ABSTRACT

With Cochrane’s Town Council showing that they were not prepared to change course and start acting in compliance with aspects of their Procedural Bylaw and Code of Conduct, an email, “Seeking Clarity from the Town’s Administration”, was sent to Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, with copies to Town Council and CAO Mike Derricott. Five questions were addressed to Ms. Loe:

Question 1: Do you agree with my assessment that Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion was not properly presented at the September 11, 2023 meeting? Yes or No?

Question 2: Is there such an entity as a “notice of notice of motion”, a term used by Mayor Genung to describe Councillor Fedeyko’s failed attempt to introduce a notice of motion on September 11, 2023, to be found in the town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019? Yes or No?

Question 3: Do you agree that had Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion been properly presented at the September 11, 2023 council meeting, then it should have appeared under “Business” in the agenda for the September 25, 2023 meeting? Yes or No?

Question 4: Was Councillor McFadden’s notice of motion on Workforce Reporting properly handled as per the requirements spelled out for Notices of Motion in the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019? Yes or No?

Question 5: Has Mayor Genung been complying with section 4.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019? Yes or No?

The hope is that her answers to these questions would provide some clarity on these matters for the benefit of Cochrane’s Town Council.

FULL BLOG

A recent blog post, Procedural Mess at Town Council Meeting, made on September 29, 2023, demonstrated that Cochrane’s Town Council did not properly follow its own Procedural Bylaw in addressing Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion on September 25, 2023 calling for a public vote on whether each town councillor remained confident in the leadership of the town’s Chief Administrative Office (CAO) Mike Derricott.

As a result, as reported in the blog post, Complaint Lodged Re Improper Procedures Followed By the Town of Cochrane“, made on October 10, 2023, a complaint was lodged with Ms. Jaylene Knight, the town’s Director, Legislative & Administrative Services. On October 1, 2023, an email, “Complaint Re Proper Procedures Not Followed”, was sent to Ms. Knight with a copy to the Town Council. On October 10, 2023. Ten days later, I finally received a reply from Ms. Knight, a rather terse, non-committal response, “I have received your email, but will not be providing any further comment”. If I am supposedly suffering from “confusion” on these matters as she had intimated at the  Committee of the Whole meeting on October 3, 2023, disappointingly, no effort was made to set me straight. In my October 1, 2023 email I pointed out that Councillor Fedeyko’s Notice of Motion stands as having been properly presented in a formal way at the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting. However, I indicated that the other aspects of the proceedings, namely, the debate and vote on the Notice of Motion, should be deemed as Out of Order, and thereby considered null and void.

Therefore, on October 23, 2023, I sent an email, “Time to Do What is Right!”, to Cochrane’s Town Council wherein I recommended that therefore, the September 25, 2023 minutes should be amended to simply state that “Councillor Fedeyko presented a Notice of Motion that Council hold a public vote on whether each Council member remains confident in the leadership direction under Mr. Derricott” and not record that a vote had been taken on this notice of motion. When it came to the adoption of the minutes from the September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting at the November 27, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, Councillor Fedeyko, requested that the minutes be amended to exclude reference to her Notice of Motion as having been debated and voted on. The Mayor responded that adoption of the minutes be withheld until clarification was received from Administration. The opinion of Administration was contained in the Town of Cochrane Council Report for the December 11, 2023 meeting of town council. I wrote an email, “Procedural Irregularities” to Town Council, with a copy to Ms. Loe, on December 8, 2023, wherein I debunked her bogus argument and asked Council to ignore her recommended option (Option 1), “That Council adopt the minutes of the September 25, 2023, Regular Council meeting as presented”, and, instead, adopt Option 2, namely, “That Council adopt the minutes of the September 25, 2023, Regular Council meeting with amendments”. Disappointingly, except for councillor Fedeyko, all the other councillors went along with Ms. Loe’s option #1 (for a video from the meeting click here).

On December 12, 2023, I sent an email, “Seeking Clarity from the Town’s Administration”, with copies to Town Council and CAO Mike Derricott:

Dear Ms. Loe,

I had hoped that Council would have set a new course of following the requirements related to notices of motion as per Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 at the December 11, 2023 Regular Council Meeting. However, disappointingly, apart from Councillor Fedeyko, they all decided to go along with your recommended option 1, namely, “That Council adopt the minutes of the September 25, 2023, Regular Council meeting as presented”. According to section 19.2 of Council’s Code of Conduct, councillors “are expected to co-operate in every way possible in securing compliance with the application and enforcement of this Bylaw”. I see little evidence of this.

As I explained in considerable detail in my previous email, “Procedural Irregularities”, of December 8, 2023, Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion was not properly presented at the September 11, 2023 Regular Council Meeting as it had violated sections 7.2(c) and sections 5.5 and 5.6 of the Procedural Bylaw. It was, however, properly presented on September 25, 2023, appearing on the agenda as a Notice of Motion for that day.  Another example of Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion not having been properly presented on September 11, 2023, is that if it had been the case, which it was not, then it should have appeared on the agenda for the September 25, 2023 meeting under agenda item 6, namely, “Business”; not under agenda item 8, “Notices of Motion”.

