CANMORE – A proposed change to Canmore council’s procedural bylaw could limit the ability of the public to ask questions of council, while also giving enhanced power to select staff to question council.
The proposal is asking council to consider removing the public's opportunity to ask questions of council prior to a meeting starting, and to give both the chief administrative officer and municipal clerk the ability to call points of order against council.
The recommendations will be up for council consideration at its Tuesday meeting (April 4), but a municipal governance expert is cautioning against the proposed changes.
“It speaks to public engagement and the province is so keen to have public engagement in every municipality they added a section to the MGA (Municipal Government Act),” said George Cuff, a municipal governance expert with more than 45 years of experience in municipal leadership, consulting and writing.
“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.”
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 that was 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, said Cuff.
“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.”
According to a staff report for council's consideration, 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.
If brought forward and passed, it would give some Town staff the ability to call out council members.
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 loathed 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 has 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.”
Town staff are also recommending council “soften the language and provide more clarity” for points of order.
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.”
Though not officially raised in the omnibus amendments, Cuff expressed concern for having the CAO as a member of the Town’s finance committee as well as the ability to delete previous agendas when they’re amended.
“Nowhere in a council procedure should we be inserting the words chief administrative officer as though that person was a member of a committee with the same rights and privileges as the rest of the committee and elected officials. You’re violating the basic principle of council as elected people and management as appointed. You violate that principle to your disadvantage,” he said.
“A member is an elected member of council. The CAO means the CAO. … CAO is not a part of the committee. The CAO is an advisor. That’s an absolutely principal, fundamental statement or stipulation to make. You need to have the CAO there, but they are an advisor. The CAO is never a member.”
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 recommends 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.
The Outlook reached out to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for recommendations the province gives to municipalities on public question period and staff having the ability to call points of order. The story will be updated when they comment.
Town of Banff staff pitched a change to their procedural bylaw last fall that threatened to stifle debate among council members. The proposal would have only allowed a council member to debate a motion once at a limit of five minutes per councillor 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 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.
Canmore's proposed omnibus amendment also asks council to remove the published agenda section from each agenda and replace it with an agenda that outlines a new item has been added.
Council members appearing electronically are required to have their cameras on and visibly seen, but if changed, would allow council members to join a meeting without a camera and verbally confirm their attendance.
“I think you have to be real careful in blurring administration roles with elected officials,” said Cuff. “Council has to be in the driver seat or they’re going to get run over.”
