ABSTRACT

After informing Mayor Genung that he was violating a rule in the town’s procedural bylaw, he tried to blow me off by telling me I didn’t understand what I was reading, a case of nothing less than misinformation on his part. As only councillors could lodge a complaint against the mayor according to the current wording of the town’s code of conduct bylaw, I tried to get the councillors to do so, but, disappointingly, not one of them agreed to do so. Consequently, I made a presentation as a delegation to Town Council on March 20th asking that the code of conduct bylaw be amended to allow the public to make a complaint given that I had clearly demonstrated that you couldn’t rely upon the councillors themselves to make sure that the code of conduct is followed.

FULL BLOG POST

In early January, I advised Mayor Genung in an email that he was acting in violation of a clause, namely 4.2 (c) of the town’s Procedural Bylaw, which declares, “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”. The mayor came back a week later astonishingly telling me that I was unable to  read English properly and that “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 my view, such revisionism was nothing less than misinformation on the mayor’s part.

As reported previously, the mayor in this case appears to be playing the role of Winston Smith in Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984”, who worked in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job was to revise historical documents so as to match the current party line. I probably would not have pressed matters had the mayor acknowledged what the rule clearly stated, instead of attempting to brush me off and escape his obligation to comply with it by presenting his own revisionist made-up version of its content.

While the town’s Code of Conduct Bylaw includes provisions for a Complaint process with respect to the investigation and enforcement of those Code of Conduct’s ethical standards, as currently written such a complaint can only be lodged by the Council members, thereby self-regulating themselves. While each of the Councillors in turn were subsequently requested to lodge a Complaint against the mayor with respect to the Procedural Bylaw infringement, disappointingly, none of them were willing to do so.

Consequently, on February 10th a request was made (Request to Appear as a Delegation Before Council) to appear as a delegation before Town Council for the purpose of recommending that the Code of Conduct bylaw be amended to allow for the public, as well, to be able to lodge a complaint when the Code of Conduct is violated.  A week later, three possible dates were offered up with the earliest being a Committee of the Whole meeting on March 20th, even though there were two Regular Council meetings available before that, on February 27th and March 13th. I accepted the March 20th date although I had hoped for an earlier opportunity.

As Administration prepares a report for the various agenda items for Council meetings, I then was engaged in some negotiation (see details here: Negotiation re Agenda Report) with the Legislative Assistant with respect to the content of that report. I made it clear that I was not making a “suggestion” that a complaint by the public be allowed, but that I was proposing that the Code of Conduct bylaw be amended to allow such. As well, I indicated that I was not satisfied that the only recommended option offered up was “That Committee of the Whole accept the presentation as information” and succeeded to include “That Committee of the Whole accept the presentation as information and provide Administration with further direction” as a second option.

I gave my presentation as a Delegation to a Committee of the Whole Meeting on March 20th.  A video of my presentation to Town Council is available here (from 2:34 to 11:30 minutes, with discussion to follow from 11:30 to 17:10 minutes) and a transcript of my presentation to Council is available here: Delegation to Town Council re Code of Conduct.

Before heading out to the RancheHouse to make my argument, which I thought was a pretty open-and-shut case, I wondered how the Council would respond to my proposed amendment to the code of Conduct Bylaw so as to allow the public to lodge a complaint against Members of Council.
Would they be gobsmacked so unable to say anything at all?
Would they feel obliged to protect the mayor?
Would they argue against the clear meaning of clause 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw?
Would they argue as that this is a Committee of the Whole meeting such that there are no formal motions or actions taken so that they would thereby decline to take a position on the matter?

With respect to the latter, it was interesting that Councillor Alex Reed who was chairing the meeting, as it was his turn on the rotation for Deputy Mayor, was giving that impression with respect the last question above in his opening remarks intended for the benefit of those in the gallery. I was disappointed that initially the first two councillors who spoke, Patrick Wilson and Marni Fedeyko, chose to redirect the matter over to the Town Administration. Councillor Wilson indicated that he would like to know from Administration’s perspective “if we are not in compliance with our own procedural bylaw, so at a upcoming time be able to right the ship in whatever way that needs to be”.The CAO Mike Derricott, while not answering Mr. Wilson’s question if there has been a lack of compliance with the bylaw, indicated that “there is a review, a general review of the procedural bylaw on the books for this year, so we will have a chance to engage in some of these conversations”.  Disappointing that Councillor Wilson didn’t press Administration to answer his question if they were not acting in compliance with the procedural bylaw. Instead, he even expressed doubt that they were violating the bylaw, saying that he looked forward “to seeing if there is a problem, that we put it right. I am not even sure if there is.” Presumably this was to protect himself from not having initiated a disciplinary action as I had requested.

