As a delegate denied speaking to the January meeting, I’m concerned about the application of the procedural by-law.

Kurt Reffle’s November delegation was deemed appropriate, while January delegates’ requests were in order but for a future date. 

The committee was informed both must be true: there would have to be a report or by-law before the body and there would have to be an action or recommendation.

Yet administration approved Reffle’s delegation when neither was true. Admin confirmed the November brainstorming session.

The CAO advised me his delegation was pertinent to an agenda item as the committee was discussing its work plan for the following year and he had ideas regarding that which he shared with the Committee.

Reffle’s delegate application noted the item was not on the agenda, although he was to speak to item three, not item one – the work plan. The minutes also note he spoke to item three.

The Deputy CAO mentioned delegates could speak at a future meeting, but they wouldn’t be allowed to address town council on the same issue.

The procedural by-law does not contain a clause stipulating this exclusionary practice.

Specifically, the by-law states, “Delegations appearing before Council, who have previously appeared before Council on the same subject matter, shall be limited to providing only new information in any subsequent delegation request.”

Reffle spoke over 11 minutes uninterrupted. Although staff was in the room, and could’ve announced the time, the CAO advised me the chair was on zoom and didn’t receive the staff’s email in time.

Delegates have been allowed to exceed the time limit four times since 2022.

Since committees are mentioned 45 times in the by-law, including in the ‘Delegations’ section, it equally applies to committee meetings.

The inconsistent application of the procedural by-law validates concerns of inequitable practices.