ABSTRACT
After a four-month delay since my delegation to Town Council on February 18, 2025, perhaps an intended delay, finally a motion came forward to Council on June 23, 2025 related to my request for a councillor to step forward with a motion to remove the town from its membership in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.
The PCP program, sponsored by ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), consists of a five-step Milestone Framework that guides municipalities to take action against climate change by reducing emissions in their municipality. PCP receives funding from FCM’s Green Municipal Fund and ICLEI Canada.
In addition to the tactic by Mayor Genung to derail a vote by Council on the motion by having it referred to the town’s Natural Environment Protection (NEP) Task Force, a close examination of the ‘motion’ and the procedure that was followed, revealed a highly flawed process with respect to the so-called ‘motion’ per se that was brought forward by Councillor Wilson. First off, the so-called motion was actually two motions, which is improper as only a single motion should be entertained. The mayor who is responsible for order and ensuring proper procedures are followed failed to step in to disallow the so-called flawed ‘motion’. A properly worded motion should provide a clear and concise statement of the action proposed. Ambiguity or complex phrasing should be avoided. That was not the case, and the ‘motion’ clearly did not align with the intent of the author, Councillor Wilson, to withdraw from the Partners for Climate Program, and understood as such by several of the Council members.
Bottom line, you would think that by now into the last year of the second 4-year term that the mayor as chair of the meeting would know how to run the meeting to regulate the proceedings, and the councillors, as well, would know how to craft a clear and concise motion describing the outcome they seek.
Legislative services should have ensured that the motion was properly constructed, and the process properly followed, but stood back and did nothing and said nothing, perhaps aligned with their desire to keep the membership in the PCP program in place. A course on how to properly run a meeting could use what transpired as an example of how not to run a meeting. It’s shocking to think of such unprofessionalism and incompetence in the context that the Town Office is an enterprise responsible for an annual budget of $83 million for municipal operations and $135 million for capital projects and not some little 50-member fishing club.
FULL BLOG
After a four-month delay since my delegation to Town Council on February 18, 2025, perhaps an intended delay, finally a motion came forward to Council on June 23, 2025 related to my request for a councillor to step forward with a motion to remove the town from its membership in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.
The PCP program, sponsored by ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), consists of a five-step Milestone Framework that guides municipalities to take action against climate change by reducing emissions in your municipality. PCP receives funding from FCM’s Green Municipal Fund and ICLEI Canada.
Mayor Genung succeeded in having the Council avoid voting on the presented ‘motion’ by having the matter referred to the town’s environmental task force and the CAO, part of the tag team to scuttle the vote, pushed the date out for Council to hear back from the task force not until September despite the task force, according to its terms of reference, being able to meet “as required”. The Council willingly passed this hot potato on to the task force, which is properly called the Natural Environment Protection (NEP) Task Force, even though its mandate, “To act as an advisory body to Council and Administration, identifying and prioritizing natural areas that should be preserved or restored to protect long-term ecological health” doesn’t fit with the task at hand, unless there is a concern of the there not being enough carbon dioxide for the plants to thrive.
In addition to this tactic by Mayor Genung, presumably guided by the Administration, to derail a vote by Council, a close examination of the ‘motion’ and the procedure followed, revealed a highly flawed process with respect to the so-called ‘motion’ per se.
A Town of Cochrane Council Report is provided for each agenda item (see below the report for agenda item 6a, Councillor Wilson’s motion related to the PCP program).
As shown above, the format includes a title for the agenda item followed by sections such as Recommended Action, Executive Summary and Background.
The motion to be debated and voted on is contained within the Recommended Action section of the Council Report. The Executive Summary provides a short summary explaining what is being sought through Council’s approval and sometimes why it is being sought.
With that background as to the format of the Council Report, let’s examine Councillor Wilson’s Council Report prepared by the town Administration.
