A city councillor wants four months’ unpaid leave. Is that OK?

“Last year was a pretty challenging one for my family, particularly my kiddos, and my wife and I have decided we’re going to take a little time to focus on the family.”

If you’re a Yellowknife resident, maybe you can identify with that statement.

Those words come from city councillor Ryan Fequet, who addressed colleagues at a meeting on Tuesday and asked them for four months’ unpaid leave from his role as an elected official.

“We’re going to step back from some of our commitments,” he said. He hopes to take January to April 2025 away from the position.

Fequet did not elaborate on the specific issues motivating his request, and nor did anyone ask him to.

The problem Fequet has is that council has no policy to deal with this kind of request. There’s only a requirement that any councillor missing three consecutive meetings must have permission from colleagues to do so. (Meetings are generally held multiple times a month.)

“I don’t know objectively even what the right answer to the question is,” he said on Tuesday before stepping out of the room.

With Fequet gone, council tried to decide what the right thing is to do.

Their colleague wants time away for a reason with which many said they sympathized, but he’s an elected official who signed up for a time commitment and responsibility that was clear from the outset.

Deputy mayor Garett Cochrane saw “the magnitude of time requested and the creation of the precedent” as the key issues.

Cochrane said he could find no exact precedent for this situation among other municipalities he had studied. He said he “would not think it responsible or wise” to set a precedent that councillors were entitled to take months of unpaid leave at a time.

“I respect councillor Fequet immensely, and I appreciate his contributions to this body,” said Cochrane, “but we in public office are held to a higher standard and scrutiny than most, and rightfully so.”

He added: “We have a duty to the public through our oath to demonstrate a constant commitment with our time and efforts, sometimes even forgoing other aspects of our personal lives in order to fulfil said oaths, which is a fair trade.”

Councillor Ben Hendriksen initially said he wanted to take some time before having a detailed discussion of Fequet’s quandary.

“I would recommend we shelve the discussion perhaps for another week … I think this is going to hit the media pretty quick,” said Hendriksen, overestimating the number of reporters still in the meeting as it hit the two-hour-and-56-minute mark (not counting breaks). “Let residents have their say if they want a say, and then we make a call next week.”

Councillor Tom McLennan asked what would happen to a city employee in the same situation. The answer wasn’t immediately clear and McLennan, too, felt a week’s pause before further debate was a good idea, as did Cat McGurk.

But other councillors joined Cochrane in saying a four-month unpaid absence wouldn’t work for them.

“It’s not what our residents elected us to do,” said Rob Warburton.

“If he can make three meetings remotely, then great. But if he can’t then I think resigning is something he should consider.”

“In 2021, my home burned down,” said Stacie Arden Smith, “but I never wavered on this position whatsoever. I stayed strong and I knew there was a job still to be done here.

“I am not in favour of allowing the leave and I would strongly suggest a resignation.”

Steve Payne agreed that resignation was the better step if four months away from the job was unavoidable, while Mayor Rebecca Alty noted quorum – the minimum number of councillors needed to vote on anything – would be affected, particularly if more absences followed.

“If somebody does have a medical leave, somebody else is away, it does start to impact business,” Alty said.

“If somebody else on council wants another four months’ unpaid leave, we’re starting to get down on those numbers. Without a clear policy or idea of how this could work at this time, I wouldn’t be in support.”

Hendriksen ultimately said he was “in agreement with the majority,” meaning six of the eight council members in the room voiced opposition to granting Fequet’s request.

Fequet has said he will ask residents for their opinion via his councillor Facebook page.

City council is expected to consider the issue formally on October 28, when – if the request goes ahead – a motion will likely come before councillors asking if they grant permission for repeated absences from meetings early next year.

Alty noted that councillors can take the intervening two weeks to consult residents about the matter, and residents themselves can turn up on the evening of October 28 if they have views they want to present.