ABSTRACT
The town Administration’s whitewashing of its failure to ensure that aspects of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 were followed was completed with the adoption of the final draft of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 at the June 24, 2024 Regular Council Meeting.
Astonishingly, perhaps to no surprise given the general sloppiness of the town in following its procedures, the procedure followed for adopting the procedural bylaw was flawed, in that there was no motion for second reading of the bylaw, which is required for debate to proceed, thereby drawing into question the very validity of the bylaw’s approval.
To whitewash its failure to ensure that aspects of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 were followed, the Administration generated a false narrative that aspects, such as section 4.2(c) and section 7.2 (Notices of Motion) of the existing procedural bylaw were unclear. In the revision, to clear up the supposed lack of clarity 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”) the Administration’s approach was simply to expunge it from the procedural bylaw, thereby absolving the mayor of his failure to comply with it and their failure to ensure that he complied with it.
When it came to section 7.2 (Notices of Motion) of the existing procedural bylaw, 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. Thankfully, as a result of pushback from some of the councillors and, finally, an admission from senior members of the Administration that the existing procedural bylaw was, in fact, clear, the notices of motion section in the final draft of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 was a close approximation of what was written in the preceding Procedural Bylaw 19/2019. With respect to senior Administrative staff confirming what was written with respect to notices of motion in Procedural Bylaw 19/2019, CAO Mike Derricott rejected the mayor’s approach in allowing debate and vote on a notice of motion brought forward by Councillor Reed to the Regular Council meeting on June 10, 2024 as not being aligned with the rules in the existing procedural bylaw as written. Similarly, Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, then appealed to a clause in the existing procedural bylaw, namely 7.2(a)(ii) (Council on a two-thirds (2/3) vote waives the requirement for Notice), to allow debate and vote to proceed that evening, thereby clearly appreciating what was written in the existing procedural bylaw.
Beginning with my first blog post, “Mayor Genung Plays the Role of Winston Smith”, drawing attention to Mayor Genung failing to comply with 4.2(c) of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 in January, 2023, there have been a long series of 12 blog posts over the last year and more related to the arduous task of trying to make the Council and Administration accountable with respect to violations of the town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 and Code of Conduct:
I have been banging the drum on this matter for a long time with no accountability forthcoming. Some may say, Ron why are you making such a big deal of this? Besides not appreciating being gaslit by our town’s municipal office that I failed to understand what was written because of a lack of clarity, if our town (both unelected Administration and elected Council) have no problem in violating their Procedural Bylaw and Code of Conduct, then why wouldn’t such behaviour carry over to how they manage the town’s affairs in general?
FULL BLOG
After some revisions resulting from discussions that took place at the May 27, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, at the subsequent Regular Council Meeting on June 10, 2024 when Councillor Reed’s notice of motion came forward, and at the Council of the Whole Meeting on June 17, 2024, Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 came forward for adoption at the June 24, 2024 Regular Council Meeting. At the June 17, 2024 meeting, the Mayor expressed impatience to get the revised procedural bylaw approved and requested “then please just follow those rules”, where the latter is ironic given his failure to follow the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019’s rules related section 4.2(c) and section 7.2 (Notices of Motion).
After dealing with some amendments related to section 6.4 (ability of the mayor to cancel meetings) and 28(a) (the appointment of Council Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs), the final draft of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 was adopted at third reading on June 24, 2024.
However, the procedure followed for adopting the procedural bylaw was flawed. After Ms. Jaylene Knight, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, had presented the Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 for second and third reading, the mayor, as chair, allowed discussion and debate to immediately proceed before there was a motion for second reading, after which debate is permitted to take place according to section 11.3(h) of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 (“After a Member has made a motion for second reading of a Bylaw, Council may (i) debate the substance of the Bylaw; and (ii) propose and consider amendments to the Bylaw”.) Meanwhile, disappointingly, Administration stood by and said nothing about the flawed proceedings. As well, the whole process of making amendments was handled rather clumsily by Council, all of whom are at least into a second term.
Given this misstep, one can seriously question the legality of the approval of the revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024. Council, as well as Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, and Ms. Jaylene Knight, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, were advised of this in a June 25, 2024, email, “Flawed Process for Adoption of Procedural Bylaw 17/2024”. Typically, no response was received from anyone.
With that the Administration’s whitewashing of its failure to ensure that aspects of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2018 were followed was completed.
Noteworthy the reference to “This Bylaw establishes clear guidelines for Council and Council Committee processes while also providing clarity for residents observing Council while they are performing their duties as elected officials” in the Executive Summary of the Council Report for the revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 prepared by Ms. Jaylene Knight, Director, Legislative & Administrative Services, continued to perpetuate the false narrative that I as a resident was unable to understand what was written on these matters because of a supposed lack of clarity.
In this matter, as documented in previous blog posts, I experienced a long period of essentially being gas lit by Ms. Jaylene Knight and Ms. Stacey Loe that I didn’t understand section 4.2(c) and section 7.2 (Notices of Motion) of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 because of a supposed lack of clarity, to cover for the fact that they failed to ensure that the bylaw was properly being followed. At the May 27, 2024 and the June 10, 2024 Regular Council meetings, I finally received confirmation both from members of Council, as well as, from members of the Administration that my understanding of those aspects of the procedural bylaw was correct and that what was written was clear.