Councillor Fedeyko asked Administration if other municipalities allowed the public to lodge a complaint as if that should be a consideration. The CAO Mike Derricott answered her that he didn’t know and an appropriate question that could be looked at through the review (although the review they earlier spoke of was a review of the procedural bylaw).

Councillor Morgan Nagel, while, unlike Councillor Wilson, admitting that the procedural bylaw had been violated by Mayor Genung, then brought up another reason that the violation by the mayor should be overlooked, namely, because from his 10 years on Council they had always did it that way despite what was said in the Procedural Bylaw governing the conduct of Town Council meetings. I reminded Councillor Nagel that he was a Member of Council in 2018, when the Procedural Bylaw was passed with all three readings taking place in a matter of five minutes. His argument seemed more to justify his action in not following through with the complaint rather than defending the mayor.

When Alex Reed as Presider wanted to close off the discussion and move on, I insisted that I wanted a clear indication from Council as to what they plan to do with respect to my proposed amendment to the Code of Conduct Bylaw. I brought to their attention the two options contained in the agenda report prepared by the Administration, namely:
Option 1: That Committee of the Whole accept the presentation as information.
or
Option 2: That Committee of the Whole accept the presentation as information and provide Administration with further direction.

I explained that I saw Option 1 as sort of a polite way of saying ‘get lost we are not interested’; essentially dismissing what was heard and indicating that you are not prepared to take any action in response to what was heard. I appreciate that Councillor Fedeyko followed up by choosing Option 2, asking the  Administration to look into it. I emphasized my expectation that that would include consideration of an amendment of the Code of Conduct to allow a complaint by the public.

The story is only partially closed as time will tell what the Administration will come back to Council with. Hopefully, it will include the ability of the public to lodge a complaint as I clearly had demonstrated that you couldn’t rely upon the councillors themselves to make sure that the Code of Conduct is followed.

The local media, Cochrane Now, reported, “Voss wants public to have right to lodge complaints against councillors“, on my presentation to Council. The Cochrane Times included it in a report for all the items on the agenda at that meeting. However, where it refers to the “procedural bylaw”, it should correctly be the “code of conduct bylaw”. The Cochrane Times also had a separate report, “Cochrane council to consider citizen complaint system when reviewing procedural bylaw” on my presentation to Town Council. Unlike Cochrane Now and the Cochrane Times, to no surprise the Cochrane Eagle, a paper which often serves as an apologist for the town’s municipal office, chose to ignore my presentation.

Supplemental to my Delegation Presentation to Council

Noteworthy that the Administrative 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 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”.

UPDATE: June 20, 2023

With three months having passed since my delegation to the Town Council on March 20, 2023 pointing out their failure to follow their Procedural Bylaw and calling for an amendment to the Code of Conduct allowing for the public to lodge a complaint and seeing no action being taken, I sent an email to Councillor Marni Fedeyko with a copy to the Administration’s Jaylene Knight, Manager, Legislative Services, on June 13, 2023, seeking an update, writing:

“At the conclusion of my delegation presentation to Council on March 20, I insisted that I would appreciate a clear indication from Council as to what they propose to do with respect to my proposed amendment to the Code of Conduct Bylaw to allow the public to lodge a complaint, as I had clearly shown in my presentation that one couldn’t rely upon the councillors themselves to make sure that the Code of Conduct is followed.
I appreciate that you responded by instructing Administration to look into amending the Council Code of Conduct bylaw so as to allow the public to lodge a complaint.
The Byline by the Cochrane Times in its report on my delegation, “Cochrane council to consider citizen complaint system when reviewing procedural bylaw” was partially correct and should have read “Cochrane council to consider citizen complaint system when reviewing code of conduct” as two bylaws were discussed that evening, the procedural bylaw, which Councillor Nagel acknowledged was not being followed, and the code of conduct.
Nearly three months have passed since my delegation. I would appreciate an update from you or Ms. Knight as to the status of looking into the Code of Conduct to include the ability of the public to lodge a complaint.”

I received a Email Response from Ms. Knight on June 14, 2023 advising that that “both the Code of Conduct Bylaw and the Procedural Bylaw are being reviewed and any revisions and will be brought back to Council for consideration in September”. She also included references to sections of the Municipal Government Act, seemingly to give an early indication of justification in her mind to amend section 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw.

