Kurt Reffle’s presentation of just over 11 minutes, uninterrupted, was well received by the Economic Development Committee; he had ideas for Murray Street.

For 35 years I’ve shared ideas on how the town could become disability inclusive but I’ve been ignored and had to resort to litigation.

I asked CAO Critchley for an explanation for the preferential treatment of Kurt Reffle’s November 2025 delegation.

UPDATE: “With respect to Mr. Reffle’s delegation, the Chair was attending remotely and did not see the email from the Policy & Committee Co-ordinator alerting her that the delegate was “at time”. In any event, an extension would have been allowed after 5 minutes for a further 5 minutes and so the result of this innocent error was a 1 minute overage on the delegation time,” stated CAO Critchley in an email response.

(Maybe the policy and committee co-ordinator could’ve just spoken aloud at the five minute mark or used the gavel like Prue).

“Further, the delegation was pertinent to an agenda item as the Committee was discussing its work plan for the following year and the delegate had ideas regarding that which he shared with the Committee,” emailed Critchley.

(Then why inform a delegate’s request to speak to the committee on November 15, the “item…for discussion purposes is drawn from the Committees future work plan, and not something that is before the body at this time to make any determinations?”)

Allowing a delegate to speak to something other than a report or by-law on the agenda is a blatant breach of the procedural by-law but still a precedent.

Related:

ALL Delegates Deserve The Royal Treatment,

Delegations Discouraged At This Time – Murray Street Closure Concept.

Reffle’s delegation request form stated the item was not on the agenda, contrary to the town’s procedural by-law. (He was speaking about Murray Street).