ABSTRACT

A recent Dog With a Bone blog post, Procedural Mess at Town Council Meeting, demonstrated that Cochrane’s Town Council did not properly follow its own Procedural Bylaw, in that a notice of motion per se is not subject to debate and vote, in addressing Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion calling for a public vote on whether each town councillor remained confident in the leadership of the town’s Chief Administrative Office (CAO) Mike Derricott. As a result, a complaint has been lodged with Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, with a copy to Town Council. Offered in that complaint as a remedy to what has transpired is that Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion should stand as having been properly presented, whereas, the other aspects of the proceedings, namely, the debate and vote on the Notice of Motion, should be deemed as Out of Order, and thereby considered null and void.

The question remains as to how the Town Council will respond. According to subsection 7.3 of the town’s Code of Conduct, “A Member (mayor or councillor) must not encourage disobedience of any bylaw, policy or procedure of the Municipality in responding to a member of the public, as this undermines public confidence in the Municipality and in the rule of law”. The minutes for the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, up for approval at an upcoming Regular Council Meeting on October 23, 2023, will likely contain an entry that Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion was debated and defeated through a 6-0 vote by council (with Councillor Fedeyko being absent, having left the meeting in disgust). Will the council members stand behind a flimsy excuse generated by Ms. Knight that the bylaw is unclear, as discussed in detail in a recent Dog With A Bone blog post, “Review of the Spin at the Town’s ‘Procedural Bylaw Review and Update’“, when it comes to adoption of the September 25, 2023 meeting minutes, thereby reaffirming the violation of the bylaw taking place? Or, in accord with my complaint, will they object to the adoption of the minutes as presented and, thereby, seize the opportunity to change course on this matter and restore some “public confidence in the Municipality and in the rule of law”.

FULL BLOG

A recent blog post, Procedural Mess at Town Council Meeting, demonstrated that Cochrane’s Town Council did not properly follow its own Procedural Bylaw in addressing Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion calling for a public vote on whether each town councillor remained confident in the leadership of the town’s Chief Administrative Office (CAO) Mike Derricott.

As a result, a complaint has been lodged with Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services. On October 1, 2023, the following email, “Complaint Re Proper Procedures Not Followed”, was sent to Ms. Knight with copies to the Town Council and to her supervisor, Mr. Paul Schulz, Interim Executive Director, Corporate Services (since advised that he has left the organization):

********************************************************

Dear Ms. Knight,

In a Dog With A Bone blog post, Procedural Mess at Town Council Meeting, I have made the case, grounded upon what is prescribed in the town’s Procedural Bylaw, that the proper procedure was not followed in addressing Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion at the Regular Council Meeting held on September 25, 2023. Specifically, a Notice of Motion is not subject to debate and vote. It could have been brought to the floor for debate and vote had there been a two-thirds vote by Council to support such, as per 7.2(a)(ii) of the Procedural Bylaw. However, no such two-thirds vote took place.

Accordingly, Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion stands as having been properly presented in a formal way at the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting. However, the other aspects of the proceedings, namely, the debate and vote on the Notice of Motion, should be deemed as Out of Order, and thereby considered null and void.

Sincerely,

Ron Voss

P.S. According to 4.2(a) of the Procedural Bylaw relating to the role of the Presiding Officer (“The Presiding Officer shall preside over the conduct of the meeting, including the preservation of good order and decorum, ruling on Points of Privilege, Points of Procedure and deciding all questions relating to the orderly procedure of the meeting, subject to an appeal by any Members from any ruling of the Chair”, the Presiding Officer is responsible for maintaining good order and ensuring that the proper procedures are followed. If anybody should, the Presiding Officer of the meeting, namely, the mayor, should be very well versed as to the procedures to follow in conducting town business.

*********************************************************

On October 10, 2023,10 days later, I finally received a reply from Ms. Knight,  a rather terse, non-committal response, “I have received your email, but will not be providing any further comment.” If I am supposedly suffering from “confusion” on these matters as she has claimed, disappointingly, no effort to set me straight.

