ABSTRACT
Two previous blogs, here and here, have addressed how the town’s Administration with its revised draft Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 was using it to whitewash its failure to ensure that the Town Council complied with aspects of its existing Procedural bylaw 19/2019. As well, as pointed out in a blog post, there has been “Total Chaos and Inconsistency in the Town’s (Mis)Handling of Notices of Motion”.
Starting on April 4, 2024 an email, seeking clarity, was sent to Ms. Jaylene Knight, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, with a copy to Town Council, asking Ms. Knight, the author of the revised draft Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, a variety of questions with respect to her rewrite of the section on “notices of motion”. The response from Ms. Knight, received on April 29, 2024, was disappointing in that it only added to the confusion with respect to her revised version of a ‘notice of motion’. In my reply, I pointed out that what she was doing with her rewrite of the procedural bylaw was to codify “the procedures which did not comply with aspects of the existing procedural bylaw”. I concluded by observing that in order to to avoid acknowledging Administration’s failure in ensuring that the notices of motion process was properly applied, as clearly written in the existing Procedural Bylaw19/2019, that section related to notices of motion was radically reworked such that it no longer resembles what constitutes a notice of motion and introduces a lot of confusion., thereby, creating a mess.
Having spoken to Councillor Wilson and Mayor Genung at the recent Trade Show in Cochrane, if their perspective is any indication, there is little hope that the council will do the right thing.
FULL BLOG
Two previous blogs, here and here, have addressed how the town’s Administration with its revised draft Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 was using it to whitewash its failure to ensure that the Town Council complied with aspects of its existing Procedural bylaw 19/2019. As well, as pointed out in a blog post, there has been “Total Chaos and Inconsistency in the Town’s (Mis)Handling of Notices of Motion”. The inconsistency and chaos continues as pointed out in a May 3, 2024 email, Administration’s Ongoing Misrepresentation of Notices of Motion, to Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, regarding her understanding of Councillor Fedeyko’s motion related to a Whistleblower Program and Policy.
On April 4, 2024 an email, “Seeking Clarity” was sent to Ms. Jaylene Knight, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, with a copy to Town Council, asking Ms. Knight, the author of the revised draft Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, a variety of questions with respect to her rewrite of the section on “notices of motion”. A reminder was sent out on April 24, 2024, again seeking clarity. I also shared a response that I had received from our MLA Peter Guthrie to the following question: “As a legislator, I have a question for you related to how the Alberta Legislature handles notices of motion. When a notice of motion is given in the legislature, is it then immediately subject to debate and vote?” His response, namely, “With notice the motion is not heard immediately. It will be scheduled at another time but there is not necessarily a set time for it to come forward. If it is an emergency motion (without notice) then we vote right away if it will be heard”, confirms what I have said many times, namely, that a notice of motion, as is clear from 7.2 (b) [“A notice must be given without discussion of the matter”] of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, is not subject to debate and vote.
The response from Ms. Knight, received on April 29, 2024, was disappointing in that it only added to the confusion with respect to her revised version of a ‘notice of motion’. According to Ms. Knight, “The draft bylaw includes the Notice of Motion process as it has been operationalized by this Council over this last term”. In my reply to Ms. Knight and the Town Council on April 29, 2024, I pointed out that what she was doing with her rewrite of the procedural bylaw was to codify “the procedures which did not comply with aspects of the existing procedural bylaw”. I concluded by observing:
As I have concluded in my recent April 24, 2024 email sent to you and Council, instead of ensuring that the notices of motion process was properly applied, as clearly written in the existing Procedural Bylaw19/2019, to avoid acknowledging Administration’s failure to do so, you decided to radically rework that section related to notices of motion such that it was so corrupted that it no longer resembles what constitutes a notice of motion and introduces a lot of confusion. What a mess you have created. Accordingly, I recommend that section, 7.2, of the draft revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, entitled “Notices of Motion”, should more appropriately be entitled something like “Councillor Motions” (or “The Improper Process as It has Been Operationalized by Mayor Genung”), because it certainly does not describe what constitutes a “notice of motion”. In any event, this entirely new animal needs to be properly explained to avoid confusion.
I also pointed out that even though the draft, revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 was not adopted at the Regular Council Meeting on April 22, 2024, because Councillor McFadden couldn’t attend the meeting, nonetheless, Mayor Genung jumped the gun and brought forward a ‘notice of motion’ for the first time using a clause from the unadopted procedural bylaw. Another example of the how the Administration is lax ensuring that the procedures are properly followed.
The bogus argument that some aspects of the current bylaw are unclear is simply an excuse for their not being followed. I don’t appreciate the gaslighting from the mayor and Ms. Knight, claiming that I am confused and misunderstand Section 4.2(c) and Section 7.2 (Notices of Motion) of the existing procedural bylaw because of a purported lack of clarity. Almost laughable, Ms. Knight’s way of clearing up the supposed ‘lack of clarity’ of clause 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”) in the existing procedural bylaw was simply to expunge it from the procedural bylaw, thereby absolving the mayor of his failure to comply with it and her failure to ensure that he complied with a clause that she herself had drafted to be part of 2019 Procedural Bylaw.
