CANMORE – An updated procedural bylaw for Canmore council will see the CAO removed from the Town’s finance committee, public question period scrapped, and more clarity given for the distinct roles of council and municipal staff.
But an attempt to have agendas released five business days in advance as opposed to three – similar to a recent change made by the Town of Banff – was defeated by council.
“I really am grateful for this process. … This has been really valuable and I’d like to understand better now things that I was struggling with. I think we can be proud that we have robust procedures in place,” Coun. Tanya Foubert said.
Following postponement of the matter at council’s April meeting, the Town of Canmore hired Nolan Crouse to independently review the procedural bylaw as well as return with potential options to engage the public instead of question period.
Crouse, the former mayor of St. Albert and former chair of the Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Board, said Canmore has a strong procedural bylaw and a level of sophistication, adding having it independently reviewed is something council "should be proud of."
Though matters of process can often be overlooked and seen as boring, the procedural bylaw is a key governance document important for the basic organization of a council that goes beyond simply outlining rules.
The original April staff report had a motion prepared for council – but not as a recommendation – for the CAO and municipal clerk to call points of order. Traditionally the power is kept in the realm of council, but Crouse said he couldn't find anything in his research suggesting administrative staff could or couldn't call points of order.
A March workshop was held that discussed providing select Town staff with the ability to call a point of order, point of procedure or question of privilege.
A point of order is when a council member calls a fellow council member out if the conduct of council has been supposedly broken, while a point of procedure can be called if the rules of council aren’t followed. A question of privilege is made if the reputation of the Town or council member is at risk.
When one is called, the meeting chair pauses discussion and rules on the matter after the person who has been called out has an opportunity to explain themselves. The meeting then resumes after a ruling has been provided.
While administration won't be allowed to call points of order, an amendment motion from Foubert will allow the CAO, acting CAO, municipal clerk and deputy municipal clerk to interrupt council proceedings “regarding a matter of importance to be raised.” While members of staff already do such at times, it formalizes the process in the bylaw to provide clarity.
Crouse said given that council are not employees but are representatives of the public, the CAO has an obligation to the health and safety of people in the building.
He acknowledged it’s equally council’s role, but with bullying prevalent in political discourse, there should be a place to prevent such matters from taking place.
“The purist in me says only you seven can call a point of order. That’s the purist in me. … Nowhere can you find anywhere, including experts, that somebody who’s not a member can call a point of order," he said.
He called Foubert’s motion “a good compromise”.
In an April interview with the Outlook, George Cuff, a municipal governance expert with more than 45 years of experience in municipal leadership, consulting and writing, said it was important for council to ultimately have a procedural bylaw they were comfortable with and avoid the blurring of lines between municipal staff and council.
“It’s a question if this is a council procedural bylaw or an administrative procedural bylaw,” Cuff said. “I think you have to be very careful of who has what role to do what. … If you have this demarcation between council and management, you’ll be loath to have something added in that gives the impression the CAO or clerk are going to be in charge of running the meeting,” he said.
“That’s part of the membership whether it’s an association, an ag society or any other organization, that’s part of the elected body leadership is allowed to do. This is management trying to tighten things up and make it more vanilla, which I think does nothing to add value to the particular bylaw.”
In an interview with the Outlook in March, David Siegel, a political science professor emeritus from Brock University with more than four decades of studying local governance, emphasized the importance of well-defined roles between council and staff.
Siegel said he had never heard of a bylaw allowing a non-council member to intervene in a meeting without “being requested to do so by the chair of the meeting.”
“I’m not aware of other municipalities where staff are allowed to participate in a meeting on their own initiative,” he said on March 27. “Staff’s role is to respond to questions, but I’m not aware of another municipality that gives staff the right to participate in discussion on their own initiatives.”
Coun. Wade Graham unsuccessfully brought forward a motion to make agendas publicly available sooner, which allows council to read reports sooner and ask clarifying questions to Town staff.
He also argued it would bring greater transparency to the business of council in relation to the public getting information. Coun. Jeff Mah was the lone vote of support.
“I think the most important piece is transparency to the public. They deserve time to fully digest what it is we’re doing at this council chambers. … I think it adds efficiency and gives us the ability to dive into these complicated issues more effectively,” Graham said.
A series of minor changes were also made to the bylaw, with development applicants no longer being allowed to speak at first reading but at the public hearing.
Crouse said “a public hearing is for the public” and not having an applicant speak at first reading “depoliticizes the early stages.” But from a technical standpoint, “it’s outside the appropriateness to begin the process.”
Texting between council members during meetings was suggested by Crouse, but ultimately not moved forward by council. Crouse said his concern was texting could lead to the appearance of council members aligning their votes. He added meetings are public, but text messages aren’t unless a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy application is made.
“It’s a level of purity you could bring to your procedures. It’s not necessarily problematic, but it can be,” Crouse said.
A change in the bylaw also outlined that council would virtually attend no more than 25 per cent of in-person meetings.
Town of Banff staff pitched a change to their procedural bylaw last fall that threatened to stifle debate among council members. The proposal would have only allowed a council member to debate a motion once at a limit of five minutes per person, potentially restricting debate.
Town staff also wanted the input of staff to be considered when making motions, with motions being put in writing beforehand to look at the legal, financial and operational impacts are addressed.
Banff council ultimately voted against the staff recommended changes.
In 2018, Banff removed public question period at the end of its meeting but kept the one at the beginning.
The print edition of the article had texting between council not being allowed, but it was only recommended and ultimately not approved by council. The Outlook apologizes for the mistake.
