Danielle Pitman, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, OrilliaMatters.com

A suggested policy change erupted in an argument about how Ramara conducts business.

A staff report suggesting a change in fees related to information requests recommended same day ratification.

“Although it is proposing an amendment to the fee structure, what we’re really trying to do is get records into the hands of the requesting party sooner,” said Ryan Matson, director of corporate services/legal.

The process currently requires several correspondences between multiple departments, which Matson pointed out can be sluggish. The current fee structure for a routine disclosure is $10 for every 15 minutes of search time. When the amount totals $100 or more, a $50 deposit is required to continue.

Ramara Mayor Basil Clarke asked how long one request with this structure might take. Matson stressed that it varies depending on the subject matter. However, he indicated that one request, with all the required correspondences and proof of payment “has been upwards of three weeks.”

Communicating back and forth with the individual submitting a request might take days. If there is a request with pending urgency, staff would focus on it, said Matson. Documents involving multiple departments also add time. Finally, redacting personal information and obtaining proof of payment adds more.

Instead, staff suggested that council approve an amendment to the policy, making it a flat-rate $30 fee, which would apply to requests regardless of their magnitude.

“It’s (for) one request,” said Matson in response to a question from Coun. Dana Tuju, “(which) could produce multiple records, so 25 different records depending on the request. It could just be the one record that’s responsive to that.”

He also highlighted that staff may refer to the Freedom of Information (FOI) process if the request does not fit within the township’s routine disclosure policy. This process corresponds similarly to what some surrounding municipalities have in place, according to the staff report. On average, staff produce roughly 100 requests for disclosure reports per year.

“Lots of them, are they not septic plans,” asked the mayor. “Right now we have 46, and I would suggest the majority are in relation to septic records,” answered Matson.

Councillors discussed the number of calls they answered from residents since a notice was released 10-days prior to the staff report and the proposed policy changes.

Tuju said she had none.

“I only had a few calls on this… once they read the report here, they clearly understood what we were trying to do,” said Coun. David Snutch.

Matson said staff engaged with some feedback they received through social media.

“I don’t like same-day ratification on anything,” stated Coun. Sherri Bell.

She said that from the time the report came out on Friday at noon to the time the committee of the whole discussed the proposed changes on Monday morning, is not enough for the public to understand the information and engage with the township about it.

Clarke asked Matson if it was a time-sensitive matter.

“Could it wait until the next meeting?” he asked.

“What we’re really trying to do is just free up staff resources so that we can provide a response. But certainly, aside from that, it’s not extremely time sensitive,” replied Matson.

The mayor also cleared up an understanding of what the role of township staff is.

“That’s your job as staff members. When you can find efficiencies to be found, you send a report to the committee of the whole. Here it is, and then we get the report. We look at it. We make a decision,” he said, asking Bell to explain what she would prefer.

A reversal of procedure is how she described it. The questions being answered at the Committee of the Whole meeting, she said, should have been discussed before the notice from staff.

“A staff report coming would have been able to provide a lot of information, give council time to talk about it. Then later, it would have said that you’re going to come back with the bylaw, and then you would have done the statutory notice that said, you know, you’ve got your 10-day notice now…” she said.

“It was presented to Committee of the Whole as a way to save money. Now, we don’t have to ratify today; that’s your concern,” confirmed Clarke.

“The report came after the statutory notice. It’s not the same thing,” argued Bell.

“Instead, the council got irate phone calls from people who wondered why we were taking away their freedom to request information, and me saying I have no idea because I have the exact same information you have because it did not come to council as a staff report first.”

“What I’m saying is giving you feedback that should be valuable to staff, which is that the perception of the public is important, and what happened in this is that the perception is we’re trying to take away your right to speak…. So something in the process didn’t work right, and that’s what the reality that we have to deal with,” concluded Bell.

The mayor stipulated once more what the process achieves.

“Again, staff are not trying to do anything, pass any kind of bylaws. They’re giving us the option today if we want to proceed ahead and with the efficiencies quicker than we can,” he said.

When asked, Bell gave a reason for not supporting the proposed amendment.

“Because I don’t like how it was presented,” she said.

Coun. Jennifer Fisher said she had about a dozen residents reach out to her after seeing the notice on social media.

“I understand where the councilwoman is coming from because I hadn’t seen this report to even know what they were referring to,” she said.

Fisher seconded an amendment not to ratify the policy changes on the same day.

When it came to the vote on the motion, Bell added that another staff report should be issued as well. She requested that it outline the questions that were raised during the Committee of the Whole. She also sought answers about the number of disclosures requested, related costs and time invested, and “is anything else changing? Because that’s not clear,” she said.

The mayor asked if any council members’ questions were left unanswered. They were all satisfied with the results of the discussion. He then asked Bell to specify her questions and the direction she was suggesting.

“You already heard them,” she said.

CAO Gayle Jackson was offered the chance to explain that the public may email the township with any concerns or questions directly.

The generic email address is ramara@ramara.ca She also mentioned that members of the public may appear before the open forum about items on the agenda.

Several options, guidelines and application forms are included on the Township of Ramara Communicating with Council Webpage, including how to contact councillors directly.

The staff report, which includes the routine disclosure of policy as it currently exists, can be found here. Changes are proposed for section F, and Council will vote on it at the Aug. 10 meeting.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---