CANMORE – Canmore council’s procedural bylaw has been postponed to undergo an independent review by a governance expert and to look at other options to engage the public.
Coun. Tanya Foubert, who successfully got unanimous support on her two motions at the Tuesday (April 4) council meeting, said while Town staff provide essential advice for council, it’s important to have an independent view.
“I really respect the fact as a council we have a lot of expertise in-house to advise on operational matters of our community, but a governance expert would be someone out-of-house and that would be a process that could help us make more informed and robust decisions around our procedural bylaw, which is really critical to our governance structure,” she said.
Consideration of the procedural bylaw was postponed until June 6. With Couns. Karen Marra and Joanna McCallum absent from Tuesday's council meeting due to a seniors and community housing conference in Edmonton, Mayor Sean Krausert indicated it was important all council members be in chambers given the importance of the bylaw.
As part of proposed changes to the procedural bylaw, Town staff had originally proposed to remove question period and give the CAO and municipal clerk authority to question council with points of order – a power reserved for elected officials.
George Cuff, a municipal governance expert with more than 45 years of experience in municipal leadership, consulting and writing, said it speaks to public engagement, adding the province of Alberta is so keen for public engagement in every municipality that a section was added to the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
“If you want a professional council meeting, get rid of the public. Then you can do it all neat and tidy and no one’s there to interrupt proceedings. … Does that mean you pull the plug on it and make it a lot more neat and tidy for the administration and maybe even some members of council? I don’t think so," said Cuff.
Cuff, who led the role of inspecting the management, administration and operation of the City of Chestermere in the provincially-ordered probe of the embattled municipality of which results were released last month, said it’s vital for the public to have all opportunities to communicate with council.
Though it can lead to dramatic situations, such as when Canmore staff called RCMP last November on a group of about two dozen residents for protesting the paving of a pathway, public discourse should never be lessened.
“There’s an old saying that anyone who likes the law, politics or sausage should never watch it be made,” Cuff said. “This part of the sausage making is having the public involved in meetings. Sometimes it gets messy … You just have to have protocol and the chair of the meeting needs to manage the protocols. Anything that reduces public involvement in council meetings, in my mind, is open to a lot of questions.”
Krausert and Town CAO Sally Caudill pushed back against the high level governance overview laid out by multiple governance experts in articles in the Outlook that cautioned against blurring the lines of staff and council through determining service levels and staff potentially being allowed to question council through points of order.
Caudill said staff are “very aware there’s a council sandbox and an admin sandbox” but there are gray areas.
According to a staff report, a February workshop raised issues of whether Town staff had the authority to call points of order, points of procedure or question of privilege and whether it should be expanded.
While not outright recommending the change, Town staff prepared a motion for any member of council to make to allow the CAO and municipal clerk to call points of order against council – all but recommending it for council.
The Town’s municipal clerk and CAO already have the authority to gain the mayor’s attention if there are procedural issues. Senior staff also frequently gain attention to add to dialogue, which happens several times in a meeting without the need for a point of order.
“It’s a question if this is a council procedural bylaw or an administrative procedural bylaw,” Cuff said. “I think you have to be very careful of who has what role to do what. … If you have this demarcation between council and management, you’ll be loath to have something added in that gives the impression the CAO or clerk are going to be in charge of running the meeting,” he said.
“That’s part of the membership whether it’s an association, an ag society or any other organization, that’s part of the elected body leadership is allowed to do. This is management trying to tighten things up and make it more vanilla, which I think does nothing to add value to the particular bylaw.”
In an interview with the Outlook March 27, David Siegel, a political science professor emeritus from Brock University with more than four decades of studying local governance, emphasized the importance of well-defined roles between council and staff.
Siegel said he had never heard of a bylaw allowing a non-council member to intervene in a meeting without “being requested to do so by the chair of the meeting.”
“I’m not aware of other municipalities where staff are allowed to participate in a meeting on their own initiative,” he said March 27. “Staff’s role is to respond to questions, but I’m not aware of another municipality that gives staff the right to participate in discussion on their own initiatives.”
A point of order is when a council member calls a fellow council member out if the conduct of council has been supposedly broken, while a point of procedure is if the rules of council aren’t followed and a question of privilege is made if the reputation of the Town or council member is at risk.
When one is called, the meeting chair pauses discussion and rules on the matter after the person who has been called out has an opportunity to explain themselves. The meeting then resumes after a ruling has been provided.
The three are entirely in the realm of council to police one another.
Cuff said it’s important to approve a procedural bylaw council is comfortable with as per Section 145 of the MGA and not simply rely on a book such as Robert’s Rules of Order.
Cuff emphasized that he has a high level of respect for administration to “provide first class unbiased advice” but it’s a “critical aspect to have a good balance between council and its administration.”
“The administration should understand it’s subservient to the council. It reports up and then out. Up to mayor and council and mayor and council are the ones who report out to the community in terms of what its key decisions are. Anything that detracts from that, in my mind, is wrong.”
The existing procedural bylaw permits the public to submit a written question or questions to council, which are answered just prior to a meeting beginning.
The staff report recommended council do-away with the question period since “public question period rarely aligns” with council’s strategic plan and questions are not frequently submitted.
Though it’s noted questions submitted are “directed at protesting a council decision rather than seeking information or clarity”, they are ultimately asking questions of council.
Siegel said if a municipality were to remove question period, “having a fairly lenient policy” for accepting delegations would be a good substitute.
The report notes people can still email questions to council or individual council members, participate in public hearings and ask to be a delegate, it would remove one public aspect of asking questions of council.
Town of Banff staff pitched a change to their procedural bylaw last fall that threatened to stifle debate among council members. The proposal would’ve only allowed a council member to debate a motion once at a limit of five minutes per person which could’ve restricted debate.
Town staff also wanted the input of staff to be considered when making motions, with motions being put in writing beforehand to look at the legal, financial and operational impacts are addressed.
Banff council ultimately voted against the staff recommended changes.
In 2018, Banff removed public question period at the end of its meeting but kept the one at the beginning.
Earlier this year, a Penticton, B.C. councillor attempted to remove question period and replace it with quarterly open houses. The motion was defeated.
In New Westminster in January, the school district attempted to reduce question period and received significant pushback from the public before being quashed.
“I think you have to be real careful in blurring administration roles with elected officials,” he said. “Council has to be in the driver seat or they’re going to get run over.”
Krausert said Canmore has a “strong and positive governance structure” but the municipality was always open to potential improvement.
Krausert said public question period has “a long history” of being abused, with a peace officer notably present in council chambers Tuesday.
He emphasized open houses, town halls and coffee meetings allow elected officials to connect with citizens. However, council meetings are where decisions are ultimately made.
Foubert said she came up with her motions after reviewing the provincial investigation into the City of Chestermere, which gave a recommendation that since public question period was removed council should provide a rationale for changes and look for alternatives.
“If we’re going to take it out, we should replace it with something that does hit the mark. … What is the point of public question period? I think it’s an opportunity for our public, our community, our constituents to be heard by us. I think that’s a really important part of democracy and governance,” Foubert said.
