Friday, March 24, 2023
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

SANDRA GREGSON: BEING TREE at Sivarulrasa Gallery

From March 24 to May 5, Sivarulrasa...

Roasted Arctic Char with Lemon and Herbs

by Susan Hanna This recipe from Don’t Worry,...
Councillors' ForumPublic debate on Council size derailed

Public debate on Council size derailed

by Shaun McLaughlin 

first published in Shaun on Council 

On March 5, I wrote about a decision to take the question of a change in Council composition to the public. I applauded that decision as open and democratic. On April 2, a subset of Council likely killed that process.

As part of a regular Committee of the Whole meeting, we reviewed a plan from the town clerk, Rob Tremblay, to organize public meetings in late April and early May to explain the seven composition options and to distribute a ballot.

After we discussed aspects of the plan, the chair put it to a vote. Three members were absent that night: the Mayor and councillors Gillis and Abbott. That gave the four members least interested in changing the composition numerical equality with those who advocated a change.

Councillors Minnille, Ferguson, Dalgity and I voted yes to the clerk’s public participation plan. With eight members at the table, just four in favor created a tie. Under our procedural rules, a tie is a defeat. The four who did not support the motion were councillors Edwards, Watters, Wilkinson and Cameron. Under our rules, a defeated motion cannot be voted on again unless two-thirds of Council agrees.

The vote does not end the possibility of changing the composition of Council. Individual members can move a motion to change the size and composition. If any such motion wins a majority, it ends the debate without involving the public in a meaningful way. It may be possible to resurrect the public process by putting forward a plan that is substantial different than the defeated version. We will see.




From the Archives