The title of the agenda item provides a brief indication of what would be sought by the motion, namely, “Notice of Motion – Withdrawal from ICLEI and PCP”, in this case. The title is somewhat imprecise as I am not aware of the town being a member of ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or Local Governments for Sustainability, although by withdrawing from the PCP program one is to some degree withdrawing from ICLEI because that organization is a sponsor of the PCP program.
The “Recommended Action” section should list the formal motion aligned with the title.
Motions are preceded by “That Council…” with the understanding of what is meant is “I move that Council…” We immediately see a problem in that two motions are listed here and that there can only one motion considered at a time. For that reason alone, the chair of the meeting, the mayor, should have disallowed these recommended actions. For that reason, henceforth, what appears in the “Recommended Action” section will be referred to as the ‘motion’.
As well, a properly worded motion should provide a clear and concise statement of the action proposed. Ambiguity or complex phrasing should be avoided. One certainly cannot say that about these two motions. One only needs to look at the motions presented by Administration under Business on that same day to see examples of clear and concise motions. Thus, for agenda item 5b, entitled, “Cochrane Community Grants Program Policy”, one finds the following relatively clear and concise motion: “That Council approve the Cochrane Community Grants Program Policy and endorse the 2025 Community Investment Fund allocations as outlined in this report”.
We see ambiguity in the first motion in that while the title for this agenda item called for withdrawal from the PCP program, it is somewhat implied here, but not explicitly asked for. In fact, the motion speaks more of policy guidelines to be adopted in the future with respect to “participation in ICLEI programs or similar externally-driven initiatives”. In fact, the reference to “unless mandated by our Elected Body”, would exempt action to withdraw Cochrane from the PCP program since it was explicitly mandated through the motion adopted by the “Elected Body”, Cochrane’s elected Town Council, in 2004.
Oddly there is a reference to “Resolution to Withdraw from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)/Federation of Canadian Municipalities Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program”, appearing in the “Executive Summary” section where it has no weight as a motion, although appearing somewhat in the format of a motion. While this statement together with the title of this agenda item clearly shows the intent of the author, no such motion appears in the “Recommended Action” section of the Council Report for this agenda item.
Discussion related to Councillor Wilson’s ‘motion’ took place between 2:20:08 and 2:34:51 minutes in the video for the meeting.
Councillor Wilson began the introduction of his befuddled ‘motion’ by emphasizing his “notice of motion is withdrawal from the ICLEI and PCP programs”, again showing his intent, not being reflected in his ‘motion’. Calling it “a bit of a mouthful”, which it should not have been, but rather clear and concise, he then departed from the convention as the mover to simply read his motion, which was all that was required at that point. Instead, he provided a long 7-minute monologue, primarily drawing from information found at the KICLEI web site, which should have been reserved for supporting his position in response to any debate arising from his ‘motion’. Unacceptable, but, again, the chairperson was silent. A further example of rather sloppy governance. Interesting that Councillor Wilson pointed out that in advance of this meeting Council had received an email from an organization advising that they “need to be cautious not to abandon their net zero commitments to carefully created conspiracy theories”. He gave strong reasons for Cochrane withdrawing from the PCP program, but, in the end, lacked conviction to follow through with what he believed important for Cochrane and its future development.
The mayor, in response, commented that he thought it “was the most descriptive notice of motion we have ever had”, not appreciating that it was an improper way to move a motion and that, as presider, he should have brought Councillor Wilson’s monologue to an end. The chair has the responsibility to ensure that the motion is in order and the proper procedure is followed.
Councillor Reed followed up indicating that he would support Councillor Wilson’s ‘motion’.
Councillor Flowers indicated that it was “too deep” for her and invited the administration to join the debate, which it often does, to offer comments or recommendations.
Councillor Fedeyko wondered about any “repercussions” for the next elected Council should the current council cease involvement, clearly showing the ambiguity of the ‘motion’ as she understood the ‘motion’ as seeking withdrawal from the PCP program, when, as explained above, that was certainly not clear from the ‘motion’.