The bottom line being that Ms. Knight has created a mess with her rework of the ‘notices of motion’ section of the revised procedural bylaw in an attempt to save face for having failed to ensure that the existing bylaw was properly being followed. At the Regular Council Meeting on April 22, 2024, Councillor Nagel, into his third term, declared that he was “a little lost on this notice of motion thing”. The way it is currently written, I expect the Council to be more than a “little lost on this notice of motion thing”. The question is will Council seriously take into consideration what is presented to them and ensure through amendments that it will be clear and understandable.
In a media release sent out by the Town of Cochrane, it announced that the 2024 Cochrane Chamber Trade Show held at the SLS Centre on May 4 and 5 served, “as an opportunity for residents to engage directly with local government for meaningful dialogue and feedback”. So, given that I rarely receive a reply to my emails sent to members of Town Council, for example, I decided to head down to the Trade Show to hopefully engage with them as promised. When I went there the afternoon of Sunday, May 5, 2024, only Councillor Wilson and Mayor Genung were present.
First, I met with Councillor Wilson and reminded him of my October 10, 2023 email, “Time to Do What is Right!”, in which after providing some background information, I asked the members of Town Council two questions related to two aspects (sub-section 4.2 (c) and Section 7. 2 (Notices of Motion) of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019:
1) 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) (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, because of a lack of clarity?, and
2) I ask you each one of you, do you in all honesty have trouble understanding the meaning of this requirement (The giving of notice of motion is not debatable) with respect to a Notice of Motion because of a lack of clarity?
Although it took some effort to get him to declare whether or not section 4.2 (c) was clear to him, he finally answered “no” that it was not clear to him. Which prompted me to tell him if I have a councillor who doesn’t understand English, then one wonders if he understands anything about what is going on in the town. I then moved to the matter of notices of motion not being subject to debate or discussion. He acknowledged that was one subject that has been “botched” on more than one occasion and that he still was not clear on it. Again, I pointed out that if the councillors cannot understand English, one wonders how they would be able to manage this town.
I reminded him that the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 was adopted in short order in 2019 without any amendments or raising any concerns and now councillors and the mayor are claiming they don’t understand it. I advised him to make sure they understand the draft rework, which no longer resembles what constitutes a notice of motion, by considering some of the questions I have raised about it. I told him that I was fed up being gaslit by the mayor and the Administration and the councillors, including him, sitting idly by, and not doing anything about it. According to Patrick he is “bored” with such matters and ranks it low with the thousands of things he has to deal with. He may be bored with it and consider it unimportant, but I reminded him that according to the Municipal Governance Act and their Code of Conduct, they are obliged to “uphold…the bylaws, policies and procedures adopted by Council”. I told him, however, that it was important to me because it shows something about the attitude of the council and how that attitude carries over in terms of how they manage this town. A question of integrity, honesty and transparency. As far as the Administration gaslighting me, I expressed the view if they don’t understand English, they should not be administering this town.
On to Mayor Genung. I waited patiently for about five minutes while someone met with him and applauded him for all the great things he was doing. When I got my turn, I told him that I came down to try to dialogue with my town councillors, as promised in the town’s media release, as they don’t dialogue with me when I send them emails. I reminded him of his telling me (in January 2023) that section 4.2 (c) of the existing procedural bylaw being unclear and meaning something totally different, in response to him saying he never returned one of my emails. I told him that I didn’t appreciate being gaslit by him and Administration. I read him section 4.2 (c) and pressed him for an answer whether section 4.2 (c) was clear to him as to what it said. He responded that when he wants to debate something we have open debate, to which I responded, no you don’t make the rules up. He continued to avoid answering the question and indicated that he didn’t “feel” that he was violating the bylaw now. Again saying that he “feels” that he was following the existing procedural bylaw, which was not what I was asking him. Eventually, he acknowledged that it was “clear” what it says, which prompted me to answer then why didn’t you follow it. His answer despite saying he clearly understood what 4.2 (c) said and which he has not been following, was that he has been abiding by it in that if he wants to put a motion on the floor he vacates the chair. When I told him that that was part of the new draft procedural bylaw that has not yet been adopted by Council, his response was that is what he “has been doing” when at the April 22, 2024 Regular Council Meeting he even declared that it was the first time that he had brought forward a motion (improperly it turns out as the draft Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 had not yet been adopted which contained the new clause allowing him to do so). I told him if the members of council do not understand English, they should not be running this town.
While I didn’t have an opportunity to “dialogue” with the other members of Town Council, I don’t hold out hope that they will do the right thing.