Noel Edey with Cochrane Now has written an article, “Complaint lodged over handling of notice of motion“, about my complaint to the Town. He also reported on a Committee of the Whole meeting on October 3, 2023, where Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, in effort to sweep the misconduct by the town, and here by “town”, I mean both our elected officials, mayor and council, as well as the town’s administration, under the rug by raising the excuse that there is a supposed lack of clarity in some segments of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 which Town Council unanimously adopted in 2019. My recent blog post, “Review of the Spin at the Town’s ‘Procedural Bylaw Review and Update’“, discussed in detail the effort by Ms. Knight, with her narrative of a purported lack of clarity, to paper-over the failure by the town to comply with the clear reading of the town’s Procedural Bylaw. The problem is not a lack of clarity in how the bylaw is written. Rather, the problem is the Council not being attentive to the bylaw they adopted and, thereby, failing to comply with their bylaw. If they cannot understand what the bylaw clearly says, then we have a bigger problem of poor discernment on the part of our current Council, which augers poorly on how they in general manage our town’s affairs.

Turns out that the issue of sloppiness around the town’s Procedural Bylaw and a failure to uphold that bylaw is not an isolated incident, but broader than what occurred at the September 25, 2023 meeting addressing Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion. Consider what transpired, for example, with respect to attempted notices of motion at the Regular Council meeting held on September 11, 2023.

When Councillor Fedeyko tried to bring her notice of motion forward related to a vote of confidence with respect to the leadership direction under the CAO Mike Derricott, quite correctly, the mayor as presider for that meeting, disallowed it, pointing out that it failed to meet the deadline, as prescribed under 7.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw, namely, “To be placed on the meeting agenda, the Notice of Motion and any supporting documents must be submitted in the form of a Council Report to the Manager, Legislative Services by 4:00 pm on the seventh complete day preceding the meeting”.

When Councillor Nagel earlier brought forward a notice of motion, it likewise should have been ruled out of order by the mayor as Councillor Nagel had failed to meet the deadline for submitting a notice of motion as per 7.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw to have it placed on the agenda. However, the mayor as presider inappropriately allowed it to proceed because of a two-thirds vote by Council. In addition, Councillor Nagel’s notice of motion should not have been allowed according to section 5.6 of the Procedural Bylaw. According to section 5.6 of the Procedural Bylaw, “only material which has been received in accordance with Subsection 5.5 of this Bylaw shall be considered at the meeting for which the Agenda is prepared”, where  subsection 5.5 of the bylaw requires “All submissions for the Agenda of all Public Hearings and Regular Meetings shall be received by the Legislative Services Manager no later than 4:00pm on the seventh complete day before the day on which the meeting is held”. That was not the case for either of those attempts to bring forward a notice of motion on that day.

There being no entries for Notices of Motion under agenda item 8 in the agenda that was sent out for that meeting, the proper response by the mayor as presiding officer for that meeting should have been to move on and not entertain any attempt to bring notices of motion forward by declaring such attempts as out of order. According to sub-section 4.2(a) of the Procedural Bylaw, if anyone, the presiding officer, who is responsible for maintaining order and ensuring proper procedures are followed, should be very well versed as to the procedures to follow in conducting town business. Unfortunately, he received no assistance from the Administration to ensure that it was so. 

To recap, only notices of motion properly submitted (as per sub-section 7.2 (c)) and appearing on the Agenda under Notices of Motion can be considered (as per sub-section 5.6) at the meeting for which the Agenda is prepared. So, technically, Mr. Nagel’s ‘notice of motion’ was illegal, failing sub-sections 7.2 (c) and 5.6 of the Procedural Bylaw), and, thus, the debate and vote on it as a motion should be declared null and void.

A two-thirds vote, permitting a notice of motion to be put on the floor on that day as a motion for debate and vote, is only relevant for notices of motion properly submitted as per 7.2(c) of the bylaw and therefore appearing on the agenda and allowed to be considered (section 5.6 of Procedural Bylaw). Noteworthy, that no two-thirds vote occurred for Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion presented at the Regular Council meeting on September 25, 2023. At one point at the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, Councillor McFadden correctly pointed out (at 9:22 minutes), “I was also expecting that if we wanted to hear it tonight, we would have to do the two thirds vote tonight”. However, neither the mayor, who seemed intent on delivering his 10-minute diatribe, nor any of the other councillors picked up on that correct interpretation of the Procedural Bylaw with respect to Notices of Motion as per section 7.2 of the Procedural Bylaw. Nor was there any intervention by the Administrative staff present at that meeting.

