Somya Lohia, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Shootin' the Breeze

Crowsnest Pass municipal council has opened the door to major procedural changes, voting to draft amendments to its meeting bylaw that could affect how the public speaks to council, how meetings are scheduled and how councillors receive correspondence.

The discussion took place during the Nov. 25 regular council meeting, where Coun. Doreen Johnson asked council to begin revising procedural Bylaw 1041, 2020. Johnson said the request came from two places: resident concerns raised during the election and recommendations from the governance training council received from adviser George Cuff.

“It was an absolutely awesome learning session,” Johnson said.

“One of the strong recommendations that came out of that training session is that we sit down and review the procedure by law and in our earlier days do the revisions that set it up for the way that this particular team wants to work as council.”

Johnson proposed seven areas for amendment under revision of procedural bylaw, Bylaw 1041, 2020. As the motion contained seven changes, council agreed to split the discussion and vote on each item one at a time.

The first amendment council supported was to add a land acknowledgement to the standard agenda. Johnson said the addition recognizes the community’s “efforts at reconciliation.”

Coun. Dean Ward asked who would determine the exact wording, and council agreed that administration will return with options when the draft bylaw comes back on Dec. 9.

The next amendment sparked a longer debate. Johnson proposed removing restrictions on electronic recording and electronic participation by councillors. She said her intention was not to allow remote attendance at meetings but to clear the way for livestreaming or other recording options in the future.

CAO Patrick Thomas cautioned that the section Johnson proposed to delete focuses on councillors attending meetings electronically. He said past attempts at virtual attendance had created major difficulties.

“It was really poor, to say the least,” he said, describing the experience of trying to mix in-person and virtual participation. He also noted legal and privacy risks if councillors were not physically present.

Coin. Doreen Glavin said she could not support lifting restrictions on councillor participation.

“I don’t agree with that,” she said, adding that any changes should wait until livestreaming is formally in place.

Because the proposed amendment would strike the prohibition entirely, Thomas recommended defeating the item. Johnson amended her request and asked that electronic participation be reviewed at a future meeting instead. Council supported the amendment.

Council then supported updating legislative references throughout the bylaw to match the Access to Information Act and the Protection of Privacy Act. Johnson noted this was “just housekeeping.”

The longest debate involved the section of the bylaw that governs public input. Johnson proposed extending public speaking time from five minutes to 10 minutes and removing the rule that limits individuals to speaking once every three months.

She said there had been “insistent resident requests for greater transparency and communication with council,” and the current rules had not met those expectations.

Several councillors disagreed. Glavin said the public input period had become unproductive.

“It was abused,” she said. “It was just used to attack.”

Glavin argued that residents with real concerns should come as delegations, which allow questions and dialogue.

“During public input, you’re not supposed to be conversing back and forth, and that is not working,” she said.

Ward took the same position. He said the delegation process already allows 15 minutes and gives council the chance to ask questions.

“I don’t think public input is a very good process,” he said. “If somebody wants to come and provide information, talk about a particular issue, that’s great. Let’s give them 15 minutes as a delegate.”

Coun. Colleen MacDonald said she did not think the five-minute limit was fair and wanted more discussion about how the process could be improved.

Thomas confirmed that council had the option to remove the public input period entirely. He explained that rescinding Section 21 would leave delegations as the only method for residents to address council.

Ward moved to make that change, and council supported the amendment.

After approving the amendment to rescind public input, council returned to Johnson’s original request. They also voted to carry the proposal to extend speaking time to 10 minutes and remove the three-month rule. Administration will now return with both options in the draft bylaw for council to choose between.

Johnson then proposed changes to the section governing written communication to council. She asked that residents be allowed to write directly to the mayor and councillors instead of being required to send correspondence through the CAO.

She said councillors should be able to receive communication “immediately and direct,” and suggested they be required to CC all other councillors to ensure equal access to information.

Other councillors raised concerns about creating confusion. MacDonald warned that the change could cause problems with logging correspondence and managing official responses.

“This could get really messy,” she said.

Glavin noted that the current process ensures all councillors receive correspondence at the same time and that items appear on agendas when appropriate.

Thomas added that letters sent directly to a councillor would “no longer come to council” because they would not enter the official record.

Council referred the matter for legal review and deferred the amendment.

Johnson then proposed revising council’s meeting schedule to match current practice. She had suggested holding meetings at 5 pm and 10 am, but councillors did not support the change.

Ward said the current mix of one afternoon meeting and one evening meeting allows flexibility for the public and staff.

Glavin noted that a 10 am meeting would make it difficult for delegations travelling from Calgary or Lethbridge.

After discussion, Johnson amended her motion, and council carried the change to set the official schedule at one meeting at 1 pm and one at 7 pm each month.

The final amendment involved re-establishing a regular monthly committee of the whole meeting. Johnson said the new council needs more time to hold in-depth discussions.

“We absolutely need time to set out the new direction that we’re going to work towards,” she said.

Glavin said past committees of the whole often repeated debate that should occur during regular meetings.

Johnson amended her wording to state that a regular monthly Committee of the Whole meeting “will be established,” and the motion carried.

Thomas reminded council that none of the approved motions finalize any changes. All amendments must return in the form of a revised procedural bylaw and go through three readings.

“Anything that is put forward today does not mean that it is done with,” he said.

Council will review the draft at a future meeting.

—

This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---