I responded as follows by email on June 20, 2023, copying Councillors Fedeyko, Nagel and Wilson as I referenced the latter two in my response:

Thanks for the update as to when these items will be dealt with.
With respect to the Procedural Bylaw, let’s review:
At the March 25, 2019 Regular Council Meeting, you brought forward an updated Procedural Bylaw (Bylaw 19/2019), to “bring (it) in line with standard practice”, before the Town Council for their approval.
In inviting you to present the bylaw, Mayor Genung, described it as “the procedural bylaw that we all fall under. All meaning us, Council, or supposed to anyway.” “Or supposed to anyway” is an interesting attitude, which perhaps was a portent of what was to come!
I presume that the bylaw was largely drafted by you, and I presume that 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 didn’t just fall from the air.
Council was requested to give all three readings to Bylaw 19/2019, and they did so swiftly in about 5 minutes with limited discussion. It is particularly noteworthy, that no concerns were raised with respect to Section 4.2 (c) of the bylaw. Either they had not read the bylaw very carefully or they lack discernment, in either case throwing into question the competence of this Town Council.
On January 5th, 2023, I sent an email to Mayor Genung advising him of violation of Section 4.2 (c) of procedural bylaw 19-2019. A week later, instead of honestly acknowledging what the clause clearly stated, the mayor tried to brush me off by declaring that the clause said something totally different, namely, “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.” I thought that I had a pretty good grasp of the English language, but not according to Mayor Genung. While the mayor rails about misinformation, I call out the mayor’s imaginative revisionistic rewrite of section 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw for what it is, unadulterated Misinformation!
If he had answered honestly, I believe the whole matter could have been resolved relatively easily. In light of the mayor’s response, I subsequently called upon individual Council members one by one, in turn, to initiate a formal 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 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw by presenting a totally-revised, unauthorized version of its content. Despite their obligation to co-operate in every way possible, disappointingly, not one Council member agreed to proceed with my request to initiate a complaint against Mayor Genung, thereby permitting such flaunting of the procedural rules. Hence, my appearance before Town council as a delegation on March 20, 2023 requesting an amendment to the Council’s Code of Conduct Bylaw to allow the public to lodge a complaint.
One presumes your reference to segments of Municipal Government Act is your justification for removal of section 4.2 (c) from the procedural bylaw. I would contend that 4.2 (c) as written does not prohibit the chair from participating in the debate but just specifies special conditions for doing so. In some organizations, I am aware that the intent would be for the chair to remain relatively neutral and, for example, only vote in event of a tie. This clause would in my view fit such a desire. However, there is a much simpler rationale for making a change to the Procedural Bylaw, namely, either the Town Council abides by the bylaw that they have unanimously approved or remove any clause that they would violate. It’s that simple.
As far as Councillor Nagel, I reviewed the video from my delegation to Council on March 20, 2023. I was pleased that he acknowledged, “we should be following our bylaws of course, and you pointed out an area where Council has not been following it (emphasis added)“. He went on to say, “I have been on Council for 10 years now and the mayor has participated in the debate without going through the formal process (even though he was among the current members of council who 4 years ago unanimously approved a revised Procedural Bylaw on March 25, 2019 without question). I believe it is important that we amend the procedural bylaw to reflect the reality of what actually goes on here”. I would agree with Councillor Nagel’s proposal as to what needs to be done, that is, “it is important that we amend the procedural bylaw to reflect the reality of what actually goes on here”. I heard nothing from Councillor Nagel, however, with respect to your suggestion that “what Councillor Nagel was reacting to” was the kind of argument you are now laying out from segments of the Municipal Government Act. The rationale for change to the Procedural Bylaw is much as Councillor Nagel laid out, namely, “I believe it is important that we amend the procedural bylaw to reflect the reality of what actually goes on here”. That’s sufficient justification.
I also found the exchange that Councillor Wilson had with Administration that evening to be of interest. He had asked Administration two questions, 1) that “it would be interesting to know from their perspective if we are not in compliance with of our own procedural bylaw”, and 2) and that he would like to see a review of the procedural bylaw.
Noteworthy, that while both CAO Derricott and you answered his second question, you both avoided answering his first question. Disappointing, therefore, to hear Councillor Wilson subsequently declare that he was ‘satisfied’ with the answers received from Administration.
I am especially interested in changes being made to the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw, as I clearly demonstrated in my delegation presentation on March 20, 2023, that there is no accountability under the current system, that is, the Councillors are unwilling to hold one another accountable when the Code of Conduct is breached. What happens if every member of Town Council is in violation of the Code of Conduct in one respect, such that it is virtually impossible that a disciplinary procedure would be initiated? I believe that a case can be made for such a situation with respect to our current Town Council, which provides another good reason for why a complaint by the public should be allowed.

Role of the Administration and specifically, Jaylene Knight, Manager, Legislative Services

One factor that has not been considered is the role of the Administration and specifically, Jaylene Knight, Manager, Legislative Services. As she was most likely the author of the Procedural Bylaw that was presented to the Town Council for approval at the March 25, 2019 Regular Council Meeting, she should have had a relatively deep knowledge of its content. Accordingly, that prompts one to ask why ever since that March 2019 Council Meeting, she had not once drawn it to the attention of the Town Council that there was a violation of Section 4.2 (c) of the Procedural Bylaw? Remember when councillor Wilson asked Administration to tell him whether Section 4.2 (c) was violated, both she and the CAO chose to ignore answering that question.