So, we have a situation where at the September 11, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, we had an illegal ‘notice of motion’ brought to the floor as a motion for debate and vote by a two-thirds majority vote of council, whereas, at the September 25, 2023 Regular Council meeting, we had a legal notice of motion not brought to the floor as a motion for debate and vote through a two-thirds vote by council.

According to 4.3(a)(ii) of the town’s Procedural Bylaw related to Conduct, “Members shall not: disobey the rules of the meeting”. According to clause 19.1 of a section of the town’s Code of Conduct dealing with “Compliance and Enforcement”, “Members shall uphold the letter and the spirit and intent of this Bylaw”, and, as per 19.2, “are expected to co-operate in every way possible in securing compliance with the application and enforcement of this Bylaw”.

Finally, according to subsection 7.3 of the Code of Conduct, “A Member (mayor or councillor) must not encourage disobedience of any bylaw, policy or procedure of the Municipality in responding to a member of the public, as this undermines public confidence in the Municipality and in the rule of law”. That raises a question as to what will they do with respect to the minutes for the September 25, 2023 Regular Council meeting when they come forward for adoption at the next Regular Council Meeting on October 23, 2023? In my complaint lodged with Ms. Knight, who I expect will be putting together the draft minutes for that meeting, I have put forward that Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion stands as having been properly presented and that the other aspects of the proceedings, namely, the debate and vote on the Notice of Motion, should be deemed as Out of Order, and thereby considered null and void. Will the minutes reflect that? If not, will the council members choose to stand behind a flimsy excuse that the bylaw is unclear and adopt the minutes, thereby reaffirming the violation of the bylaw taking place? Or, in accord with my complaint, will they raise an objection to the minutes. This choice will represent an opportunity for the council to change course on this matter and restore some “public confidence in the Municipality and in the rule of law”.

SUPPLEMENTAL
Commentary on Cochrane Now’s article, “Amendments coming for council’s procedural bylaw”

In addition to his article, “Complaint lodged over handling of notice of motion“, Noel Edey with Cochrane Now published a second article exclusively focusing on “Amendments coming for council’s procedural bylaw”, related to the review of the current Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 at council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on October 3, 2023.

A DWAB blog post, “Review of the Spin at the Town’s “Procedural Bylaw Review and Update” has already discussed the efforts of Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, to sweep the misconduct by the town, and here by “town”, I mean both our elected officials, mayor and council, as well as the town’s administration, under the rug by hatching the excuse that there is a supposed lack of clarity in some segments of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, which Town Council unanimously adopted without any dissent in 2019. It is evident that what is at play is not only a coverup of Council’s actions, but Administration’s as well.

Here, Dog With A Bone will provide a commentary on Cochrane Now’s article, “Amendments coming for council’s procedural bylaw

Disappointed by Noel Edey’s statement (in his words here, not Council’s) that “Council heard how a presentation by a delegation of residents in the spring made it clear the procedural bylaw was creating confusion for residents”. It’s enough that I have to receive such condescending comments by the likes of Ms. Knight and Councillor Reed, disappointingly buying into and promoting Ms. Knight’s hatched narrative of a purported lack of clarity to sweep their violations of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 (which Ms. Knight authored) under the rug!

Mayor Genung’s attitude towards the Procedural Bylaw was evident in the words he used to invite the presentation by Ms. Jaylene Knight of the “Procedural bylaw which we all fall under. All meaning us, Council or supposed to anyway.”

With respect to the spurious claim that the procedural bylaw was “creating confusion for residents”, let me be perfectly clear. I, as a resident and presenter as part of that delegation, am not in any way suffering from “confusion”. The wording as to sub-section 4.2(c) [“When the Presiding Officer wishes to participate in the debate on a question or motion properly before the Meeting, the Presiding Officer shall vacate the Chair and request the Deputy Mayor to assume the Chair”] of the Procedural Bylaw, which the mayor has violated and continues to violate, and which I drew attention to (and nothing else in the Procedural Bylaw) in my delegation, is perfectly clear and should be so for anyone with a reasonable understanding of the English language!

