Date: 20080117
Docket: T-809-07
T-855-07
Citation: 2008 FC 8
Ottawa, Ontario, January 17, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
FRIEDA
MARTSELOS
Applicant
and
SALT RIVER NATION #195 also
known as
SALT RIVER INDIAN BAND #759,
SALT RIVER FIRST NATION COUNCIL and
COUNCILLORS CHRIS BIRD, TONI HERON,
SONNY MCDONALD and MIKE BEAVER
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
MICHAEL BEAVER, SONNY MCDONALD,
TONI HERON and CHRIS BIRD
In their capacity as COUNCILLORS OF
THE SALT RIVER NATION #195
Applicants
FRIEDA
MARTSELOS
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
present case consists of two opposing applications for judicial review, which
have been consolidated. The applicant seeks to have a Band Council Resolution
(BCR), taken by four members of the Council of Salt River First Nation (SRFN)
on May 7, 2007, quashed pursuant the power of this Court under subsection 18.1(3)
of the Federal Courts Act, R.S., 1985, c. F-7 (the Act). The BCR resolved
that the applicant be removed from the Office of Chief of SRFN. The
respondents, Councillors of the SRFN, request a writ of Quo Warranto, affirming
their decision to remove the applicant from the office of Chief and a
declaration that the applicant was duly removed from office as provided at paragraph
18(1)(a) of the Act. In the alternative, the respondents request a writ of Quo
Warranto with respect to the applicant’s claim of sole and autocratic
authority to govern the affairs of the SRFN, and a declaration that SFRN
governance is by majority decision of Chief and Councillors.
ISSUES
[2]
The
parties agree on the issues of the case:
a) Was the meeting
of May 7, 2007, at which the applicant was removed from the Office of the
Chief, duly convened?
i)
Did
the Applicant receive notice of the May 7, 2007 meeting?
ii)
Does the
fact that no agenda was prepared by the Chief invalidate the meeting?
iii)
Does the
absence of evidence regarding the notice to Joline Beaver invalidate the
meeting?
b) Were there any grounds
for the removal of the Chief?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[3]
The
SRFN is an aboriginal First Nation and a “band” under the Indian Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, (the Indian Act) comprised of 812 members, many of
whom live in Fort
Smith, Northwest Territories. It is governed by a Council comprised of a
Chief and six Councillors, all of whom are democratically elected under the Customary
Elections Regulations of the Salt River First Nation (Customary Election
Regulations).
[4]
The
Council is empowered to act as the governing body of the SRFN when meeting as a
quorum of Council, which requires the presence of four members.
[5]
On
April 30, 2007, the applicant was declared elected Chief of the SRFN in a
by-election called to fill a vacancy in that office, which term would end in
August 2008. She assumed the office of Chief on the same day, in accordance
with section 3.4 (a) of the Customary Election Regulations.
[6]
During
the first week of May, when the applicant held the office of Chief, there were
only six members of the SRFN Council; a by-election had been called for May 15,
2007 to fill a vacancy. The six members were Chief Frieda Martselos, and
Councillors Sonny MacDonald, Toni Heron, Michael Beaver, Chris Bird, and Joline
Beaver.
[7]
According
to the evidence presented by the parties, political tensions were high during
the week in which the applicant held office. The applicant’s first acts as
Chief, among others, were to unilaterally remove Councillor Toni Heron from the
customary position of Sub-Chief, remove band financial records from the Band
Office to Edmonton to undergo an audit despite the fact that one was already
scheduled, declare that all expenditures must be approved by her, terminate the
employment of the Financial Officer of the Band, deny entry to the Band Office
to employees and Councillors, terminate the employment of students, and
numerous other changes to the personnel.
[8]
In
response to these actions, Councillors Sonny MacDonald, Toni Heron, Mike Beaver
and Chris Bird came to the SRFN offices to attempt to meet with the new Chief
on May 3, 2007. She refused to meet with them. Councillor Heron informed the
applicant that Councillor Joline Beaver would not be attending the meeting. On
the same day, the applicant was given verbal notice of a meeting to be held the
next morning in the SRFN offices.
[9]
On
the morning of May 4, 2007, the meeting was held as planned and the applicant
refused to attend or was absent. The evidence suggests that Councillor Chris
Bird telephoned Councillor Joline Beaver to ask her to attend. During the
meeting, the four Councillors in attendance signed a documents entitled “Notice
to Frieda Martselos, Chief Elect” setting out 21 grounds upon which they were
considering removing her from the Office of Chief. The document called for a
special meeting of Council on May 7, 2007.
