“Do we have a crystal ball?”
On July 21 a Procedural By-law Review Committee recommendation of changes to the Procedural Bylaw came before council. Newly-appointed Regional councillor Mike Britton took issue with the proposal and made a motion from the floor to amend it.
“It pre-supposes bad behaviour; it says, ‘that a person requesting to be a delegate is likely to engage in unreasonable or offensive behaviour’. And I just have a concern with like, what is ‘likely’? Do we have a crystal ball?” Britton said.
“How do we determine reasonability?” Britton asked.
“The whole purpose of the section is just reasons why someone is not permitted to speak at council”, Britton said. “This one just seems like a reason to shut people down why is why I would like this removed,”
“I think it was really encapsulated by the last line, where it talks about, ‘misusing the privilege of speaking to committee or council’, and I kind of see that in reverse. I don’t see people coming to speak at council, that it’s their ‘privilege’, I think it’s their right to speak; we’re privileged as council to listen to our delegates”
Councillor Britton
Britton therefore motioned to have the section removed which opened the floor to debate that carried on for over half an hour with comments from councillor’s both in support and opposed to Britton’s amendment.
Amendment dies on the floor, but ‘privilege’ is changed to ‘opportunity’
The vote on Britton’s amendment to remove the section resulted in a tie. Chair Bradley broke the tie, against Britton’s amendment, and the amendment died on the floor.
A ‘friendly amendment’ was then made, on the suggestion of Mayor Sendzik, to change the word ‘privilege’ to ‘opportunity’. The mover, councillor Edgar, suggested changing it to the word ‘right’, but the seconder (Ip) agreed to the friendly amendment, and it was changed to ‘opportunity’.
The motion subsequently was ratified. Changes to procedure which provided guidelines for limiting access of delegates were entered into the Procedural Bylaw.
Debate on motion to remove 9.F
Half an hour of debate took place in council Thursday evening after councillor Mike Britton motioned to remove a change to the Procedural bylaw which would allow staff to limit access of undesirable delegates.
Councillor Nicholson asked if there is an appeal process: yes. Huson asked if the reason for the rejection would be given to the delegate and if they would be informed , citing “procedural fairness”: also yes.
Councillor Insinna said, “you can tell a lot about a person by the way the talk, the way the write, so I see this as a protection for the members of this council. Yes, it is a bit of a judgement call but what you can actually see the way a persona acts and behaves, you can pretty well tell, especially if they’re a known entity, that, you know what, if we go down this road … And I would suspect it would be those who are known to counsel, the CAO or the Clerk.”
“This is not about denying anybody an opportunity to speak, it’s about creating parameters” said Mayor Sendzik.
“We shouldn’t be using charged words like, ‘we’re trying to prevent people from coming to in front of council or committee’, what we’re trying to is put in some parameters that I think any reasonable person seeing this would understand that,” Sendizk said.
“Maybe the councillor hasn’t been paying attention to regional council & committee meetings about some of the delegations we’ve received over the past few years. Maybe the councillor hasn’t been paying attention to the harassment and abuse that some of us have been subjected to, and the councillor certainly hasn’t been on the receiving end of the emails we’ve received over the past few years. That’s how something like this comes about.”
Councillor Ip
Edgar’s standard: “past actions, comments and whatever”
The proposed Bylaw changes were first brought to the Procedural Bylaw Review Committee (PBLRC) by Edgar on Jan. 20. The motion on the floor to make the changes to the bylaw on July 21 was also his.
Edgar said:
“I have to disagree with some of the members of our council. They have to realize that there are people out in our community that, through their past actions, comments, and whatever, have, in my opinion, lost the right to address us; lost the right for us to trust them to be decent human beings when they do address us, and this is a rule that allows us to stop them in case that happens.”
Councillor Edgar, who originated the motion
Various remarks made by Councillors
Butters, Diodatti, Junkin, Villella and expressed concerns about the term ‘privilege’.
