ABSTRACT
After having advised Council and the Administration that the procedure followed for adopting the new Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 on June 24, 2024 was flawed, in that there was no motion for second reading of the bylaw, which is required for debate to proceed, thereby drawing into question the very validity of the bylaw’s approval, I was surprised that the minutes put forward by the Administration for that meeting were equally flawed in that they indicated that a motion had been made for second reading of the bylaw, which was not the case as the video for that meeting bore out.
When I pressed Mr. Brett Hawken, Manager, Legislative Services, presumably the author of the minutes about this flaw, astonishingly he came back advising me that such a motion for second reading had indeed been made. Citing aspects of the video proceedings from the meeting I subsequently demonstrated to Mr. Hawken that it was an indisputable fact that no member of Council made a motion for second reading, which, according to the Procedural Bylaw, is a requirement before proceeding with debate and the proposal and consideration of amendments. I concluded my communication with Mr. Hawken saying, “I don’t appreciate being gaslit, but that appears to be the fallback position of this Administration, instead of acknowledging what is plain to see”, as I had experienced the same from the Administration with respect to my calling out their failure to ensure aspects of the previous Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 had been properly followed by the Council.
My first experience of being gaslit by the Town began in January 2023, when I drew attention to Mayor Genung failing to comply with section 4.2(c) of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 and he subsequently informing me that I wasn’t reading that clause properly although it was abundantly clear. I subsequently came to understand that such a bogus argument to excuse his behaviour had likely been generated for him by the Administration.
FULL BLOG
On June 25, 2024 I sent an email, “Flawed Process for Adoption of Procedural Bylaw 17:2024“, to the Town Council with a copy to Ms. Jaylene Knight, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, and Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, advising Council that the procedure followed for adopting the procedural bylaw was flawed, in that there was no motion for second reading of the bylaw, which is required for debate to proceed, thereby drawing into question the very validity of the bylaw’s approval. Typical, no one cared to respond to my concern.
On reviewing the draft minutes for the June 24, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, prepared by Mr. Brett Hawken, Manager, Legislative Services, to be approved at the July 8, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, the afternoon of that meeting, I sent an email, “Flawed Minutes Arising from Flawed Adoption of Procedural Bylaw 17:2024 on June 24, 2024“, to the Town Council, Jaylene Knight and Stacey Loe, as well as a copy to Mr. Hawken, advising them that “in addition to a flawed process being followed, we have flawed minutes as there was no passage of a motion for second reading. The minutes are expected to be an accurate reflection of what actually takes place at a meeting and not a post hoc invention of what did not occur”.
Given that the Council adopted the minutes as is, the next day, July 9, 2024, I sent an email, “Flawed Minutes Arising from Flawed Adoption of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 on June 24, 2024”, to Mr. Hawken with a copy to Town Council, saying, “What do you call someone who presents a falsehood? There was NO motion made for second reading. True or false? Disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, that the Council members endorsed such behaviour by adopting your minutes as is”.
I was astonished by what I received back from Mr. Hawken on July 10, 2024, with him saying, “Thank you for voicing your concern. I have rewatched the video and have confirmed there was a 2nd reading motion at 22:30 of the video. They voted on that 2nd reading at 25:40, which was defeated. A new 2nd reading was put on the floor at 25:51 and that was approved. 3rd reading was then done at 26:23 and that was approved”.
On July 16, I wrote the following in an email, “Flawed Process for Adoption of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 on June 24, 2024”, in response to Mr. Hawken:
Dear Mr. Hawken,
I take issue with your dubious claim that on rewatching the video, you have “confirmed that there was a 2nd reading motion at 22:30 of the video. They voted on that 2nd reading at 25:40, which was defeated. A new 2nd reading was put on the floor at 25:51 and that was approved”, which resulted in your inaccurately representing what occurred as follows in the minutes for the meeting:
————–
RES # 145/06/24 Moved by Councillor McFadden that Council amend Bylaw 17/2024 removing Section 6.4 (a) and (b) and adding “unless specified in the Council approved Terms of Reference.” to the end of Section 28(a) and give Bylaw 17/2024 2nd Reading as amended.