[10]
The
document was placed in an envelope and delivery to the applicant was attempted
by the RCMP. The RCMP phoned the applicant before delivering the envelope, at
which time she informed the officer that she would refuse delivery.
[11]
Officials
from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) came to Fort Smith on May 7,
2007 to attempt to resolve the controversy. Officials, Brian Herbert and
Nicole Huppy, were met at the airport by the RCMP and informed Mr. Herbert that
the applicant had refused delivery of the envelope, and asked him to deliver
the envelope to her. Mr. Herbert agreed and attempted delivery. The applicant
again refused to accept it. He asked her to meet with the Council, but she
refused. Mr. Herbert left the envelope on the applicant’s desk, and she
refused to open it.
[12]
The
meeting of May 7, 2007 began around 1:15 p.m., instead of 10:00 a.m. as
scheduled. Councillors Michael Beaver, Toni Heron, Chris Bird and Sonny
MacDonald were present, along with SRFN member Noline Villebrun, Mr. Herbert
and another representative from INAC. Around 3:00 p.m., the four Councillors in
attendance notified the applicant that they had resolved to remove her from the
office of Chief and delivered the impugned BCR to her office.
[13]
INAC
accepted and recognized the impugned BCR as valid, and an interlocutory
injunction was granted on consent by my colleague Justice Blais on May 25, 2007,
restraining the applicant from holding herself out as Chief until such time
as the application was heard.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[14]
The
BCR lists 21 grounds upon which Council removed the applicant from the office
of the Chief. The BCR states that she was removed pursuant to the provisions
of section 19 of the Customary Election Regulations. The BCR sets out 13
grounds corresponding to subsections 5(a) and 5(b) of Schedule “B”, based on
the 21 particulars that are reproduced below:
a)
Conducting
herself in an autocratic manner without regard for the lawful authority of
Council by arrogating to herself sole authority for the administration of the
affairs of the SRFN contrary to the customs and constitution of the SRFN;
b)
Disregarding
and disowning the customary and constitutional right of the Council to govern
the affairs of the SRFN through regular and democratic processes on the basis
of one vote for each elected member of Council;
c)
Refusing
to contact Council members or call a meeting of Council to conduct the business
of the SRFN;
d)
Breaking
into the office of the sub-chief without authorization of Council;
e)
Terminating
the lawfully appointed Band Auditors without authorization of Council and
contrary to an existing valid BCR appointing such Auditors;
f)
Purporting
to appoint a Band auditor without authorization of accreditation by Council and
contrary to an existing valid BCR appointing existing Band Auditors;
g)
Removing
or purporting to authorize the removal from the Band Office to Edmonton, or
other unknown and unauthorized place, essential Band records including
financial records, BCRs, electronic files and a computer, all of which is
essential for the due ongoing administration of the SRFN and due audit of the
finances of the SRFN;
h)
Wrongly
informing the Band’s bankers that she has sole responsibility for all
administration and financial matters relating to the Band;
i)
Attempting
to obtain access to funds belonging to the Band and held in the Band’s bank
accounts without the knowledge or authority of the Council;
j)
Wrongly
and without justification threatening the Band’s bankers with legal proceedings
in the event that they continue to honour cheques duly written with the
authority of Council, and thereby attempting to freeze the bank accounts of the
Band;
k)
Terminating
the employment of the Financial Officer of the Band without authorization of
Council;
l)
Changing
the locks of the Band Office and excluding the employees and Councillors of the
SRFN from their offices and from access to their records;
m)
Attempting
through the aforesaid acts to frustrate the SRFN’s responsibility to meet the
payroll due on May 4, 2007 for approximately 15 employees and 30 students;
n)
Hiring two
persons as employees of the SRFN without authorization of Council;
o)
Demoting
Dave Poitras, Band Administrator, without the authorization of Council;
p)
Purporting
to cancel an upcoming by-election without authorization of Council;
q)
Calling a
general meeting of members without authorization of Council;
r)
Terminating
the employment of SRFN college student or students without authorization of
Council;
s)
Terminating
the position of sub-chief without authorization of Council;
t)
Terminating
the services of TLE attorneys Jerome Slavic and Gary Laboucan without
authorization of Council;
u)
Swearing
herself into the office of Chief without prior authorization of Council and
with the intention of governing the SRFN in an autocratic manner contrary to
the democratic principles of the constitution of the SRFN.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
[15]
The
relevant legislative and customary provisions are reproduced in Annex
"A":
Customary Election Regulations, preamble (page 101 of the
Applicant’s Record);
Customary Election Regulations, Section 19 (pages 128-129 of
the Applicant’s Record);
Customary Election Regulations, Schedule “B” (pages 134-138
of the Applicant’s Record);
Indian Act, subsection 2(3).
