Transparency

Residents and council vocal again on proposed bylaw changes

The procedural bylaw was back before council last Tuesday evening where it was approved. The topic was last before council at a special virtual meeting held on January 26, where many members of the public spoke in opposition of some of the changes. Staff was asked to explore the use of workshops, and give a recommendation on using communication devices during meetings. The procedural bylaw includes rules for how municipal meetings are called, who is involved, where they happen and how they proceed. It also guides residents’ interactions with council, the conduct of council, and the way the municipality communicates about meetings.

Residents Amy Bodman and Paula Peel provided a deputation at the meeting. They were following up on two items they spoke to at the previous meeting on January 26.The first item deals with wording which states, “Deputations are not permitted to address Council, local board or committee on a matter upon which Council has already decided the matter within the previous 12 months, unless Council has decided to reconsider the matter.”

the public out from the reconsideration process. “This amendment will restrict the public from giving deputations on any matter that council has decided upon in the last year,” said Bodman. “It could dangerously limit council’s ability to represent the public on matters that need to be heard and debated for the benefit of the municipality.” Bodman added that in essence, the only way the public will be able to bring up a matter to be reconsidered is by contacting a councillor who voted in favour of the original decision, and trying to convince them to reverse their point of view. “A daunting task one-on-one,” she adds.

Bodman then pointed out that one of the critical questions to be considered before amending or revising an existing by-law or policy is whether the amendment is changing the intent of the existing by-law or policy. “We believe this revision changes the intent of the existing by-law. In our existing by-law, this deputation restriction is found in Part 7 Section (3) – Deputations at Planning Public Council Meetings, and only applies to Planning Public Council meetings. Extending the restriction to all meetings of Council, local boards and committees, significantly changes the breadth of public engagement allowed by our existing procedural by-law. It could also dangerously limit Council’s ability to represent the public on matters that need to be heard and debated for the benefit of the municipality,” said Bodman.

During discussions at the January 26 meeting, councillors admitted that occasionally their perspectives have been changed due to deputations from the public. “Our procedural by-law is written to account for the fact that Council’s will, from time-to-time, make decisions that it becomes clear they need to reconsider for the good of the municipality. Consequently, a rigorous reconsideration process has been written into this by-law that ensures that reconsideration will not be lightly done,” said Bodman. “Not allowing deputations on matters that may have been erroneously decided upon could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of Council to ‘represent the public and ensure the accountability and transparency of the municipality’s operations’.”

Next, Peel was set to read her portion of the deputation, but due to technical difficulties, Bodman took over and shared the words. In her deputation, Peel noted that proposed timing constraints could have a detrimental effect to members of the public who would like to provide comment at a meeting. The new bylaw would allow documentation to not be released until the agenda is released. “The problem is that three working days obviously does not allow enough time for the public to review detailed staff reports and updated documents relating to items on the agenda and to also prepare a deputation,” said Bodman. “Procedural by-laws should aim for procedural fairness, and this new rule does not meet that standard.”

During discussions, Councillor Ernie Margetson put forward a motion to remove a portion of the new bylaw which deals with communications between councillors and members of the public via devices during a meeting. “I have not seen councillors abuse communication in any nefarious or corrupt way in terms of their activities or intent. I also think when we got on council, we as a council passed a code of conduct where I feel that all members committed to performing their functions with integrity, accountability and transparency,” said Margetson.

Disagreeing with the motion, Councillor Phil St-Jean said he has received such messages during meetings and he believe it is inappropriate. “It’s about transparency for the public and how we conduct our business in front of the public without outside interference in the meeting proceedings. When members of the public who are not in attendance at the meeting and not participating have special access to council members and reach out to us to comment on what is transpiring in the meeting, and that conversation isn’t happening in front of everyone, I take issue with that,” he said. St-Jean then added that any sidebar conversations should be in full view of the public.

Margetson’s motion carried after a recorded vote, nine to four.

On the topic of reconsiderations, Councillor Brad Nieman wanted to see a change in the wording. The draft bylaw states that a reconsideration may be made by any member who voted on the prevailing side at the same meeting, or a subsequent meeting at which the original motion was decided, and shall require a majority vote of the members present and voting on the motion. Nieman wanted to see the wording changed so that any member of council may be bring a reconsideration forward. “Any debate should happen on the floor. If a reconsideration comes, that vote takes a matter of 90 seconds to do. We waste more time on irrelevant things than that 90 seconds to take that vote,” he said. Nieman then pointed out that the way the bylaw is written would see councillors trying to convince one another to change their viewpoint. “If we are going to preach transparent and open government then we have to practice it. We can’t have it both ways,” said Nieman.

That motion carried.

Councillor John Hirsch asked to see both matters from the deputations be taken care of in the new bylaw. Clerk Catalina Blumenberg explained that the bylaw is currently written as such that deputations cannot address a matter that council already has decided within a period of twelve months and this would be a tool used to make sure there is new or different information coming forward. “Residents continuously go to the corresponding committee to talk about that over and over. And then there is no mechanism to discontinue the same subject matter from being discussed by a member of the public over and over when council has already made that decision,” said Blumenberg.

Hirsch was hoping this was something that could be resolved by vetting the deputations before they made it to a meeting. “That’s something that I was hoping we could resolve by the clerk being able to exercise some discretion to not allow deputations of a repetitive nature. The problem is with the way we are putting this into a bylaw, it makes it absolutely forbidden to come back another time unless council has decided to do a reconsideration,” said Hirsch.

Hirsch then moved onto the timeline in which materials are to be published. “Many of us on council, during this term, tried to deal with this issue of can we get information out sooner, and some of us have thought well, yes, we could,” said Hirsch. “If the package is published three, four or five days in advance, how does anybody in the public know that they could have had an opportunity to register for a deputation, because the deputation needs to be included in that package?” he asked.

Blumenberg noted that she does hear concerns from the public regarding the timelines. “I hear how it is difficult to know what is on the agenda and what they can make a deputation on without seeing the report and the published agenda. However, there are other ways to provide input. Be it a comment from the audience. Be it contacting the councillor. For bigger projects we do the big continuum of engagement. There will typically be a public meeting. Have your Say. There are surveys. So there are other ways to provide your input besides a deputation,” said Blumenberg.

The Clerk then told council that many municipalities publish agendas 10 or 20 days before a meeting, but they are in a different position than the County. “The thing with that is, they don’t require the deputants to have background information. Their councils are meeting once a month. The fact that we meet as council twice a month, as Committee of the Whole twice a month and planning once a month, it may not be possible to publish an agenda 10 days in advance,” said Blumenberg.

County CAO Marcia Wallace was also not in favour of changing the timeline, saying it would be a very dangerous precedent to have materials out for a meeting when council is still meeting on the item from before. “My concern is not how far in advance. We could have it considerably farther. The problem is you meet so often. I think it is a very bad idea that you are at the meeting, and the material for the next meeting is in the public already. Then you will have the benefit of knowing how the game ends before you are having the conversation. There are plenty of times when the topic at a Committee of the Whole is the substance of something coming back to council,” she said. Wallace then said an alternative might be more public communication about what is forecast in upcoming agendas, as the CAO already shares what is on the horizon with council six to eight weeks in advance.

“I think the ability of the public to know at least what the subject matter is likely to be for an agenda, gives them the opportunity to align the deputation with the subject matter,” said Hirsch.

Council also added a motion to the procedural bylaw which would give councillors the ability to give notice if they wish to place an item for discussion on the agenda prior to the next meeting, unless the matter is of a timesensitive nature, in which a two-thirds majority could see the item placed on that day’s agenda.