ABSTRACT
On May 15 I sent an email to our Town Council, seeking a commitment from them individually as our elected councillors that they will not take any steps to introduce elements of a 15-minute city concept, ‘a UN inspired agenda to control where and how people can travel ‘to stop climate change’’, into Cochrane, and that that they will resist any such implementation. Only one Councillor replied, Susan Flowers, presumably feeling somewhat obliged to do so given her previous declaration, “of course, email any of us at any time”. She brushed off my query saying that she doesn’t get “involved with conspiracy theories”. Characteristically and disappointingly, none of the other councillors replied, as clearly the maxim, “email any of us at any time”, had no relevance to them. This disrespectful stonewalling behavior raises concerns about their ethical behaviour.
FULL BLOG
On May 15th, I sent an email to our Town Council trying to ascertain their stand on 15-minute cities:
“Councillor Susan Flowers has promised ‘of course, email any of us at any time’, with the clear understanding that you will answer.
I am seeking a commitment from you individually as our elected councillors that you will not take any steps to introduce elements of a 15-minute city concept, ‘a UN inspired agenda to control where and how people can travel ‘to stop climate change’’, into Cochrane, and that you will resist any such implementation.”
The next day Councillor Susan Flowers replied, “Yesterday you asked if I was involved with conspiracy theories. No I am not. I am busy working on the important things in reality that Cochrane needs”. At a February 13th Council Meeting, Councillor Flowers mentioned a few of the communication tools available to engage with Council and concluded with “And, of course, email any of us at any time”. Presumably, with the latter declaration, she felt obliged to answer my email. However, her arrogant dismissive response, characterizing 15-minute cities as a ‘conspiracy theory’, was disappointing, but hardly not unexpected.
There followed an email exchange with Councillor Flowers. I replied, “I wasn’t asking, as you say, if you were ‘involved with conspiracy theories’. I take from your answer that you are disputing the very existence of the concept of 15-minute cities. Maybe explain that to the City of Edmonton with its plan for ‘15-Minute Communities’.” I also added that one presumes that “any of us” applied to all the councillors, and, therefore, I was looking forward to an answer to my query from each of the other councillors.
She came back with, “I can’t speak for Edmonton”, to which I replied to her and the rest of Town Council, “My point in referencing Edmonton is that with your reference to the dismissive term, ‘conspiracy theories’, you were seemingly disputing the very existence of the 15-minute cities concept. Again, I was asking you as a town councillor if you reject the application of the 15-minutes city concept to Cochrane.”
I once gain pointed out that I was looking forward to a reply to my query from the other councillors as per the promise to “email any of us at any time”. However, it is clear that such a commitment made by Councillor Flowers on behalf of her colleagues is meaningless and not unexpected given my past experience with being stonewalled by Council members, as pointed out in previous blog posts, such as “Concerning Trend of Restricted Engagement with the Town of Cochrane” and “Stonewalled by the Cochrane Town Council“. Very frustrating, and I would characterize such disrespectful stonewalling on the part of our Town Councillors as highly irritating passive aggressive behaviour. To no surprise, now nearly a month since my original query, none of the other town councillors have replied to my query.
On February 9, 2023, the night of the Mayor’s State of Cochrane address, the Town Administration made a post related to 15-minute cities at the town’s Facebook page. While saying this may be considered by some urban centres and presenting it in a relatively positive light, they ended with “Cochrane does not have any plans to adopt the ‘15-minute city’ concept as most residents can already access all main services within a 15-minute drive”. Apparently, despite Councillor Flowers brushing it off as a “conspiracy theory”, the Town Administration acknowledged the concept of 15-minute cities, although their reference to a “15-minute ride” was off. The World Economic Forum correctly defines a 15-minute city as “Where everything is within a 15-minute radius on foot or bike. The aim is to cut car use, resulting in fewer CO2 emissions”.
While Flowers dismissed the 15-minute city concept as a ‘conspiracy theory’ and having no relevance to Cochrane, language contained in the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board’s (CMRB’s) Growth Plan, which was approved by Town Council and pushed by Mayor Genung as a sidekick to then Calgary Mayor, Naheed Nenshi, certainly has the hallmarks of a 15-minute city:
Slide from Presentation: Cochrane’s Road to Agenda 2030.
The Preamble to Cochrane’s Council Code of Conduct Bylaw states that “the public is entitled to expect the highest standards of conduct from the members that it elects to council for the Town of Cochrane”, and “the establishment of a code of conduct for members of council is consistent with the principles of transparent and accountable government”. I don’t consider ignoring legitimate concerns raised by citizens as acceptable conduct and aligned with “the principles of transparent and accountable government”. Unfortunately, the Complaint Process, as outlined in Council Code of Conduct Bylaw, can only be initiated by the council members themselves. This self-regulation is unacceptable. There should be the ability of citizens to initiate a complaint as requested in a presentation that I made to Town council on March 20th. There was an expectation after that presentation that the Administration would come forward with an amendment to Cochrane’s Council Code of Conduct Bylaw to allow the public to lodge a complaint, but, thus far, only crickets.
Post Script
After her signature in her first reply on May 16th to my email query, there followed this unusual rider:
“This message and any attached documents are only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, retransmission, or other disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and then delete the original message. Thank you.”
Seriously, she wasn’t expecting that I was obliged to keep an answer that she made to my query as confidential? I wonder if she was guided by our Town Administration to include such a censorial statement.