One can already anticipate how Ms. Knight will ‘amend’ the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 with respect to sub-section 4.2(c). One expects that she will simply expunge it (“removal of processes that no longer fit our organization “), and then, magically, it will clear the mayor from any violation of the bylaw. She will offer the questionable argument for doing so that the current wording “contravenes the direction within the MGA which is our guiding document”. Remember that she was the author of this document in 2019 and somehow, she wasn’t ‘guided’ by the MGA (Municipal Governance Act) then? Although she claims that the MGA speaks “very clearly” as to the role of the presiding officer, it didn’t speak to her “very clearly” in 2019 when she drafted the current Procedural Bylaw 19/2019?

The section of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 on Notices of Motion is perfectly clear as well. What is clear is the sloppy attitude of both Council and Administration with respect to upholding the town’s Procedural Bylaw and the town’s Code of Conduct Bylaw. This is as much about Ms. Knight, who wrote the bylaw, which was unanimously adopted by this council in quick order in 2019 without amendment or dissent, trying to save herself from embarrassment.

With respect to Councillor Fedeyko’s suggestion that “every single one of us sitting around this table call it out”, disappointingly, they didn’t do so when I asked every one of them, including Councillor Fedeyko, to lodge a complaint with respect to the mayor’s violation of sub-section 4.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw.

With respect to, “While serving on a council elsewhere, Reed said it was cumbersome to have the mayor step back from the chair to enter a debate”, that reveals that Councillor Reed recognizes and understands what sub-section 4.2(c) of the current Procedural Bylaw clearly says. The point is that Council is obliged to follow the currently adopted Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, not some amended bylaw coming in the future. According to 4.3(a)(ii) of the town’s Procedural Bylaw related to Conduct, “Members shall not disobey the rules of the meeting”. Obeying the rules of the meeting is not a suggestion and disobeying the rules of the meeting is not an option.

UPDATE – October 23, 2023

The following email, “Time to Do What is Right!”, was sent to Cochrane’s Town Council:

Dear members of Town Council,

At the October 3, 2023 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, spun a narrative that sections of the Town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 may not be properly understood because of a purported lack of clarity in those sections. I contend that she did so in an effort to absolve the Town Council from failing to comply with those sections, and, as well, to absolve the Administration, in particular, herself, of failing to advise Council of their impropriety.

As you are aware, I have drawn attention to the fact that that Mayor Genung has been acting in violation of sub-section 4.2 (c) of the town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019. Sub-section 4.2 (c) of the town’s Procedural Bylaw dealing with the function and responsibility of the Presiding Officer is reproduced below:
When the Presiding Officer wishes to participate in the debate on a question or motion properly before the Meeting, the Presiding Officer shall vacate the Chair and request the Deputy Mayor to assume the Chair”.

Ms. Knight has claimed that “during a presentation by a delegation earlier this year it became clear that the Town of Cochrane’s Procedural Bylaw was creating confusion for residents and upon further review included sections that created challenges for Council and Administration as well”. During my presentation as a delegation to Council on March 20, 2023 alluded to by Ms. Knight, I should point out that, at that time, I raised only one issue, namely, the mayor not following sub-section 4.2 (c) of the bylaw, and despite Ms. Knight’s patronizing comment that that section of the bylaw “was creating confusion”, I can assure you that I am not in any way suffering from “confusion” on this matter. Sub-section 4.2 (c) is perfectly clear and should be so for anyone with a reasonable understanding of the English language!

Now, I ask you each one of you, do you in all honesty have trouble understanding the meaning of this requirement, as per sub-section 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw, because of a lack of clarity?

Next, reproduced below is the content of the section, 7.2, related to Notices of Motion in your Procedural Bylaw:

7.2 Notices of Motion
(a) A Member may make a motion introducing any new matter only if:
(i) Notice is given at a previous regular Council meeting and a legible copy of the content of the notice is made available to the Manager, Legislative Services; or
(ii) Council on a two-thirds (2/3) vote waives the requirement for Notice.
(b)  A Notice of Motion must give sufficient detail so that the subject of the motion and any proposed action can be determined, and it must state the date of the meeting at which the motion will be made. A notice must be given without discussion of the matter, but any written copies distributed may include explanatory paragraphs.
(c)  To be placed on the meeting agenda, the Notice of Motion and any supporting documents must be submitted in the form of a Council Report to the Manager, Legislative Services by 4:00 pm on the seventh complete day preceding the meeting.
(d) If a motion is not made at the meeting indicated in the notice, it will appear on the agenda for, and may be made at any of, the next two Regular Meetings; thereafter, it will be removed from the agenda and may only be made by a new Notice of Motion.