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
[16]
The
general question at issue is whether the BCR passed by the SFRN Council on May
7, 2007 was valid pursuant to the powers conferred on the Council by the Indian
Act and the SRFN Customary Election Regulations. When framed in this
way, the question becomes one of whether the Council acted beyond its powers. As
such, no deference is owed to the council in determining whether their powers
were exercised in accordance with the Customary Election Regulations.
[17]
The
questions, however, are subdivided in the present application. The applicant
submits that her right to procedural fairness was breached by the respondents’
alleged failure to properly convene the May 7, 2007 meeting. Breaches of
procedural fairness are reviewed on a standard of correctness.
[18]
The
respondents submit that the question of whether there exist grounds for removal
is a determination of fact made within the scope of the powers of the Council,
and as such should be reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness. I do
not agree. If the Council removed the applicant from the office of Chief for a
ground not enumerated in section 19 of the Customary Election Regulations,
they acted beyond the powers prescribed to them. The question is therefore
reviewable on a standard of correctness.
a) Was the meeting
of May 7, 2007 duly convened?
[19]
The
applicant alleges that the meeting of May 7, 2007 was not duly convened in
accordance with the principle mentioned in paragraph 2(3)(b) of the Indian
Act. She raises three grounds upon which she claims that procedural
fairness was breached: failure to give notice to the applicant of the meeting
and provide her with the opportunity to make representations on her own behalf;
failure to proceed with the meeting in the absence of an agenda prepared by the
Chief; and failure to give notice to councillor Joline Beaver. I will address
each ground in turn.
i) Did
the Applicant receive notice of the May 7, 2007 meeting?
[20]
The
applicant submits that proper notice of the meeting was not given to all
members of the Council as required by subsections 3(a) and (b) of Schedule “B” of
the Customary Election Regulations, and that a Council resolution passed
at a meeting for which proper notice was not given is of no force or effect.
She further submits that her right of procedural fairness was violated because
she was not afforded the opportunity to make representations on her own behalf.
[21]
The
respondents submit that meetings of the SRFN are governed by the Customary
Election Regulations and supplemented by unwritten custom, and that nothing
in the written or customary code stipulates a particular form of notice. The
respondents allege that oral notice is customary.
[22]
The
respondents submit that in Assu v. Chickite, [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 14 at
paragraphs 39-40, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that a meeting is
duly convened where the meeting is called at the request of a majority of
Councillors, when advance notice is given, and when the meeting is attended by
a quorum of Council. This case related to a band under section 74 of the Indian
Act; however, it is noteworthy that neither the Customary Election
Regulations nor the Indian Act set out prerequisites for giving
notice of a meeting.
[23]
I
agree with the submissions of the respondents. I can find no requirement that
notice must take any specific form. It is clear from the evidence that the
applicant was given both oral and written notice. The fact that she refused to
attend, or refused to accept service of the envelope containing the relevant
information cannot subsequently be used to allow the applicant to argue that her
right to procedural fairness was not respected. The evidence also reveals that
the applicant knew that the general purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
issues the respondents had with her conduct.
ii)
Does the fact that no agenda was prepared by the Chief invalidate the meeting?
[24]
The
applicant submits that in order for a meeting to be “duly convened” as required
by paragraph 2(3)(b) of the Indian Act, the requirements established in
Schedule B of the Customary Election Regulations must be met. More
specifically, the applicant believed that the words of paragraph 3(a), “the agenda
shall be prepared by the Chief in advance of each meeting” must be construed in
such a way that a meeting cannot be duly convened without compliance with this
requirement.
