ABSTRACT

The rework of the section describing Notices of Motion in the new Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, adopted by Council at its June 24, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, suggested that it would follow the process to be followed as to be expected for what constitutes a notion of motion, especially in that a notice of motion should not be subject to debate or vote when first presented.

However, the first occasion for Council to deal with a notice of motion, according to the new rules, as occurred at the July 8, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, proved that presumption to be wrong. Although Councillor Reed, as chair for the meeting, questioned whether there should be discussion on the notice of motion without a two-thirds vote to waive that restriction, Councillor Flowers convinced Councillor Reed that the Council could proceed to debate and vote on her notice of motion that same day. The Administration sat there and said nothing about these proceedings as well as the other two Councillors present, Councillor Wilson and Councillor McFadden.

If Councillor Flowers’ opinion prevails, it would appear that the process to be followed for notices of motion in the future should appropriately be called something like “The Improper Process as It has Been Operationalized by Mayor Genung”, even though such a flawed process is not apparent from and at odds with aspects of the current wording for notices of motion as found in the recently adopted Procedural Bylaw 17/2024. So, we are left with a mess all because Administration was unwilling to acknowledge that the wording for notices of motion in the previous Procedural Bylaw 19/2029 was clear in order to cover for its failure to ensure that the procedure was properly followed.

FULL BLOG

With a previous blog post, “Town Administration’s Whitewashing of Its Failure to Ensure Compliance with the Town’s Procedural Bylaw Completed”, it looked like this long saga of trying to make the town accountable with respect following its procedural bylaw , which it is required to do according to section 153(e.1) of Municipal Government Act, had come to a close with an indication that the rework of the section describing Notices of Motion in the new Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 adopted by Council at its June 24, 2024 Regular Council Meeting would follow the process to be followed to be expected for what constitutes a notion of motion, especially in that a notice of motion should not be subject to debate or vote when first presented.

All along the narrative of the Administration to excuse itself from failing to ensure that aspects of the previous Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, specifically section 4.2(c) and section 7.2 (Notices of Motion) was that the instructions were unclear as written. The so-called ‘confusion’ with respect to 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”) in the rewrite was ‘cleared up’ simply by deleting that clause from the new Procedural Bylaw 17/2024.

As far as the rework of the Notices of Motion section, their approach at first was to create an entirely new entity in the rewrite, creating a mess to save face that no longer resembled what constitutes a notice of motion. In my previous post, I reported that I thought that as a result of pushback from some of the councillors and, finally, an admission from senior members of the Administration at the June 10, 2024 Regular Council meeting that the existing procedural bylaw was, in fact, clear, the notices of motion section in the final draft of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, adopted by Council at its June 24, 2024 Regular council meeting, appeared to be a close approximation of what was written in the preceding Procedural Bylaw 19/2019.

However, a test if that was in fact the case, came about when a notice of motion related to a composting Program was brought forward by Councillor Flowers at the subsequent Regular Council Meeting on July 8, 2024. Councillor Flowers started by “making a motion” (see video starting at 2:06:59 minutes), whereby the motion was brought to the floor immediately for debate and discussion even though the proper understanding is that notice of motion is not subject to debate and discussion, which was thought to be clear in the revised Notices of Motion Section 7.2 in the adopted Procedural Bylaw 17/2024.

Councillor Reed, who was acting as chair after Mayor Genung had recused himself, then asked “procedurally, are we allowed to have debate about this?” Not surprised that he asked this as that was what the revised version for Notices of Motion found in Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 appeared to say. Looking toward Administration for confirmation, he  added, “I think the background document suggests that unless there was two thirds, we couldn’t”. Instead of Administration advising Council on the matter, at that point without being recognized by the Chair Councillor Flowers chirped, barely audibly saying something like, “that was the previous time it came up”, presumably saying that was according to the previous Procedural Bylaw 19/2019. Councillor Reed accepted that explanation and continued to allow discussion on the motion. The Administration sat there and said nothing as well as the other two Councillors present, Councillor Wilson and Councillor McFadden. So much for Administration having revised the notices of motion process claiming the previous process as described in Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 was unclear as written.

I contend that there is much in the current version for Notices of Motion as per Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 that goes along with the questions raised by Councillor Reed.  For example, what does one do with section 7.2 (a) (ii) of section 7.2 (a) which states, “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”. How does 7.2 (a) (ii) apply if one is allowed to proceed to make a motion as was the case at the July 8, 2024 Regular Council meeting? As well, what does one do with clause 7.2 (b), which indicates that  “A notice must be given without discussion of the matter”?

Given the discussion that occurred with respect to the first draft of  Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 at the May 27, 2024 Regular Council Meeting with several of the councillors expressing the view that a notice of motion not be subject to debate and vote on the first day that it is presented. For example, Councillor Nagel liked Councillor Fedeyko’s suggestion, in line with the current process for handling notices of motion in the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, that the notice be given at one Regular Council Meeting and then come to the floor as a motion for debate and vote at a subsequent Regular Council Meeting. He appreciated such a “digestion period” as it allowed for some feedback to be received from the community. Therefore, one expected the next, final draft of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 to be respectful of those wishes.

The Town of Cochrane Council Report, prepared by Administration for that agenda item, indicating “As per the Procedural Bylaw, the motion will be placed on the floor by Councillor Flowers with no debate and will be brought back for debate on July 8th unless overruled by 2/3 vote as described in the ‘Legislation/Authority’ section”, also appears to go along with that interpretation although that statement would only make sense if July 22, 2024, the date of the next Regular Council Meeting, appeared in place of July 8, 2024. However with the direction from Councillor Flowers if this is the process to be followed in the future for notices of motion, then I contend that is certainly not clear from and in several aspects at odds with the process described in the new version. If Councillor Flowers’ opinion prevails it would appear that the process to be followed for notices of motion in the future should appropriately be called something like “The Improper Process as It has Been Operationalized by Mayor Genung”, even though that is not apparent from the current wording for notices of motion as found in the recently adopted Procedural Bylaw 17/2024. So, we are left with a mess all because Administration was unwilling to acknowledge that the wording for notices of motion in the previous Procedural Bylaw 19/2029 was clear in order to cover for its failure to ensure that the procedure was properly followed.

An email, Seeking Clarification, was sent to Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, asking if she agree with Councillor Flower’s interpretation of the process to be followed when dealing with notices of motion.