HGP Nightly News – Mayor Alfred Mentore openly expressed disappointment over Town Clerk Candace Nelson’s decision to distance herself from legal proceedings involving the disputed City Constabulary property, while Nelson insisted that her statement was misunderstood in the way it was reported and received.
The latest exchange comes after Nelson publicly clarified that she did not authorise the filings and did not sign legal documents tied to the court action. That statement drew a sharp response from Mentore, who argued that the matter was never about Candace Nelson personally, but about the office of the Town Clerk and, more importantly, the authority of the council itself.
According to the mayor, “it is not in the name of Candace Nelson, who happened to be the Town Clerk,” but in the name of the Town Clerk as an office. He said the law allows the council to authorise another person to act on its behalf, and in this case, “the council authorizes me, or authorize me, to act on behalf of the council, in this matter.” Mentore also stressed that the council had formally resolved to go to court and that “the majority of councillors would have signed” in support of that course of action.
From Mentore’s standpoint, the issue is therefore not whether Nelson personally approved the lawsuit, but whether the council had the legal authority to proceed. In his view, that authority was clear, and her public statement created unnecessary confusion at a time when the municipality is trying to defend what it sees as its assets. “I was disappointed in the statement itself,” he said, arguing that the Town Clerk, as “the servant of this council” and custodian of its assets, should have stood with the municipality in the fight over the property.
He went further, saying that where the Government is allegedly trying to seize or take over council assets, the Town Clerk “should be the force… to stand up, to help, to protect” the city’s interest. For Mentore, the matter is not just procedural, but symbolic of whether City Hall’s own officers are prepared to back the council when it moves to defend municipal property.
Nelson, however, appears to be framing the issue in a different way. In her response, she suggested that the public uproar was shaped in part by how some media houses handled her original clarification. She appeared to indicate that the issue had been presented in a way that intensified the fallout, rather than simply reflecting the limited point she was trying to make.
She also indicated that her earlier statement should be understood as a disclaimer about her own role in the process, not as an attempt to challenge the council’s actions in court. “I think the action itself was… a disclaimer,” she said, while suggesting that the process unfolded in a way she did not fully anticipate after she was first approached.
The clash adds yet another layer of tension to the wider legal and political battle surrounding the Water Street property. But beyond the case itself, it is also exposing the fragile relationship between the political leadership of City Hall and its administrative arm. What might otherwise have remained a procedural disagreement has now turned into a public test of authority, communication and trust inside the municipality.