Opposed:
Mayor Genung
Councillor Flowers
Councillor Reed
Councillor Wilson
Defeated
RES # 146/06/24 Moved by Councillor McFadden that council amend Bylaw 17/2024 by adding “unless specified in the Council approved Terms of Reference.” to the end of Section 28(a) and give Bylaw 17/2024 2nd Reading as amended
Carried Unanimously
————–
These are the facts as to what transpired at that meeting as are clearly evident from the video of the proceedings.
After completing her introduction of the bylaw, Ms. Knight said, “I’m happy to answer any questions” at 19:14 minutes. At that point Mayor Genung permitted debate and discussion to proceed without seeking a motion for second reading. That is an indisputable fact.
I would direct your attention to Section 11.3(g,h) of the previous procedural bylaw in effect at that time, namely:
(g) A Bylaw shall be introduced for second reading by a motion that it be read a second time.
(h) After a Member has made a motion for second reading of a Bylaw, Council may (i) debate the substance of the Bylaw; and (ii) propose and consider amendments to the Bylaw”.)
The very same language is found in section 12.3 (Voting on Bylaws) of the new Procedural Bylaw 17/2024. Note in particular the word “after”, which I presume you understand, that is, debate and the proposal and consideration of amendments are to be preceded by a member making a motion for second reading. That did not occur. That is an indisputable fact.
At 22:30 minutes, the video for that meeting records that Councillor McFadden said, “I would that we adopt the new procedural bylaw with the amendments of removing the mayor’s ability to cancel Council meetings and amending the sentence to state unless specified in the Council appointed terms of reference.” Your RES #145/06/24 is a paraphrase of what Councillor McFadden said. However, she did not say “and give Bylaw 17/2024 2nd Reading as amended”. That wording was added by you post hoc. Therefore, your flawed minutes do not accurately record what took place, which is what one expects of minutes.
Again, according to Section 11.3(h) of the previous procedural bylaw in effect at that time, amendments are to take place “After a Member has made a motion for second reading of a Bylaw”. No such motion for second reading was made, and the video confirms that fact.
Again, with respect to “A new 2nd reading was put on the floor at 25:51 and that was approved”, at 25:51 minutes, the video records Councillor McFadden as saying, “Round two. I’ll move the procedural bylaw with one amendment and that is to amend item 28a so that the sentence ends with unless specified in the council approved to terms of reference.” Again, there was nothing in her motion saying that she was giving “Bylaw 17/2024 2nd Reading”, and the video confirms that indisputable fact. That portion was added by you post hoc in RES #146/06/24.
Disappointing that you are not willing to acknowledge the facts. I don’t appreciate being gaslit, but that appears to be the fallback position of this Administration, instead of acknowledging what is plain to see.
Sincerely,
Ron Voss
Cochrane
I had experienced such disingenuousness by Mr. Hawken before, such as the evasive answer to a question raised at a June 10, 2024 Regular Council Meeting when Councillor Reed brought forward a notice of motion. When the notice of motion came up in the agenda, as was his usual practice, a practice at odds with the process described in the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, Mayor Genung proceeded to allow discussion on the presented notice of motion. When Councillor Fedeyko voiced objections, Mayor Genung appealed to Administration for confirmation of his viewpoint that “we’re following our procedural bylaw”. Mr. Brett Hawken, Manager, Legislative Services, instead of answering the question if the existing procedural bylaw was followed, deceitfully dodged giving a direct answer to that question saying, “We are following our procedure based on what’s been set in precedent the last year and a half or so for how we’ve handled all of the notice emotions”, instead of pointing out and, as was done subsequently by the CAO Mike Derricott, that the mayor’s actions were not in accord with the process clearly described in section 7.2 of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019.
Again at the Regular Council Meeting on April 22, 2024, when some questions arose with respect to the mayor for the first time bringing forward a notice of motion, Mr. Hawken declared “you are allowed to debate a motion that is on the floor for a notice of motion because it follows the procedural process that comes forward tonight”, thereby making up rules on the fly because that procedural process, including the abilty of the mayor to bring forward a notice of motion, as described in the draft Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, did not come forward that night.
My first experience of being gaslit by the Town began in January 2023, when I drew attention to Mayor Genung failing to comply with section 4.2(c) of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 and he subsequently informing me that I wasn’t reading that clause properly although it was abundantly clear. I subsequently came to understand that such an argument to excuse his behaviour had likely been generated for him by the Administration.