On January 5, 2023, I sent an email to Mayor Jeff Genung, “Violation of Section 4.2 (c) of procedural bylaw 19-2019?” with a copy to the other Town Council members:
I recently watched the discussion at the October 24, 2022 Council meeting related to Councillor Fedeyko’s motion to restore comments on the town’s “official” Facebook page. I noticed that you actively participated in the debate and have done so on other occasions.
While Section 7.2 of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 explained the process whereby Councillor Fedeyko could bring her notice of motion forward without it appearing on the formal agenda, I also noticed that according to Section 4.2 (c) of the section dealing with the Conduct of Meetings, “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”.
However, I note on this occasion and many other occasions that you have not complied with Section 4.2 (c) of the procedural bylaw.
A week later on January 12th, I received the following astonishing explanation from Mayor Genung:
“That section of the bylaw is specific to the mayor making motions within the meeting, not the ability to provide comments on any item on the agenda. It is the mayor’s responsibility to be an active participant during Council meetings, which is not limited by the Procedural Bylaw.”
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984”, Winston Smith works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents, so they match the constantly changing current party line. With his revisionist explanation of Section 4.2 (c) of the town’s procedural bylaw 19/2019, Mayor Genung appears to be assuming the role of Winston Smith.
I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the English language, but not according to Mayor Genung. With respect to the Procedural Bylaw clearly stating, “When the Presiding Officer wishes to participate in the debate on a question or motion properly before the Meeting…, astonishingly, the mayor was now telling me ‘no, Ron you are reading that incorrectly’, even though the clear reference to “participate in the debate” and no reference to the Presiding Officer “making motions”.
In the debate related to Councillor Fedeyko’s motion to restore comments at the town’s Facebook page, the mayor with his “push back” against her motion, was quite exercised about misinformation. He indicated that his primary concern about public comments at the town’s Facebook page was “misinformation”, again parroting the CAO, and declared that it was “the entire issue why comments have been turned off”. I call out the mayor’s imaginative revisionistic rewrite of section 4.2 (c) of the procedural bylaw 19/2019 for what it is, Misinformation! Given that he acts as the Presiding Officer for the council meetings it would behoove him to be very familiar with a bylaw intended “to regulate the proceedings and conduct of Council and Council Committee meetings”.
Noteworthy the Council Report for Agenda Item 3a provided by Administration for the November 15, 2022 Special Council meeting, “Debate Agenda – 2023-2025 Draft Budget”, began with a description of Recommended Action for the conduct of those meetings, namely, “That Council temporarily suspends Section 4.2(c) and 10 of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 for the duration of the Special Meetings November 15, 16, 21 and 24, 2022”. One understands that the intent was for the discussion to take place more freely with a relaxation of some of the rules as per Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, notably Section 4.2(c), which freed the Presiding Officer, the Mayor, from needing to vacate the chair in order to participate in the debate and discussion. Seems apparent that Administration by introducing those suspensions of the rules that they understood the meaning of Section 4.2(c) of the procedural bylaw. Noteworthy when Mayor Genung came to agenda item 3a, Debate Agenda – 2023-2025 Draft Budget, he asked for someone to make a motion “to temporarily suspend our procedural bylaws so that we can communicate freely”.
I then consulted the Town of Cochrane’s Code of Conduct Bylaw 12/2018. The mayor should be well aware of the content of this bylaw given that he was a signatory to the bylaw along with Ms. Jaylene Knight, Manager of Legislative Services. According to 7.1., under 7. Adherence to Policies, Procedures and Bylaws, “Members shall uphold…the bylaws, policies and procedures …adopted by Council”. “Shall”, not “may”.
When it comes to the procedure for the investigation and enforcement of the Code of Conduct, disappointingly, the Code of Conduct Bylaw 12/2018 does not allow a member of the public to make a complaint. The Code of Conduct Bylaw 12/2018 is specific to Council or members of Council committee’s which are people specifically appointed by Council, not for general public complaints even though “the public is entitled to expect the highest standards of conduct from the members that it elects to Council for the Town of Cochrane”.
Accordingly, as I was unable to do so, I called upon individual Council members one by one, in turn, to initiate a complaint against Mayor Genung in this matter, especially as the mayor, instead of acknowledging what the rule clearly stated, had attempted to escape his obligation to comply with the 4.2 (c) of the procedural bylaw 19/2019 by presenting a totally-revised, unauthorized version of the content of 4.2 (c).
Noteworthy according to 19.1. (“Members shall uphold the letter and the spirit and intent of this Bylaw”), and 19.2. (“Members are expected to co-operate in every way possible in securing compliance with the application and enforcement of this Bylaw”). Therefore, in my view, Members of Council refusing to make a formal complaint in light of another Councillor violating the bylaw and thereby permitting such flaunting of the rules, puts them in a position as well of violating the Code of Conduct.
A letter, Request for You to Initiate Formal Complaint Process, allowing two business days for a reply, was sent to each individual Council member, one by one in turn, over approximately a two-week period asking them to initiate a complaint against Mayor Genung.
Councillor Nagel wrote back 5 days after his deadline, “I am not prepared to file a complaint against Mayor Genung in this matter”.
Councillor Fedeyko, thought the matter could be satisfactorily dealt with through a ‘discussion’ of the procedural bylaw at a Council meeting, implying that the issue was created by a lack of awareness of the procedural bylaw which is to govern the conduct of the Council meetings. My reply to Councillor Fedeykyo’s untenable proposal can be found here: Email Exchange with Marni Fedeyko.
Councillor Patrick Wilson’s suggestion for addressing the matter was particularly innovative, namely that Council just take steps to amend the bylaw so that the mayor would no longer be out of compliance! My reply to Councillor Wilson’s untenable proposal to simply amend the bylaw can be found here: Email Exchange with Patrick Wilson.
Councillor McFadden replied about six days after her deadline. Her argument was that the Council followed the procedural bylaws pretty “closely” so the violation by Mayor Genung should be overlooked. My reply to Councillor McFadden can be found here: Email Exchange with Tara McFadden.
Neither Susan Flowers nor Alex Reed bothered to respond to my request.
What became clear was that not only Mayor Genung was playing the role of Orwell’s Winston Smith, but the entire Cochrane Town Council.