A notice of motion is simply that a “notice”, a notice of a motion to be made at some point in the future, a courteous forewarning to the rest of Council to let them know of an event that will happen in the future.  It is clear from the section, 7.2, of the town’s Procedural Bylaw relating to Notices of Motion that a Notice of Motion per se is not subject to debate and vote!
For example, apart from the reference to “A notice must be given without discussion of the matter” in sub-section 7.2(b), according to sub-section 7.2(a)(i), “A Member may make a motion introducing any new matter only if notice is given at a previous regular Council meeting and a legible copy of the content of the notice is made available to the Manager, Legislative Services”. Note, in particular that, “A Member may make a motion introducing any new matter only if notice is given at a previous regular Council meeting”, that is, the motion is made at a Regular Council meeting after the Notice of Motion was given at a previous Regular Council meeting. The example of section 32(4) of the City of Edmonton’s Procedural Bylaw, couldn’t make it any clearer, “The giving of notice of motion is not debatable”.

Again, I ask you each one of you, do you in all honesty have trouble understanding the meaning of this requirement with respect to a Notice of Motion because of a lack of clarity?

I will remind you of sub-section 7.3 from section 7. Adherence to Policies, Procedures and Bylaws of your Code of Conduct, which states that “A Member (a Councillor) must not encourage disobedience of any bylaw, policy or procedure of the Municipality in responding to a member of the public, as this undermines public confidence in the Municipality and in the rule of law”, and, as well, according to clause 19.2 of a section of your Code of Conduct dealing with “Compliance and Enforcement”, “Members are expected to co-operate in every way possible in securing compliance with the application and enforcement of this Bylaw”.

In light of the above, please consider the minutes from the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting submitted to you for adoption which indicates in RES # 171/09/23 that it was “Moved by Councillor Fedeyko that Council hold a public vote on whether each Council member remains confident in the leadership direction under Mr. Derricott” and that such a resolution was defeated by the remaining six members of Council after Councillor Fedeyko had left the meeting.

Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion could have been brought to the floor for debate and vote on September 25, IF there had there been a two-thirds vote by Council to support such, as per 7.2(a)(ii) of the Procedural Bylaw. However, no such two-thirds vote took place. Accordingly, as per my October 1, 2023 email, “Complaint Re Proper Procedures Not Followed”, sent to Ms. Knight with a copy to you, “Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion stands as having been properly presented in a formal way at the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting. However, the other aspects of the proceedings, namely, the debate and vote on the Notice of Motion, should be deemed as Out of Order, and thereby considered null and void. Accordingly, the minutes cannot be adopted as such without reinforcing the violation of the Procedural Bylaw that took place. Therefore, the September 25, 2023 minutes should be amended to simply state that “Councillor Fedeyko presented a Notice of Motion that Council hold a public vote on whether each Council member remains confident in the leadership direction under Mr. Derricott.”

Now is a time for Council to turn over a new leaf, chart a new course of committing to abide in complying with all the requirements contained in the town’s Procedural Bylaw as well as in the town’s Code of Conduct. Instead of relying upon the bogus excuse created by Ms. Knight, I trust that you will act in accordance with subsections 7.3 and 19.2 of your Code of Conduct, as above, on this matter. As Councillor Fedeyko suggested at the October 3, 2023 Committee of the Whole Meeting, if Council is not following the Procedural Bylaw that you had put in place, that “every single one of us sitting around this table call it out, because it is not appropriate if you choose to say nothing.”

Sincerely,

Ron Voss

UPDATE, October 31, 2023

Not receiving cooperation from the Town Council nor the Administration in addressing this matter, On October 9, 2023 I wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ric McIver, Requesting an Investigation be undertaken with respect to those violations of aspects of the town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019.

