance of deadline day.
Typical of HRM , legal dept and clerk’s office, that nothing gets solved simply. The clerk and CAO can admit their error in accepting her initially, offer to give her unpaid leave of absence , which can’t be denied anyway, and let her run. Should be simple.
Robbie – Ms Jones has been a lawyer for 15 years, her husband is a lawyer with the provincial department of Justice, and her father is a well known lawyer. The clerk is not a lawyer.
What part of this section of the Municipal Elections Act does she not understand ? :-
17C (1) A person who is an employee of a municipality, other than the chief administrative officer, and who intends to become a candidate shall take a leave of absence beginning not later than the day the person becomes a candidate.
(2) A person who
(a) is required by subsection (1) to take a leave of absence; or
(b) intends to become a candidate and wishes a leave of absence beginning sooner than required by the required leave of absence,shall apply for a leave of absence to the chief administrative officer of the municipality and the leave of absence shall be granted.
A prudent person who was unsure as to their eligibility would have applied for leave of absence from the CAO and there would have been no dispute. Leaving the filing of a nomination until the last day is not very prudent, especially when you have always been interested in politics at all 3 levels.
Her maternity leave is entirely seperate from the leave of absence to be a candidate and is social benefit to help raise the child rather than run around a district seeking votes.
I am happy to say I am in another district.
In response to:
“Robbie – Ms Jones has been a lawyer for 15 years, her husband is a lawyer with the provincial department of Justice, and her father is a well known lawyer. The clerk is not a lawyer.
What part of this section of the Municipal Elections Act does she not understand ? :-
17C (1) A person who is an employee of a municipality, other than the chief administrative officer, and who intends to become a candidate shall take a leave of absence beginning not later than the day the person becomes a candidate.
(2) A person who
(a) is required by subsection (1) to take a leave of absence; or
(b) intends to become a candidate and wishes a leave of absence beginning sooner than required by the required leave of absence,shall apply for a leave of absence to the chief administrative officer of the municipality and the leave of absence shall be granted.
A prudent person who was unsure as to their eligibility would have applied for leave of absence from the CAO and there would have been no dispute. Leaving the filing of a nomination until the last day is not very prudent, especially when you have always been interested in politics at all 3 levels.
Her maternity leave is entirely seperate from the leave of absence to be a candidate and is social benefit to help raise the child rather than run around a district seeking votes.
I am happy to say I am in another district.”
Apparently after being assured by Ms Mellet that she would not need to take a leave of absence while currently on a leave of absence, as it does not clearly state in the elections act that you must take two leaves of absence’s as you have so clearly stated, Mrs. Jones was clearly not unsure of her eligibility in my opinion. Candidates frequently leave there filing till the last day for many reasons and need not be penalized or ridiculed for doing so, it must be nice to be perfect! What someone chooses to do on there maternity leave is there business. Trust me with 5 children she is very much raising them! I am not in her district but I wish I was!!!! She is to be commended!
JoJo – Ms Jones maternity/parental leave is part of her terms of employment and is not conditional on the request to the CAO.
If she wishes to become a candidate the Municipal Elections Act must be followed. Why would she spend time discussing the issue of the legislated requirements to become a candidate with her boss, a lawyer and then Ms Mellet, who is not a lawyer, when a equest to Mr Butts either in writng, text email or in person would have satisfied sec 17 of the act ?
Maternity/Parental leave is not a term of employment but a right that is governed by the Federal government equal to all mothers and fathers equally. Some parents can choose to take full advantage of the years leave of absence from their jobs others may not. That is determined between the employee and employer before or during said leave. I am sure Mrs. Jones had such discussions with her employer. It still does not dictate in the elections act that she must ask for two leave of absences when currently on a leave of absence. When it says that, then I guess we have a problem.
JoJo – the top up of the EI funded maternity leave is not a ‘right’. It is offered by some but not all employers. Ms Jones is not on ‘leave of absence’, she is on paid maternity leave. You don’t need 15 years of legal experience to understand simple English. She spent time discussing the issue with her boss and the Returning Officer when a simple request to Mr Butts would have been promptly answered in the affirmative.
A municipal employee is required to obtain the permission of the CAO and the legislation contains no exceptions. I think voters would take a dim view of a candidate being paid by HRM to not work as she/he pursues a council seat.
As much as I like to see the democratic process run smoothly, seeing a lawyer/bureaucrat get burned by a petty loophole warms my heart in a special way.
Joblow I believe you must be very close to the situation you seem to know a lot more about the ins and outs about what happens within this office (equest??)!! It even seems like you were privy to their conversations the way you are talking. Makes me wonder who job low really is and why the municipality does not want Mrs Jones to run??????
That being said it is every parents right to have a year off with their child whether it is paid or topped up or not is up to the employer. I understand plain English and there really is no need to get nasty oe beligerant. My EI was never topped up but I choose to stay home on my leave of absence from my job for the full year on EI which I paid into to receive these benefits.
JoJo – I first heard of the issue when I saw the column from Tim. I don’t work for HRM and have no links to any candidate. Tim links to the Municipal Elections Act, so I used the link and read most of it from the beginning. Ms Jones told Tim, and also had info on her facebook page, about the discussions with her boss and with Cathy Mellett. I don’t think any person is worried about Ms Jones being a candidate. I’d be more concerned if she was elected after being unable to understand the law. Seems she isn’t the only person at city hall who has such a problem.
No doubt her lawyer will argue that she was accepted as a candidate by the Returning Officer after the discussion over eligibility and that she acted in good faith.
I was assured by Ms. Jones once upon a time (Jan 2011) that HRM was not interested in demolishing my house, but a few months later, she led the fray in doing just that – issuing a demolition order, without even having their own inspector recommending it (he did everything he could to cast aspersions on a project already permitted and standing for two years without extra measures, but he never said it should be torn down).
The order was issued contrary to the Heritage Act, and contrary to all possible rational grounds, quite frankly. I can say this with confidence because as an architect, I know enough about statics and building codes; and Lord knows I’ve been forced to learn about the by-laws in detail for the past four years. (Also simple logic: HRM never asked me to do a thing to the house for the 8 months after evicting me; they let me return after I installed new foundation walls – but the demolition order claimed the entire structure was unsound.)
Back in Jan. 2011, Jones (who said she had just returned from maternity leave so she knew nothing about Brindi – right!) assured me on the phone that HRM “only” wanted me to finish the work. She even implied that evicting me in November 2010 was meant to expedite that. Jones also denied me my right of appeal to both the eviction and the demolition order, rights provided in the HRM charter and of course the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the council hearing that spring, Ms. Jones was a shark. I was shocked to witness how vicious she was and willingly she and her colleagues and staff members lied.
So I cannot say I’m all that sorry that she can’t run for mayor.