[25]
I
do not agree with this position. Paragraph 3(a) also provides that the agenda
can be approved or amended by Council. This stipulation suggests that in cases
where the interests and priorities of Council may differ from those of the
Chief, appropriate changes may be made to reflect the disparity. While the use
of “shall” is imperative, in my opinion, it is contrary to the purpose of the
provision to apply a strict construction in the present case. It would be
antithetical to the democratic intent of the Customary Election Regulations
for the Chief to be able to frustrate the attempts of the Council to meet by
simply refusing to prepare and provide an agenda.
iii) Does the absence
of evidence regarding the notice to Joline Beaver invalidate the meeting?
[26]
The
applicant submits that because there is no evidence that Joline Beaver received
notice of the meeting, the meeting was not duly convened. I cannot accept this
argument. The respondents correctly submit that the onus of proving a
procedural irregularity falls to the person who challenged the validity of the
administrative act. No evidence is before me which suggests that Joline Beaver
was not given any notice.
[27]
The
presumption of regularity of process applies in this case. The prescribed steps
are presumed to have been taken (Irvine v. Canada (Restrictive
Trade Practices Commission), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181 at paragraph 38; Leth
Farms Ltd. v. Alberta (Turkey Growers Marketing
Board),
[2000] A.J. No. 59, 2000 ABCA 32 at paragraph 77).
[28]
It
was open to the applicant to present evidence which might rebut the
presumption; however, no such evidence has been presented to the Court.
b) Were there any grounds for
the removal of the Chief?
[29]
The
applicant submits that none of the grounds listed in the impugned BCR are intended
by section 19.1, which lists the grounds upon which a Chief or Councillor may
be removed from office.
[30]
In
response, the respondents submit that the 13 grounds or 21 allegations
in the BCR fall within the general allegation that the applicant conducted
herself in an autocratic manner without regard for the lawful authority of
Council, and that administration of the band was brought to a standstill by her
conduct. It is submitted that this is a contravention of the duty of the Chief
to “ensure a stable, competent and efficient administration of the First Nation”,
as required by section 5. (a) and (b) of Schedule “B”. The failure to perform
the duties and obligations set out in Schedule “B” is listed as a ground for
removal at section 19.1.3 of the Customary Election Regulations.
[31]
While
it appears that there was substantial conflict, it is difficult to discern from
the facts that it was all engendered by the applicant. It appears that
both parties acted in such a way as to escalate the tensions. Further, I do
not think that it can be said that the Chief failed in her duty to “ensure a
stable, competent and efficient administration of the First Nation” within one
week of her election. She has surely misinterpreted her functions as Chief, the
role of Council as an elected body and the role of the other councillors. I
agree with the respondents that this created confusion, tension, and stress.
The other councillors cannot be faulted for trying to cope with such a
difficult and delicate situation. In the end, the Band did not suffer
financial losses and there was no misappropriation of funds. I cite here the
words of Justice Hughes in Qualicum First Nation v. Recalma-Clutesi,
2006 FC 854, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1097 (QL) at paragraph 37:
It is the protection of the Band that is
to be the guiding principle, not the protection of the Chief or Councillors, or
what one or more of them might perceive as that which protects the Band.
[32]
The
Customary Election Regulations are an all-encompassing legal code which
establish the grounds for which a Chief or Councillor may be removed from
office. It would be incorrect to expand these grounds; the ground upon which
the Chief may be removed from office must clearly correspond to the facts of
the case.
[33]
In
Bugle v. Lameman, [1997] F.C.J. No. 560 (QL) at paragraph 2, Justice Campbell
dealt with a similar matter:
First, I find that the Tribal Election
Law is the all-encompassing code of legal authority to elect and remove a Chief
and Council of the Beaver Lake First Nation. This, it is only within the words
of the law itself that any authority can be found to remove Chief Lameman from
his office. I find that the words of the Tribal Election Law must be strictly
construed; that is, I cannot be liberal in interpreting their meaning because,
in my view, the results of removal from office are so severe that a strict
interpretation is required.
[34]
It
is my opinion that the passage above finds application in the case at bar.
