In his Aug. 7 letter, Frank Cerasa highlighted this council’s passing of a more restrictive procedural bylaw.
For months I requested council update its procedural bylaw; “the bylaw that most directly affects democracy should reflect current accessibility and human rights legislation and it is within your authority as representatives of the public you serve to address the issue and implement a best practice. There should be no administrative burdens or barriers to democracy.”
In July 2023, to assist council, I shared the Director of the Centre for Free Expression’s response: he never heard of a municipality requiring the delegation speaker’s notes, much less the text of the speech, to be submitted ahead of the event. And he never heard of a requirement for a copy of the notes or speech text to be submitted with the application to appear.
In August, without direction from council, administration presented its report to council, titled, Procedural By-law Renewal for Greater Civic Participation and Engagement and Revised Procedural Bylaw. While the revised bylaw ended the bad practice of requiring notes/speeches in advance, it became more restrictive than its previous version and more so than neighbouring municipalities.
Although it was meant, in part, to provide council the tools to have efficient and effective meetings and provide all members of the public the same equity in terms of participation and engagement, I don’t think either was achieved.
There are no limits on the number of questions members of council can raise, no limits on the number of times a member can speak and there are no time limits for either item. When administration is invited to participate, there are no time limits on their input either, all of which may result in inefficient meetings.
As for equity, treating all members of the public the same may result in inequities and disregard for individual accommodations which should have been learned during mandatory AODA and human rights training.
Since neither the public nor council members provided any input, the new procedural bylaw reflects administration’s vision. But, since council unanimously approved it, and Councillor Pouget’s November 2023 reconsideration motion failed, this council will be remembered for shamefully curtailing civic participation.
—Linda Saxon
Amherstburg
Comments