I received a Response from the Minister three weeks later on October 30, 2023. Disappointingly, despite the Minister having discretionary powers to intervene as per 571(1)(a) of the Municipal Government Act, he claimed that the Act does not enable him, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, “to investigate matters related to the…enforcement of municipal bylaws, except in specific situations”. As well, he laughably suggested that I should press the town administration and council to amend the bylaws so that they are not out of compliance or ask that they be “more strongly enforced”. The latter suggests that the Minister is okay with there being some laxness in the enforcement of the bylaws. Equally laughable, a suggestion to initiate a petition to recall the municipal councillors which would require the petition to be signed by eligible voters representing at least 40 per cent of the population of the municipality, which in Cochrane’s case would be about 14,440 signatures!

I replied to the Minister in two emails, one Reply to the Minister on October 30, 2023 and the other Reply to the Minister October 31 2023. In the first, I expressed disappointment that a town council can act in violation of the Municipal Government Act, specifically, section 153(e.1), and he, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, is unwilling or supposedly unable to do anything about it. In the second, while noting that section 571(1)(a) the Municipal Government Act specifies that the Minister has discretionary powers to intervene with respect to  “any matter connected with the management, administration or operation of any municipality”, I requested that he identify the specific section of the Municipal Government Act which supposedly prohibits him from investigating matters related to the enforcement of municipal bylaws.

UPDATE, November 14, 2023

At the October 3, 2023 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, spun a narrative that “during a presentation by a delegation earlier this year it became clear that the Town of Cochrane’s Procedural Bylaw was creating confusion for residents”, essentially saying that  I as a resident was suffering from confusion when I drew attention to the violation of Section 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw during my presentation as a delegation to Council on March 20, 2023. I reject her bogus contention that I was  suffering from “confusion” on this matter. Section 4.2 (c) is perfectly clear and should be so for anyone with a reasonable understanding of the English language!

The agenda for a Special Council meeting on November 14, 2023 held to discuss the 2024-2026 Draft Budget reveals that the Administration is not confused as to the clear meaning Section 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw. I advised Town council of this in an email, “Temporary Suspension of Section 4.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019”:

I would like to draw your attention to the agenda for this evening’s Special Council meeting to discuss the 2024-2026 Draft Budget which calls for a recommended action “That Council temporarily suspends Section 4.2(c) and 10 of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019”. 

According to Section 4.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw, “When the Presiding Officer wishes to participate in the debate on a question or motion properly before the Meeting, the Presiding Officer shall vacate the Chair and request the Deputy Mayor to assume the Chair”. 

Presumably that suspension of Section 4.2(c), as well as, section 10 of the Procedural Bylaw is intended to allow a more free-reining discussion of the draft budget. 

Noteworthy that the Administration does not suffer from ‘confusion’ as to the clear meaning of Section 4.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw as it applies to the conduct of the Presiding Officer when it comes to this budget meeting, but is seemingly oblivious to its expected application for all other Council meetings where there has been no such suspension of the rules. 

UPDATE, November 22, 2023

Received a Reply from Minister to my two emails sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the end of October (see UPDATE above). Not unexpectedly, the Minister was not able to show me from the Municipal Governance Act that he was unable to take any action on this matter. Instead, he directed me to use the petition process requiring signatures from electors making up 20 per cent of the municipality’s population (about 7,000 signatures in Cochrane’s case) or engage a lawyer and possibly go to the courts to ensure compliance with legislation. He thereby clarified that there was nothing in the Municipal Governance Act which prohibited him from acting on this matter. I wrote the following short note back to him:

Dear Minister McIver,

Not to prolong matters, but I had asked you to point out the chapter and verse of the Municipal Government Act which you claimed constrained you from intervening in this matter. Nothing of the sort was provided. 

While I have brought to your attention that Cochrane’s Town Council was violating aspects of their Procedural Bylaw and Code of Conduct Bylaw, in response, among other things, you had suggested that I should ask the town administration and council to ensure that the town bylaws be “more strongly enforced”, disappointingly suggesting that you, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, are okay with there being some laxness in the enforcement of the town’s bylaws.

Thanks for clarifying that there is nothing in the Municipal Governance Act which would have prohibited you from acting on this matter. Thereby, disappointingly, in essence, presumably because you do not consider it to be a serious enough matter, you are okay with Cochrane’s Town Council violating aspects of their bylaws. As a minimum, one had hoped that you would have written to Cochrane’s Mayor and Town Council reminding them of their obligation to comply with their bylaws.