Therefore, I contend that there is no merit to your claim that “Councillor Fedeyko provided the Notice at the September 11, 2023 Council meeting”.

When councillor Flowers made the motion to adopt your recommended option 1, she also added, “I want to thank administration for clearly outlining what happened that night because it was confusing for many people. Having that clearly outlined helped immensely.” I very much doubt that Councillor Flowers took the time to read my explanation of what actually happened that night in my email, “Procedural Irregularities”, of December 8, 2023, as ignoring me and ignoring what I have to say shamefully seems to be largely par for the course with this town council.

Disappointingly, it appears that Council tends to rely upon direction from Administration as far as following their Procedural Bylaw, instead of thinking for themselves. I hope that in your answers to the questions I raise in this email, that you will indeed provide clarification on these matters for Council’s benefit and instruction.

To start,

Question 1: Do you agree with my assessment that Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion was not properly presented at the September 11, 2023 meeting? Yes or No?

Question 2: Is there such an entity as a “notice of notice of motion”, a term used by Mayor Genung to describe Councillor Fedeyko’s failed attempt to introduce a notice of motion on September 11, 2023, to be found in the town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019? Yes or No?

Question 3: Do you agree that had Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion been properly presented at the September 11, 2023 council meeting, then it should have appeared under “Business” in the agenda for the September 25, 2023 meeting? Yes or No?

I was very encouraged by your explanation, flawed as it was, for choosing option 1 in that you properly understood section 7.2 (a)(i) of the Procedural Bylaw, whereby “A Member may make a motion introducing any new matter only if notice is given at a previous regular Council meeting”. That was the basis for your bogus argument that Councillor Fedeyko had provided the Notice at the September 11, 2023 Council meeting, thereby satisfying the requirement that notice is to be given “at a previous regular Council meeting”.

In my December 8, 2023 email, I had expressed the hope that “that requirement will henceforth be adhered to by Town Council”. I said that having in mind that at the December 11, 2023 Regular Council Meeting that there was a notice of motion (agenda item 8a) coming up in the agenda for that day, namely, Councillor Fedeyko’s notice of motion on a 3rd Party Whistleblower Program & Policy. With the precedent of your recognition of section 7.2 (a)(i) of the Procedural Bylaw, I foresaw this notice of motion as a test if Administration would in fact be consistent in following through in upholding the Procedural Bylaw as per the argument laid out to support the proposed minutes from the September 25, 2023 meeting, namely, notices of motion are to be addressed at a meeting following upon their presentation “at a previous regular Council meeting” (7.2(a)(i) of the bylaw).

I was pleased to note that Administration, in this case, remained consistent with proper application of the requirements for dealing with notices of motion as per the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019. After Councillor Fedeyko presented her Notice of Motion, you immediately stepped in to advise Council that there was not to be any discussion or debate on the Notice of Motion, consistent with the Procedural Bylaw, consistent, for example, with 7.2(b) of the bylaw stating that “A notice must be given without discussion of the matter” (unless that requirement is waived through a two-thirds vote by Council as per 7.2(a)(ii) of the bylaw).

To no surprize, Mayor Genung was taken aback by such advice from you, remarking, “that’s a little deviation from what we are used to, clarify that for me again please”, as he historically has not been properly adhering to the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 on this matter! I can provide many examples of proper procedures in this regard not being followed. For example, at the same September 25, 2023 Regular Council Meeting, Councillor McFadden also had a notice of motion, a notice of motion on Workforce Reporting.  After having presented her notice of motion, Mayor Genung then improperly invited debate and discussion, saying “okay, Council any commentaries?”. In this case, however, there was no intervention by Administration to advise Mayor Genung that he was not following proper procedure.

Question 4: Was Councillor McFadden’s notice of motion on Workforce Reporting properly handled as per the requirements spelled out for Notices of Motion in the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019? Yes or No?

Question 5: Has Mayor Genung been complying with section 4.2(c) of the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019? Yes or No?

I look forward to receiving your answers to my 5 questions above, which I believe should provide some clarity on these matters for the benefit of Cochrane’s Town Council.

Sincerely.

Ron Voss
Cochrane

Time will tell if Ms. Loe will even answer my five questions intended to provide clarification on this matter.

POSTSCRIPT

According to a report, “Fedeyko introduces whistleblower motion at Cochrane Council“,  by the Cochrane Eagle, “Coun. Fedeyko decided she wanted to postpone discussion on her notice of motion to the next regular council meeting in January.”.

While she had indeed asked for no discussion or debate with respect to her notice of motion, her request of such is unnecessary and, as well, has no bearing on what happens as far as debate and discussion. As far as being unnecessary, as per section 7.2 the Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, there is no discussion or debate to be held on a notice of motion. As far as her request having no bearing on whether a discussion and debate was to take place on that day, section 7.2(b) of the bylaw states that “A notice must be given without discussion of the matter”, unless that requirement is waived through a two-thirds vote by Council as per 7.2(a)(ii) of the bylaw. Any other councillor could have chosen to call for such a vote to bring the notice of motion to the floor for debate and vote on that day through a two-thirds vote whether Councillor Fedeyko was in favour of such or not.