Let Me Say It Again…

Councillors have NO authority to hire, fire, supervise, discipline or evaluate any staff of a municipality other than their Administrator.

Full Stop.

I do not know why we are tiptoeing around this when the legislation is abundantly clear. Recently, during a webinar about legislated responsibilities for municipal employers, we ran into it again. Councillors reported to be micromanaging their CAO/Administrator by interfering with hiring, supervision, evaluation and discipline of staff.  I decided to create a fully cited source, listing the relevant legislation in 3 provinces and put this to bed once and for all.

For some reason, Councillors really push back on this one.

They want to sit in on interviews, decide who gets hired, weigh in on discipline, determine and approve raises, supervise staff, tell them where to mow, and pass on information from the ratepayers directly to staff.

They think they are being hands-on. They are, in fact, creating legal exposure, invalid resolutions and personal and municipal liability.

The legislation is not confusing. Council cannot give itself powers that the provincial law did not give it. And provincial law does NOT give councillors any authority over municipal staff except the Administrator/CAO.

Councillors are expected to know this. When they violate it, and it ends up in court, the term “willful ignorance” may be applied. That means they should have known better because the information is readily available online. You agreed to follow the legislation when you took your oath. Making up a policy that says they can does not protect them. Councils are not allowed to write policy that contravenes the legislation.

All the Council’s authority comes from the province, not from their individual idea of what they should be allowed to do, nor from the ratepayers. It is the province’s way of meeting its mandate by granting certain powers to municipal government.  Let’s get into it.

1. Councillors Have One Employee: The Administrator/CAO

You find this in the Saskatchewan’s Municipalities Act, where it says:

• s.111(1) – “The administrator shall manage and supervise the employees of the municipality.”

• s.112(1)— “No member of the council shall interfere with the performance of the administrator’s duties.”

In Manitoba, you find it in the Municipal Act

• s.85(1)—"the chief administrative officer is responsible for the administration of the municipality.”

• s.85(2)(c)—CAO must “manage and supervise employees of the municipality.”

• s.84(1)—Council may only hire/fire the CAO

In Alberta, it is outlined in the Municipal Government Act (MGA)

• s.207(a—c)—CAO must “ensure that the policies and programs of the municipality are implemented,” and “manage the administration of the municipality.”

• s.207(d)—CAO must “direct, supervise and review the performance of all employees.”

• s.201(1)—Council’s only employee is the CAO

Councillors have zero authority over municipal staff other than the CAO. Any attempt to hire, fire, supervise, evaluate, or discipline staff is outside statutory authority.

2. Councillors Cannot Interfere in Administrative Duties.

Saskatchewan

• s.112(1) — “No member of council shall interfere with the performance of the administrator’s duties.”

Manitoba

• s.83(1) — Council must respect the separation of powers: “Council is responsible for setting the policies of the municipality.”

• s.85(1–2) — CAO is responsible for administration and staff supervision.

Alberta

• s.201(2) — Councillors “must not exercise a power or function or perform a duty that is by this Act or another enactment or bylaw specifically assigned to the chief administrative officer.”

That means that sitting in on interviews, influencing discipline, or approving raises is illegal interference.

3. Councils Cannot Give Themselves Powers That Conflict with Provincial Legislation

Saskatchewan

• s.11 — “If there is a conflict between a bylaw or resolution and this or any other Act… the bylaw or resolution is of no effect.”

Manitoba

• s.232(1) — Council may pass bylaws only within powers granted by legislation.

• s.232(2) — Bylaws are invalid if inconsistent with provincial law.

Alberta

• s.13 — A bylaw is invalid if it is inconsistent with provincial legislation.

• s.203(1) — Council cannot assign itself powers not granted by the MGA.

Any Council resolution or policy that gives councillors HR authority is void.

4. Councils Cannot Fetter Their Legislative Discretion

The term “fetter” means to improperly restrict, bind, or give away a power that legislation requires Council to exercise freely and independently. It is a legal term that comes from administrative law. How it applies to the legislation is that when a council adopts a policy such as:

• “Council will participate in all hiring.”

• “Council must approve all staff terminations,”

• “Council will sit in on interviews,”

• “Council will evaluate municipal employees,”

It is fettering its discretion because:

• Council is binding itself to a rule that legislation does not allow.

• Council is giving itself powers that legislation assigns exclusively to the CAO.

• Council is restricting its own ability to act within the lawful legislative framework.

In other words, Council is tying its own hands in a way the law does not allow. The legislation is here.

Saskatchewan

• s.7 — The Act “is not to be interpreted as providing to a municipality the power to fetter its legislative discretion.”

Manitoba

• s.232(1) — Council may only act within legislated powers; it cannot bind itself to powers it does not have.

• Common law (MB case law) prohibits fettering of discretion.