[35]
Further,
I find that the purpose of the Customary Election Regulations is clearly
to establish a democratic system of electing the Council; the preamble states:
WHEREAS the culture, values and
development of the Salt River First Nation is best advanced by the values of
democracy and the selection of leadership on the basis of democratic Elections;
and
[…]
WHEREAS the customs and traditions of the
Salt River First Nation require democratic, fair and open Elections for Chief
and Council;
[36]
In
light of this purpose, it is imperative that the wishes of the electorate be
given due consideration. It is best that the voice of the electorate be
respected and that the election process be given a chance to take effect. It
is difficult to conceive that the applicant had a chance to fulfill her mandate
within a week. Similar reasoning was adopted in Sault v. LaForme,
[1989] 2 F.C. 701 at paragraph 10. The following passage at para. 10 from Sault
deals with Parliamentary intent; however, the SRFN is a Treaty 8 Band with
a right of self-government, and analogous weight must be given to the
democratic intent behind the Customary Election Regulations:
[…] One can see in this structure a
desire by Parliament to guarantee certain democratic rights of the members of
the band: namely that if they once elect a member of council he is entitled to
serve, and they are entitled to be represented by him, for two years subject to
such contingencies as him dying, being convicted of an offence, being involved
in a corrupt practice, or absenting himself habitually from his duties. Only
these specified events or misdeeds justify, in the view of Parliament, the
vacating of his office. Yet the majority of this Band Council has taken upon
itself to add to the criteria in subsection 78(2) such deficiencies as
inexperience, critical and controversial conduct, disagreement with Band staff,
imposition of work on staff, unilateral interference by persuasion or threats
with respect to re-employment of a staff member, and lengthily disputatious
conduct at meetings, as equally justifying what is in effect the vacating of a
councillor's office. In my view Parliament intended to exclude all such
criteria other than those mentioned when it enacted in subsection 78(1) that
councillors were to hold office for two years and that this was to be subject
only to the other provisions of section 78. To uphold the action taken by the
defendants here would be to authorize the majority on band councils to suppress
dissent by removing from council at any time in their statutory term of office
those members who offend the majority.
[37]
For
these reasons, it is my opinion that there were insufficient grounds for
removing the applicant from the office of the Chief so soon following her
election.
[38]
The
respondents submit an alternative argument seeking a writ of Quo Warranto
with respect to the applicant’s claim of sole and autocratic authority to
govern the affairs of the SRFN, as well as a declaration that SFRN governance
is by majority decision of Chief and Councillors. It is my opinion that such a
declaration is unnecessary since the constraint of majority decision-making on
the Chief’s power is clearly established by the Customary Election
Regulations. Any actions by the Chief which violate the provisions of the Customary
Election Regulations are independently reviewable.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that
1. the
application to quash the BCR dated May 7, 2007, removing the applicant from the
Office of the Chief be allowed. The Band Council resolution dated May 7, 2007
is quashed.
2. the application
in file number T-855-07 is dismissed.
3. due to the
circumstances in this case, no costs are awarded to either party.
“Michel
Beaudry”
ANNEX “A”
Customary
Election Regulations,
preamble (page 101 of the Applicant’s Record)
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS
the Salt River First Nation has the inherent Aboriginal right and Treaty right as
a First Nation with authority to govern relations among its Members and between
the Salt River First Nation and other governments; and
WHEREAS the Aboriginal right of the Salt River
First Nation to self-government was recognized and affirmed in Treaty No. 8
entered into between Her Majesty the Queen and the Salt River First Nation and
confirmed by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and
WHEREAS the adoption of these Customary Election
Regulations is an exercise of the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Salt
River First Nation to self-government and nothing in the Customary Election
Regulations shall be construed as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal
and Treaty rights of the Salt River First Nation; and
WHEREAS the culture, values and development of
the Salt River First Nation is best advanced by the values of democracy and the
selection of leadership on the basis of democratic Elections; and
WHEREAS the customs, policy and laws of the Salt
River First Nation in regard to governance have been established with the
consent and participation of the Members of the Salt River First Nation; and
WHEREAS the customs and traditions of the Salt
River First Nation require democratic, fair and open Elections for Chief and
Council; and
WHEREAS by a Referendum held on the 23rd
day of April, 2004, a majority of the Electors of Salt River First Nation
approved who voted the Customary Election Regulations as outlined herein;
Customary
Election Regulations,
Section 19 (pages 128-129 of the Applicant’s Record).
19. REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE
19.1 Grounds
for Removal
The removal of a Chief of Councillor from
office may be determined by the Council on the following grounds:
19.1.1 They are absent for
three (3) consecutive meetings of the First Nation or the Council for which
they have been given a verbal and/or written notice and for which no valid
reason for their absence is provided in writing to the Council; or
19.1.2 They engage in drunk,
drug related, disorderly, violent or other irresponsible conduct at Council
meetings, community meetings, or in other public forms or functions which
interferes with the conduct of business or brings the reputation of the Council
or the First Nation into disrepute; or
19.1.3
They fail
to perform duties and obligations as set out in Schedule “B” or breach the
Conflict of Interest Guidelines for Chief and Council as set out in Schedules
“C”; or
19.1.4
They have
been charged with or convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal
Code; or
19.1.5
They had
engaged in Corrupt Election practices, the evidence of which were discovered
and proven after the Appeal Period; or
19.1.6
They
failed to reside in the vicinity of Fort Smith
during their term in office; or
19.1.7
They have
been suspended three (3) times pursuant to s. 18 during his terms of office; or
19.1.8
They have
failed to resign or resume their duties after a sixty (60) day leave of absence
as required, pursuant to s. 16.3.
19.2 Upon
satisfactory confirmation of the grounds for removal, the Council by Resolution
which states the grounds for removal may remove the Chief or Councillor from
their Office.
Customary
Election Regulations,
Schedule “B” (pages 134-138 of the Applicant’s Record).
SCHEDULE “B”
TO THE FIRST NATION CUSTOMARY ELECTION
REGULATIONS
DUTIES OF CHIEF AND COUNCIL
1.
GOVERNANCE
AUTHORITY AND LEADERSHIP OF THE FIRST NATION
The
Chief and Council (hereafter “The Council”) are elected leaders of the First
Nation whose conduct, powers, duties and obligations are governed by the
following:
(a)
The
culture, traditions, and values as expressed by the elders of the Salt River
First Nation people.
(b)
The
Treaty, Aboriginal, and inherent rights and Governance powers of the First
Nation.
(c)
The
statutory and administrative authorities and responsibilities, as set out in
the Indian Act.
(d)
The
fiduciary obligation to manage and administer the property, funds, and other
assets of the First Nation including the Trust property of the Nation in a
reasonable and careful manner.
(e)
Contractual
obligations and responsibilities set out in the terms of Contribution
Agreements or other contracts with funding agencies of other governments.
2.
COMMUNICATION
WITH MEMBERS
The
Council shall ensure on going and regular communication with Members regarding
the governance and financial affairs of the First Nation by undertaking the
following:
(a)
The
Council shall consult regularly with Members by holding quarterly General
Meetings in Fort Smith, Edmonton and Yellowknife and Special Band Meetings as necessary.
(b)
The
Council shall review all proposed by-laws and major policies with the Members
prior to their final approval by the Council.
(c)
The
Council shall keep the Members informed of the financial circumstances of the
First Nation through semi-annual financial reports to Members.
(d)
Minutes of
First Nation meetings and Council meetings shall be posted and made available
to Members at the Band office.
(e)
Council
and staff shall not give confidential personal or employment related
information to Members or to third parties.
3.
ATTENDANCE
AT COUNCIL AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
(a)
Regular
Council meetings shall be held at least once per month and special Council
meetings, as necessary. The agenda shall be prepared by the Chief in advance
of each meeting and distributed to Councillors. The agenda shall be reviewed
and approved or amended by the Council. Council shall prepare in advance for
each meeting by reading reports and minutes of prior meetings.
(b)
The Councillors
shall attend all First Nation and Council meetings unless due to sickness or
other exceptional circumstances they are unable to attend. Notification of
absence should be provided prior to the meeting and reasons for extended
absences shall be provided in writing.
(c)
Council
shall represent the First Nation at functions, meetings, and other occasions,
both on and off Reserve, as required from time to time.
(d)
Council
shall regularly attend at the First Nation office.
4.
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY
(a)
The
Council shall develop and implement structures, by-laws, and policies to ensure
the proper financial management, control and accountability of all funds.
(b)
The
Council shall ensure the financial affairs of the First Nation are conducted in
a prudent, responsible, and careful manner at all times keeping in mind the
best long term interests of the First Nation.
(c)
The
Council will take reasonable measures to keep Members informed about the
financial affairs of the First Nation.
(d)
Each
Councillor will be responsible for being fully informed about the financial
responsibilities and resources of the First Nation.
(e)
The
Council shall annually prepare a budget for expenditure of Nation Funds and
present it to the Members for information purposes.