Thus, Councillor McFadden, at the May 27, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, in expressing satisfaction with respect to section 4.2 of the revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, whereby, “The Chair may participate in debate on any matter before Council without relinquishing the chair”, and also pointing out “that’s a change from the previous iteration”, illustrated that she clearly understood that such was not permissible according to 4.2(c) of the town’s existing procedural bylaw, which required the mayor to vacate the chair to participate in debate on a question or motion before Council. As well, over a year ago, in my March 20, 2023 presentation as a delegation to Council when I drew attention to the fact that Mayor Genung was violating section 4.2(c) of the town’s existing procedural bylaw, during the discussion that followed Councillor Morgan Nagel, admitted that I was correct in saying that the procedural bylaw had been violated by Mayor Genung. Disappointingly, when I asked Councillor Wilson at the recent Trade Show, if section 4.2(c) of the existing procedural bylaw was clear to him, he, after some hesitation, told me it was not clear to him, which draws into question his ability to manage town affairs being unable to discern what should be clear for anybody with a reasonable grasp of the English language.
Disappointingly, in early 2023 when I asked each of the councillors to launch a complaint against the mayor for failing to comply with section 4.2(c) of the town’s existing procedural bylaw, they all refused to do so, despite the clear requirement as per 153(e.1) of the Municipal Government Act, that councillors have the duty “to adhere to the code of conduct established by the council”, which includes section 7.1 of the the town’s Code of Conduct Bylaw 12/2018, according to which, “Members shall uphold … the bylaws, policies and procedures adopted by Council”. Ultimately, in the revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024, 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”) was simply to expunge it from the procedural bylaw, thereby absolving the mayor of his failure to comply with it and Administration’s failure to ensure that he complied with a clause that she herself had drafted to be part of 2019 Procedural Bylaw.
In an earlier May 27, 2024 draft, to cover for a failure ensure that the notices of motion section of the existing Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 was properly followed by Council, Ms. Knight with her draft had made a such mess that what was written no longer constituted what was understood by a Notice of Motion such that I had suggested that it appropriately be called something like “The Improper Process as It has Been Operationalized by Mayor Genung”. Thankfully, confirmation of my understanding of the process described for Notices of Motion in section 7.2 of existing procedural bylaw was finally provided by Administration at the June 10, 2024 Regular council meeting when Councillor Reed’s notice of motion was discussed. When Mayor Genung sought confirmation that his flawed process of allowing a notice of motion to be subject to debate and vote was according to the existing procedural bylaw, the CAO, Mike Derricott, advised the mayor that he was not following the procedural bylaw as written. Similarly, Ms. Stacey Loe, Executive Director, Corporate Services, then appealed to a clause in the existing procedural bylaw, namely 7.2(a)(ii) (Council on a two-thirds (2/3) vote waives the requirement for Notice), to allow debate and vote to proceed that evening, thereby clearly appreciating what was written in the existing procedural bylaw.
As shown below, thankfully, the Notices of Motion section (7.2) of the revised Procedural Bylaw 17/2024 in the final June 24, 2024 draft was salvaged from the previous May 27, 2024 mess so as to more closely approximate what was said in the previous Procedural Bylaw 19/2029, which was clearer as to what constitutes a notice of motion as there are aspects of the new version which could cause confusion. For example, not sure how section 7.2(c) (“The Member who submitted a written Notice of Motion is not required to be present when the Notice of Motion is first introduced, but the Motion cannot be voted upon unless the member who requested the motion is present or has provided permission to do so”) will be handled with respect to “unless the member who requested the motion…has provided permission to do so”. Does that mean despite Council by two-thirds vote waiving the requirement for notice (7.2(b)(i)), that the author of the notice of motion, if present, still needs to give permission to proceed to a debate and vote?
Beginning with my first blog post, “Mayor Genung Plays the Role of Winston Smith”, drawing attention to Mayor Genung failing to comply with 4.2(c) of Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 in January, 2023, there have been a long series of blog posts over the last year and more related to the arduous task of trying to make the Council and Administration accountable with respect to violations of the town’s Procedural Bylaw 19/2019 and Code of Conduct:
Quest for Town Council Accountability (March 20, 2023)
Procedural Mess at Town Council Meeting (September 29, 2023)
Review of the Spin at the Town’s “Procedural Bylaw Review and Update” (October 6, 2023)
Complaint Lodged Re Improper Procedures Followed By the Town of Cochrane (October 10, 2023)
Seeking Clarity from the Town’s Administration (December 12, 2023)
Stonewalled by Town Administration (December 18, 2023)
Stonewalled by Town Administration – Part 2 (January 11, 2024)
Total Chaos and Inconsistency in the Town’s (Mis)Handling Notices of Motion (February 29, 2024)
Administration Whitewashes Its Failure to Ensure that the Current Procedural Bylaw Was Followed (April 19, 2024)
Town Administration’s Whitewashing of Its Failure to Ensure Compliance with the Town’s Procedural Bylaw Delayed, Sort Of (April 23, 2024)
Making a Mess to Save Face (May 6, 2024)
Adoption of New Procedural Bylaw Paused by Town Council (June 15, 2024)
I have been banging the drum on this matter for a long time with no accountability forthcoming. Some may say, Ron why are you making such a big deal of this? Besides not appreciating being gaslit by our town’s municipal office that I failed to understand what was written because of a lack of clarity, if our town (both unelected Administration and elected Council) have no problem in violating their Procedural Bylaw and Code of Conduct, then why wouldn’t such behaviour carry over to how they manage the town’s affairs in general?