Sincerely,

Ron Voss
Cochrane, Alberta

cc:    Honourable Pete Guthrie, MLA, Airdrie-Cochrane

UPDATE, November 28, 2023

It was encouraging that when it came to the adoption of the minutes from the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting at the November 27, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, that Councillor Fedeyko, as I had recommended in my October 23, 2023 email, “Time to Do What is Right!” (see UPDATE above), requested that the minutes be amended to exclude reference to her Notice of Motion as having been debated and voted on. Councillor Fedeyko pointed out that she had “never asked that her notice of motion be placed on the floor” and that proper procedure to place the motion on the floor for debate and vote through two thirds vote was not followed. The Mayor responded that adoption of the minutes be withheld until clarified by the Administration. A bit perplexing as to why the amendment couldn’t be dealt with by Council at that time and instead Administration is asked to weigh in on the matter. It will be very interesting to hear what the Administration will have to say on the matter, presumably at the next Regular Council Meeting on December 11, 2023. Will Administration, for example, claim that the wording of Section 7.2 of the Procedural Bylaw dealing with Notices of Motion is unclear?
While Councillor Fedeyko in asking for an amendment to the September 25, 2023 minutes correctly used the argument that her notice of motion was not properly brought to the floor for debate and vote through a two-thirds vote by Council, perplexedly, she then said nothing when the same thing happened when Councillor McFadden’s notice of motion came up later on the same day!

With the introduction of a Notice of Motion in the provincial legislature on November 27, 2023 to challenge Ottawa’s requirements to have a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 (see page 356 of the Hansard for the day), I used this as an example to instruct Council on the proper understanding and application of the concept of a Notice of Motion, especially as the notice of motion by Councillor McFadden at  November 27, 2023 meeting of council proceeded to a vote without a two-thirds vote by council bringing her motion to the floor. Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services and the Honourable Peter Guthrie, Airdrie-Cochrane MLA were copied the email which was sent to the Council demonstrating how the Alberta Legislature correctly, unlike Cochrane’s Town Council, approaches notices of motion.

 

UPDATE, December 8, 2023

As described above (UPDATE, November 28, 2023), when it came to the adoption of the minutes from the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting at the November 27, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, Councillor Fedeyko requested that the minutes be amended to exclude reference to her Notice of Motion as having been debated and voted on. Councillor Fedeyko pointed out that she had “never asked that her notice of motion be placed on the floor” and that proper procedure to place the motion on the floor for debate and vote through two thirds vote was not followed. The Mayor responded that adoption of the minutes be withheld until clarification was received from Administration. The opinion of Administration was contained in the Town of Cochrane Council Report with respect to the September 25, 2023 Council Meeting Minutes prepared by Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, for the December 11, 2023 meeting, wherein she made the bogus claim that “Councillor Fedeyko provided the Notice at the September 11, 2023 Council meeting”. I wrote an email, “Procedural Irregularities” to Town Council, with a copy to Ms. Loe, wherein I debunked her bogus argument and asked Council to ignore her recommended option (Option 1), “That Council adopt the minutes of the September 25, 2023, Regular Council meeting as presented”, and, instead, adopt Option 2, namely, “That Council adopt the minutes of the September 25, 2023, Regular Council meeting with amendments”.

Annoying that Administration tried to put a spin on matters to try to cover up for Council’s continuing failure to comply with their Procedural Bylaw when it comes to Notices of Motion. As I wrote in that email, “It is highly disappointing that Council continues to violate aspects of their Procedural Bylaw, specifically 4.2(c) (Presiding Officer) and section 7.2 (Notices of Motion) and the Code of Conduct, and, especially disappointing, that Administration instead of correcting such behaviour reinforces such behavior”. However, one thing about the argument put forward by Loe, recognizing that a Notice of Motion should be given at a ”previous” council meeting before it is put on the floor for debate and vote (unless there is a two thirds vote to waive that requirement), it will be very interesting to see what will transpire with respect to Fedekyo’s Notice of Motion related to whistle blowers appearing on the agenda that very same evening of December 11, 2023 under agenda item 8a.