With the CAO emphasizing that “no current activities would be impacted by this motion”, Councillor Fedeyko responded that she would be willing to “cease our participation in this one program”. Again, remember, as explained above, that is not what this ‘motion’ explicitly says. There is no explicit mention of the PCP program in the ‘motion’
Councillor McFadden, as well, revealed the ambiguity surrounding the ‘motion’ presented, seeing it as “looking to cease our participation in this one program” (that is, the PCP program).
The mayor weighed in saying he didn’t have an issue with the “second part” of Councillor Wilson’s motion, really the second motion listed which is an improper format, but questioned the need for the first part (the second motion), echoing Administration, saying there is no active participation, and expressing concern that it might inhibit “opportunities” for the town’s access to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM”s) Green Municipal Fund.
Noteworthy that the FCM’s Green Municipal Find “leverages a $1.65 billion (and growing) investment from the Government of Canada to give municipalities the tools to accelerate their transition to a resilient, net-zero, sustainable future – and help Canada reach its 2050 targets for net-zero emissions” and, accordingly, the mayor expressed that he would hate losing access to such funding.
The mayor then recommended that the matter be referred to the town’s environmental task force (Natural Environment Protection Task Force) to bring a recommendation on the matter back to Council.
In response, Councillor Wilson pointed out that given that Administration had declared that the town was “not active in either of those spaces” (that is, ICLEI and the Partners for Climate Protection program), then his answer was to “formally withdraw and do it publicly and if we want to rejoin those groups let’s have a public discussion about it”. However, as discussed above, the poorly-worded ‘motion’ as posted does not address that intent on his part.
Councillor Reed correctly pointed out that the task of looking at this matter “goes well beyond the environmental task force initiatives”.
However, given that Councillor Willson was agreeable to the mayor’s proposal, the mayor then enquired about a date for the task force to come back with their recommendation. Without being asked, the CAO jumped in and suggested September, despite the task force being available to meet on a “as needed” basis.
Councillor Wilson expressed the view that since the Administration had advised as “not active in these spaces (that is, ICLEI and PCP), that his intent was to “formerly acknowledge that we’re not (active) and remove ourselves”, even though the so-called ‘motion’ did not clearly express that intent.
The matter concluded with the Council willingly accepting the mayor’s referral of the matter to the town’s environmental task force, on the CAO Mike Derricott’s recommendation, to come back in September with its feedback. Thereby, being an election year, the Council happily avoided a vote on the matter, although, as discussed above, the format and ambiguous wording of the ‘motion’ defies there being a meaningful vote. With this being an election, the mayor quipped “so, post council”, recognizing that the matter will not likely come back to current council before the municipal election campaign begins around September 22, 2025.
Bottom line, you would think that by now into the last year of the second 4-year term that the mayor as chair of the meeting would know how to run the meeting to regulate the proceedings and conduct of Council and the councillors would know how to craft a clear and concise motion describing the outcome they seek.
Legislative services should have ensured that the motion was properly constructed, and the process properly followed, but stood back and said nothing, perhaps aligned with their desire to keep the membership in the PCP program in place. A course on how to properly run a meeting could use what transpired as an example of how not to run a meeting. It’s shocking to think of such unprofessionalism in the context that the Town Office is an enterprise responsible for an annual budget of $83 million for municipal operations and $135 million for capital projects and not some little 50-member fishing club.
POSTSCRIPT
I decided to write a Letter to Town Council, with a copy to Ms, Jaylene Robertson, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, and Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, expressing my dissatisfaction with how this shoddy affair was handled.
UPDATE, July 16, 2025
Environmental Task Force Defers Discussion Re PCP Program to a Later Date
Mayor Genung succeeded in having the Council avoid voting on a presented ‘motion’ related to the town’s withdrawal from the Partners for Climate Protection program by having the matter referred to the town’s environmental task force to report back to a Council meeting in September.
The Council willingly passed this hot potato on to the task force, which is properly called the Natural Environment Protection (NEP) Task Force, even though its mandate, “To act as an advisory body to Council and Administration, identifying and prioritizing natural areas that should be preserved or restored to protect long-term ecological health” doesn’t fit with the task at hand. Even Councillor Reed correctly pointed out that the task of looking at this matter “goes well beyond the environmental task force initiatives”.
