Tag Archives: Amherstburg Procedural By-law

Delegation Request Denied

Posted on by

Utterly ridiculous.

Do you remember when the Michael Prue working for YOU campaign website listed some of his priorities?

‘Municipal government affects us all. I am committed to ensuring all citizens to have a say on the issues affecting their lives in Amherstburg. To be fully informed. To participate in review processes. To provide and share their opinions. I believe in local democracy.’

‘Promote citizen participation in municipal affairs and allow full deputation rights at town meetings.’

During his November 28 inaugural speech, Prue mentioned some changes, including, publishing the agenda a week before the meeting so that would give everyone an opportunity to know what’s happening and to be part of the process. He hoped Council would agree to allow more public deputations without having to all put their hands up and waive the rules every single time; he thought people should have the right to make a deputation before Council when the item is on the agenda.

I wanted to speak to an agenda item so I completed the online delegation form and Deputy Clerk Sarah Sabihuddin emailed:

Thank you for your email expressing your intention to speak on agenda item 17.1 – “AMCTO Advocacy Update – Looking Ahead: A Proactive Submission to Modernize the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.” 

I would like to bring to your attention Section 9.4 of our Procedural By-Law. This section states that delegations during Council proceedings are permitted in relation to matters listed on the agenda stemming from all Administrative reports and by-laws. While your request is valid and important, it does not directly relate to a report or by-law, and therefore, it does not qualify as a delegation under the procedural framework.

In light of this, I would like to suggest an alternative method of civic participation for your concerns to be raised. You may submit written communication addressing your concerns and recommendations regarding the AMCTO correspondence you are advocating for to Members of Council. This written submission can be circulated among Council members for their knowledge and awareness. Should a member of Council wish to bring this up during New Business and make a request for an Administrative Report on this item then once this report comes back onto the public agenda then you would be able to delegate at that time as per the procedural by-law.

In relation to your other concerns noted, I want to assure you that we redact all personal information (except for names) on the delegation forms as a standard best practice before placing on the public agenda.

In relation to your other concern regarding the method for which someone wishes to delegate to Council, once their delegation request form is submitted and approved there is a process undertaken to reach out to that individual to discuss the method for which they are requesting their appearance to take place.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

I replied,

thank you for the information. the refusal to allow me to speak to an item on the agenda is duly noted and confirms my position that the procedural by-law council passed is very restrictive. members of council should recall that in june, following nancy atkinson’s delegation, council supported Councillor Pouget’s motion and passed a resolution directing administration ‘to bring back a report regarding a Routine Disclosure Policy.’ Admin has not yet provided a report as directed. The Unfinished Business list stated a report was coming to council in Q3, but it’s been 7 months and no report has materialized. if or when an admin report appears on a future agenda, i will be happy to speak to it.

Proposed Procedural By-law Flawed

Posted on by

The town’s proposed procedural by-law was deferred to September 8 from the August 11 council meeting due to time restrictions, according to Ms. Parker; I could not locate the by-law on the September 8 agenda but there is a link from the town’s website, of course, to an external link. 

In an earlier post, Public Input Not Welcome? I mentioned Phipps’ stated, “There was no notice to the public regarding the draft Procedural By-law. Incidentally, there is no requirement for notice.”

Despite input not being sought, I am submitting my opinion to the current council, not as the Chair of the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee, but as a ratepayer and individual with a disability. To summarize my concerns:

  • The document is difficult to navigate; there is no index and the numbering system deviates from the traditional numbering of legislation: sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, schedules, appendices or forms.
  • The place of meetings is not listed contrary to the Municipal Act.
  • The proposed definition of committee conflicts with the Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act 2005
  • “special meeting” is defined, but “meeting” should be since it is titled a By-law to govern the proceedings of Council, the conduct of its members and the calling of meetings.
  • I object to the latter portion of the proposed “Special Meeting” definition: “Special Meeting” means a meeting not scheduled in accordance with the approved calendar/schedule of meetings; and further includes any meeting of Council called prior to the regular session of Council at every regularly scheduled meeting. This is not in keeping with accountability, transparency and notices to the public of meetings.
  • I would question why the town’s procedural by-law would exceed S. 240 (Mayor or Clerk) and include “the CAO may, at any time, summon a special meeting.”
  • Regarding Special In-Camera Council Meetings: the discretionary and mandatory exceptions to public meetings needs to be noted since “may be held” and “shall be held” in camera have disparate meanings and are set out in the Act.
  • Public Notice of Meetings does not state dates and times of notices on the town’s website, just that agendas with attachments will be available on the town’s website; however, one must navigate through a series of links and it is not verified that the available documents, once located, are accessible. There is no reason whatsoever for not posting the agenda on the actual website.
  • Council needs to consider persons with disabilities when setting rules for delegates; for example, insisting that everyone provide the Clerk with written material poses a barrier as defined in Section 2 of the Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act: “barrier” means anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice; (“obstacle”).
  • Why is there a need to state the Clerk and/or CAO may refuse or defer the delegation based on the subject matter to be presented? Is this not contrary to open government, transparency and accountability?

Commentary by Linda Saxon