(f)
The
Council shall meet quarterly to review variance reports and monitor the expenditures
as being in compliance with the budget.
(g)
The
Council shall ensure managers operate programs and deliver services of the
First Nation in accordance with their annual budget.
(h)
The
Council shall maintain a balanced budget by carefully and prudently monitoring
all expenditures to ensure they are for the benefit of the First Nation and in
accordance with the budget and the Band’s financial capacity.
(i)
The
Council shall ensure all funds received from Governments are expended in
accordance with the program funding guidelines.
(j)
The
Council will make the Annual Financial Audit of First Nation Funds and Trust
Funds available for Members to review at the office but no copies of financial
documents may be removed from the office. Audits shall be available for review
at General Band Meetings in Edmonton and Yellowknife but audits shall not leave the meeting
and be returned to the Council.
(k)
The Chief
and Councillors shall fully and properly account in writing to the Council for
any salary or travel advances within thirty (30) days of receipt of such
advances. Salary advances shall only be provided to Councillors in exceptional
circumstances.
5.
ADMINISTRATION
(a)
The
Council shall ensure the stable, competent, and efficient administration of the
First Nation.
(b)
The Council
shall develop and implement a personnel policy to cover all employees and
consultants.
(c)
All hiring
and termination of staff by managers and Council shall be fair, legal, and
according to the Salt River First Nation personnel policy and Canada Labour
Code.
(d)
The
Council shall ensure all Councillors, managers and staff have clear job
descriptions.
(e)
The
Council shall develop and implement:
(i)
a land and
resource management by-law and policy;
(ii)
a
financial management by-law and policy;
(iii)
a housing
by-law and policy;
(iv)
a social
and economic development by-law and policy;
(v)
by-laws as
necessary to promote and protect the safety, health, and properties of the
Members.
(vi)
other
by-laws and policies as required from time to time.
(f)
The
Council, through appointment of Directors, shall be responsible for the
operation of Salt River First Nation Business Entities.
6.
EXTERNAL
RELATIONS
(a)
The
Council shall honourably and effectively represent the interests of the First
Nation, including Treaty and Aboriginal rights, to other levels of government,
including the Federal, Provincial, municipal, and First Nation governments.
(b)
When
engaged in external relations, the Council shall conduct themselves in a manner
which properly, and fairly represents the interests of the First Nation.
(c)
The
Council shall, from time to time, report to the Members about the topics and
outcomes of their meetings outside the community.
7.
PEACE
AND ORDER
(a)
The
Council and Members shall take such measures as necessary to ensure peaceful
and lawful relations among Members residing on and off the Reserve.
(b)
The
Council shall work with the RCMP, courts and legal system to ensure fair and
just treatment of the Members.
8.
RULES
OF CONDUCT
(a)
The
Council shall conduct themselves in a manner which does not bring themselves,
the leadership, or the reputation and honour of the First Nation into
disrespect and disrepute.
(b)
When
conducting the business of the First Nation, with other governments,
businesses, or third parties, the Council will act in a considerate,
professional, and responsible manner.
(c)
Each
Councillor shall be fully informed of their duties, responsibilities, and the
rules and guidelines governing their conduct.
9.
CONFLICT
OF INTEREST
The Council shall strictly comply with
the Conflict of Interest Guidelines set out in Schedule “C”.
Indian
Act, L.R.,
1985, ch. I-5, 2(3).
|
Exercise
of powers conferred on band or council
2. (3) Unless the context
otherwise requires or this Act otherwise provides,
(a) a power conferred on a band shall
be deemed not to be exercised unless it is exercised pursuant to the consent
of a majority of the electors of the band; and
(b) a power conferred on the council of
a band shall be deemed not to be exercised unless it is exercised pursuant to
the consent of a majority of the councillors of the band present at a meeting
of the council duly convened.
|
Exercice
des pouvoirs conférés à une bande ou un conseil
2.
(3) Sauf
indication contraire du contexte ou disposition expresse de la présente loi :
a) un pouvoir conféré à une bande est
censé ne pas être exercé, à moins de l’être en vertu du consentement donné
par une majorité des électeurs de la bande;
b) un pouvoir conféré au conseil d’une
bande est censé ne pas être exercé à moins de l’être en vertu du consentement
donné par une majorité des conseillers de la bande présents à une réunion du
conseil dûment convoquée.
|
Email this Content