I attended the NEP task force meeting at the Ranche House on July 15, 2025 as a discussion related to withdrawal from ICLEI and PCP was on the agenda. I waited about 1 ¼ hours as they dealt with one other agenda item.
According to the Background segment of the report prepared by town Administration for that agenda item: “At the June 24, 2025, Regular Council meeting, a Notice of Motion was brought forward by Councillor Wilson proposing that the Town of Cochrane withdraw its membership from ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program”. I found the actual Notice of Motion brought forward at the June 24, 2025 meeting to be more complicated and ambiguous as to its intent.
Three options were offered for the NEP task force to consider:
Option 1: Recommend to Council that withdrawal from ICLEI and the PCP program is appropriate at this time.
Option 2: Recommend to Council that the Town maintain its memberships in ICLEI and the PCP program.
Option 3: Acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Motion without providing a recommendation.
Disappointingly, when they came to this agenda item, they decided to defer the discussion to later in August because two public-at-large task force members were absent that evening, and they felt it important that all members be present to discuss this matter.
UPDATE, July 17, 2025
Environmental Task Force Advised of Irregularities Related to Motion to Withdraw from the PCP Program
An email sent to Michelle Delorme, Director, Parks & Active Living, with respect to her report for agenda item 4b (Notice of Motion Withdrawal from ICLEI & PCP ~ RES #138/06/25) provided for the Cochrane Natural Environment Protection (NEP) Task Force meeting that was held on July 15, 2025, went into detail with respected to the flawed Notice of Motion motion submitted by Councillor Wilson on June 23, 2025 and the equally flawed recasting of that motion by the Administration. The two members of Town council, Alex Reed and Morgan Nagel, who are members of the NEP Task Force, were copied and Councillor Wilson was asked to forward my comments on to the other members of the NEP Task Force.
UPDATE, July 28, 2025
Additional Concerns re Task Assigned to NEP Task Force
In my July 17th email (above), I questioned the claimed town’s membership in ICLEI, asking, “Can you confirm that Cochrane is, in fact, an ICLEI-Canada member?”. I never received a reply. However, I was able to confirm through communication with ICLEI-Canada that the Town of Cochrane is not a member of ICLEI. Merely something that the Administration had imagined in its recrafting of Mr. Wilson’s official motion. Makes the Administration’s invented version of Mr. Wilson’s motion even more nonsensical.
An email was sent to Councillor Reed asking him advise the other members of the NEP Task Force of this flaw in the process and suggesting, because of this overall bungled mess, that “it would be improper for the task force to participate in this fiasco, and, hopefully, it will make that clear to the Administration (seemingly, Option 3 of the 3 options offered) for its communication to Town Council when the Notice of Motion is once more considered by Town Council in September.”
UPDATE, August 12, 2025
Freedom of Information Request re Partners for Climate Protection Program Delayed
On July 2, 2025, I made a freedom of information (FOI) request for “All communications related to the town’s membership in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, including, but not limited to, all communications related to this matter within Administration or within Council and between Administration and Council”, for the period from December 23, 2024 to June 27, 2025.
Today (August 12), I was advised that the town needed an extension of time of 30 business days, permitted under the Access to Information Act, to process my request. Not surprised by this delay as it is something I have come to expect from the town office, and I advised the town’s Record Office of that expectation.
I was told that my “request involves the review of a large number of records. The volume of information involved cannot be processed within the usual 30 business day limit”. I find that interesting given that the Administration has claimed there is no active participation in the Partners for Climate Protection program, and yet there is seemingly all this chatter related to it.
If not satisfied with the delay, I was told that I could always make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, a waste of time given my complaint on another matter in October 2023. Ten months have passed and still waiting for findings from their investigation! I advised the town’s Record Office, “As far as making a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, that’s a waste of time and you know it, and so you can routinely add that time on without any concern as to consequence”.