Alberta

• s.203(1) — Council cannot delegate or assume powers outside the MGA.

• Common law prohibits fettering (AB case law is extensive).

5. Councillors Lose Immunity When Acting Outside Their Authority.

That means you can be sued, civilly, if you use your authority as a councillor to fire a person, and they decide to make a wrongful dismissal claim. The legislation is here.  

Saskatchewan

• s.355 — Immunity applies only when acting “in accordance with statutory authority.”

• s.192 — Councillors may face civil liability.

Manitoba

• s.236(1) — Councillors are protected only when acting in good faith within their authority.

• Acting outside authority removes immunity.

Alberta

• s.535(1) — Councillors are protected only when acting in good faith within the scope of their authority.

• s.535(2) — No immunity for actions outside statutory authority.

Councillors who interfere in HR expose themselves personally to:

• Wrongful dismissal claims

• Harassment complaints

• Human rights complaints

• Civil lawsuits

• Damages for unlawful interference

6. Councillor Interference Creates Liability for the Municipality

Saskatchewan

• s.111–112 — Staff management is the administrator’s duty; interference creates organizational liability.

• s.355 — Municipality may not be protected if councillors act outside authority.

Manitoba

• s.83–85 — CAO is responsible for administration; councillor interference creates exposure under labour law and human rights legislation.

Alberta

• s.207 — CAO is responsible for staff; councillor interference undermines lawful administration and creates municipal liability.

When councillors act outside of their legislated role, it triggers:

• Grievances

• Human rights complaints

• Wrongful dismissal suits

• OH&S findings

• Toxic workplace rulings

• Union complaints

All triggered by councillors acting outside their legislated role.

I think for Administrators who want to do the right thing but are facing opposition from their Councils, it is important to remove opinion from the conversation. Your job is to tell the Council what the legislation requires by citing the legislation. Administrators have the same obligation to comply with the provincial law. When councillors make motions that contravene the legislation, they are breaking the law, and you are too, if you carry them out.  Here is how you protect yourself.

1. Document Every Instance of Interference

Every time a Councillor:

• Directs staff

• Tries to sit in on interviews

• Demands to approve hiring/firing

• Pressures you on discipline

• Tries to access personnel files

• Gives operational instructions

You document it, using neutral language. For example:

“On August 6^th, Councillor Smith instructed staff member X to perform Y. This is contrary to s.112 of the Municipalities Act.”

Why this matters:

• It protects you if the Council tries to blame you later.

• It creates a record for legal Council, code of ethics investigations, the Ombudsman, or Ministry.

• It shows a pattern of unlawful behavior.

Without this documentation, the blame tends to fall on the Administrator.

2. Use Written Redirection—Not Verbal Arguments

When Council refuses to comply, stop redirecting verbally, and start using email. For example: “Council’s request involves staff supervision. Under s.111-112 of the Municipalities Act, staff direction is the responsibility of the administrator. I will proceed in accordance with the legislation.”

This helps protect you, leaves a trail, and forces the Council to confront the legislation in writing.

3. Politely Refuse Illegal Instructions in Writing

If Council directs you to do something outside of the legislation, your response, via email, could be something like:

“I cannot carry out that direction because it is outside Council’s authority under provincial legislation, and then cite the applicable legislation.

That is not insubordination; you are required to comply with the law.

4. Shift Liability Back to the Council

Councillors sometimes think it is the Administrator that carries the risk, but you don’t. They do. Try: “I need to councillors to be aware that if councillors participate in hiring, firing, staff supervision, immunity does not apply. Liability rests then, with individual councillors.” And if that that fails: “I am required to comply with provincial legislation, and what you are asking me to do is against the law.”

The legislation in all three prairie provinces is clear: Councillors have no authority to hire, fire, supervise, discipline, evaluate, or direct municipal staff other than the CAO. When councillors interfere with administrative functions, they are acting outside their authority, exposing themselves and the municipality to legal, financial, and operational risk. Administrators and CAOs must anchor their processes to the legislation. The safest most professional path for administrators is to document interference, redirect in writing, refuse unlawful instruction and consistently cite the governing Acts.

Municipalities function best when council governs, administration administers, and each respects the boundaries set out in provincial law. The clarity is in the legislation; the challenge is in following it.

Author Bio: Lorri Matthewson is an expert in municipal governance, holding an MBA in Community Economic Development and specializing in support provision for small population communities. Through Matthewson & Co. and SmallPlacesRock.com, she and her staff deliver high-impact training that helps councils and administrators understand their legislated roles and avoid the legal pitfalls that come from stepping outside them. Lorri’s work is trusted across Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta for its clarity, accuracy, and commitment to lawful governance. She is known for cutting through misinformation, citing the legislation directly and equipping municipal leaders with the knowledge they need to govern responsibly.

For more articles like this, please visit www.smallplacesrock.com