Councillor Mat Siscoe, also newly appointed from St. Catharines, and a Mayoral candidate for 2022, highlighted the section at issue begins, “under exceptional circumstances”. He twice referenced that his colleague had a “brick thrown through her window”, and that if he knew who did it, he would not want to hear that person’s delegation, and therefore he would not support Britton’s amendment.
“We’ve hammered away at this at our Procedural committee and in fact I think it’s a good piece of the puzzle,” said councillor Foster. Foster noted that a delegate who had been rejected by staff can be accepted by a council motion. This same point was made by councillor Heit.
“I don’t think it’s a privilege, I do see it as a right. Unless somebody actually acts up like a jerk, there [at the delegate’s podium], and needs to be removed, that’s on them. Then we can deal with it. But to kind of preemptively say, well you know what, you might be a jerk. No, I can’t see that one sitting well with me.”
Councillor Butters
A similar point was made by Ft. Erie Mayor Redekop who said he supports Britton’s amendment. Redekop referenced now-deceased activist Fred Bracken who won a case against the city of Ft. Erie after being give Trespass notice to not attend City Hall. Redekop said, “He lives in Niagara and I tend to agree with the proposition that he should have the right to address council. If there’s a point during the delegation that he becomes abusive, disabuses the right to address council, then you cut him off, and I think that’s true for anyone. As long as we have security available.”
He continued, “I like to call the council the ‘people’s forum’, this is their opportunity for them to speak to us, and we do some things that create some strong reactions within the community, I don’t think we should be insulating ourselves from that.”
“I would agree, the world ‘privilege’, I’m not comfortable with that language either” Diodati said, continuing, “and I also don’t think we need to make comments that people ‘aren’t paying attention’, I think that’s a little bit of condescending language that’s not necessary for this chamber, Chair, I think we can all do in a professional and respectful manner,” making reference to comments made (by councillor Ip) a few minutes prior.
“One simple statement: I believe that any time a group of elected officials think that it’s a ‘privilege’ for the residents to address them, I believe we are headed way too far in the wrong direction.”
Councillor Junkin
Bylsma remarked the “portal appears to be shrinking” and made reference to a delegate who was removed from the agenda by a committee in late 2021. For more on that, see below.
Background:
Delegation removed from December agenda; New rules introduced in January
The amendment was brought by councillor Edgar to the Procedural Bylaw Review Committee (PBLRC) on January 20. The month prior, a delegation was removed from the agenda amid comments that “no rules” when it comes to delegates at committees.
On Dec 7, 2021, meeting of the Public Health committee began with the chair taking attendance. Mayor Sendzik said, “Following all public health guidance, here”, with a big, lingering grin.
Immediately after attendance was complete, councillor Foster spoke up and asked about rules for delegates.
“So there aren’t really any rules?” asked Foster. “No,” said the Clerk.
Later that meeting, a delegation was removed from the agenda of the Public Health committee after a letter was sent by Niagara Health to the committee that the presentation contained false information. The motion to remove the delegate on Dec 7 was made by Mayor Sendzik.
Deleting the delegate while she sat waiting was a controversial decision and had a negative reaction in the community which supported the delegate, Rebecca Hahn a former PPC candidate in St. Catharines and a frequent delegate at the Public Health committee on the topic of so-called “health and safety measures” of COVID-19.
The same delegate returned the following month on Jan 11, 2022. She denounced the committee for preventing her to speak the prior time, and gave the presentation that had been refused the previous month. Councillors asked difficult questions of the delegate, and Dr. Hirji responded to assertions in the presentation, which he said relied on evidence which was “a little bit cherry-picked”.
The following week, councillor Edgar entered into the Procedural Bylaw Review Committee various changes to the rules for delegations, including the new language that councillor Britton took issue with on July 21.
Videos and links
Full council meeting video, July 21, 2022:
See also (Update):
