By Pepper Parr
November 29th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
It wasn’t a hill worth dying on was the way Councillor John Taylor put it as city council debated a staff report that suggested delegation time be reduced from 10 minutes to five minutes.
The vote to not reduce the time allocation was a 6-1 with Councillor Craven voting against.
It wasn’t the hill these seven people were focused on – it was the ballot box.
The debate, which was one of the lengthiest this council has experienced – actual city council meetings have been as short as 15 minutes, was also an occasion when citizens made their voices heard in some of the best language this reporter has ever heard at city hall.
Jim Young, John Searle, Gareth Williams and Tom Muir did the city proud when they spoke up for your rights.
Councillors Dennison, Sharman and Lancaster during the time allocation for delegations debate.
There are some serious time management concerns that were brought to the attention of council. There are 26 different development proposals on their way to city council and planning staff are concerned there may be problems getting the reports through Standing Committee in time to ensure the city doesn’t run into that hard 180 day wall that allows a developer to scoot over to the Ontario Municipal Board if their request isn’t dealt with within that time frame. The city currently has such a situation on hand – and it is costing a pretty penny.
Much of the debate was focused on how this council manages its time. Councillor Meed Ward made one of the more important points: the problem is not with how long the citizens take to speak – it is the amount of time council members take up as they shilly shally all over the place and tend to work at making debating points rather than ask well thought out questions.
During the debate one Councillor made a little Burlington history when he uttered one of those “fuddle duddle” phrases.
Councillor Lancaster said that if citizens could think through what it is they want to say and discipline themselves they should be able to keep their delegations down to five minutes – the Mayor had to bring the Council member to order pointing out that Lancaster had gone over her five minute allocation.
For a period of time it looked as if council was going to set the length of time at five minutes and give people ten if they asked for additional time.
Lancaster said this council would never refuse a citizen the additional time if they needed it.
What a bunch of hypocrites. Anne Marsden, a long time delegator to city council, asked for additional time and was denied – and she had information council should have heard.
City Clerk Angela Morgan
It was suggested that people approach the Clerk requesting additional time when they filed their notice of wanting to delegate. Was the thought that the Clerk would be seen as fair and favourable to citizens? There are more than a handful of fine people who have delegated to city council and have few kind words about this Clerk and how she treats citizens.
John Searle, who is a citizen representative on a group called CHAT – something you have probably not heard much about; partly because while they exist you don’t hear much from them pointed out to Council that what they proposed to do was contrary to the purpose of the charter.
Searle, a lawyer by profession made a very important point when he said: “it is not about you” to the council members, it is about a principle and those principles are set out in the city’s charter.
The Burlington Community Engagement Charter is an agreement between and among Burlington City Council and the citizens of Burlington concerning citizen engagement with city government that establishes the commitments, responsibilities, and fundamental concepts of this relationship.
At the core of democratic government are two pillars that also form the basis of effective citizen engagement:
• That government belongs to the citizens within its political boundaries, and
• That the inhabitants of a city are “citizens” with the rights and responsibilities of citizenship based on justice, human rights, fundamental freedoms and rule of law.
Engaging people on issues that affect their lives and their city is a key component of democratic society. Public involvement encourages participation, actions and personal responsibility. The goal of community engagement is to lead to more informed and, therefore, better decision-making.
People are going to want to get their point across and five minutes is just not long enough. Searle went on to point out that what council was proposing to do was against the very charter they had approved. “What you are doing here today flies in the face of the charter.”
The body language kind of says it all – doesn’t it. Councillors Craven, Meed Ward and Taylor during the time allocation for delegations debate.
The Charter Searle referred to makes it pretty clear what is expected:
Citizen: For the purposes of this Charter, the word citizen refers to a resident of the City, entitled to its rights and services and with a responsibility to take an active part in community decision-making. The words citizen and resident can be used interchangeably.
Citizen engagement: The right and responsibility of citizens to have an informed say in the decisions that affect their lives though a dialogue of mutual respect between government and citizen.
Community engagement: The process by which citizens, organizations, and government work collaboratively. It includes information sharing, consultation, and active involvement in decision- making.
Decision-making: The process followed by the City of Burlington‟s City Council to reach decisions on those items that are presented in staff reports.
Meaningful engagement: Citizens and stakeholders have the opportunity to access information on the engagement topic that is timely, relevant, constructive and substantive. Their resulting input to decision-makers is expected to meet similar standards and is intended to ensure that a balance and range of public perspectives is available for consideration in the decision-making process.
Tom Muir made, as he inevitably does, points worth remembering.
Tom Muir, a citizen who has been delegating for more than 25 years.
“I would hope that Council votes in favor of the 10 minutes unanimously, as a show of good faith. I will say that a vote to reduce to 5 minutes is something I see as an insult to citizens and their possible contribution to what we do as a city – our city.”
“Further, if Councillors still want to vote down the 10 minutes, I say this. If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit. I mean that, and will not forget how this vote goes tonight. “
“This Council is not your Council; it is the people’s Council.
“And these Council Chambers are not your Chambers, but are equally, the people’s Chambers. All the Councillors and Councils hold these offices and chambers in trust.
“So to vote to reduce the people’s time to speak in these chambers is to fail in that trust, in my opinion.
I ask therefore; herein fail not.”
The vote went 6-1 with Councillor Craven voting against ten minutes for Standing Committee delegations.
It was a good day for the citizens of the city.
Jim Young laid it out for them.
The only Councilor to not support the 10 minutes is Craven.
He is known as the procedural guy, and he sat on the Councilor Sub-Committee, along with Taylor and Lancaster, that drafted, with staff, the procedural by-law revision with the reduction from 10 to 5.
From his response to my message to him, which is in the Council Agenda package, and his solitary nay vote at Council, you can be sure it was mainly his hand that wrote the reduction into the draft.
I think this is a damning proof that he is beyond listening to anyone except himself and his own agenda.
Something to remember.
Tom,
Thank you for this. I hope voters will remember it.
Regards,
Hans
One would think that the city clerk appointed by the mayor and council is taking direction from them, therefore, the finger for the idea of limiting time to 5 minutes is pointed right back at council not staff.A good fight by citizens that was unnecessary.Next on the agenda of worthwhile fights Code of Conduct.
Big thanks to John Searle & Tom Muir for their presentations….council is not acting in the best interest of the “whole City” on the following…I am hoping that as time passes and when LaSalle Park Marina, again makes their move to get “public Money” (about 14 million in total) in the form of “grants” from Federal & Provincial governments and from the City itself as a guarantor for a 25 year loan. That people will rally against this absurd amount being handed over for a handful of boaters to get a break wall, rocks in the bay, for an expanded marina that will be able to hold 40 foot yachts.(and the yacht owners may not even live in Burlington) Another file all but one councillor wants to fund….so talking of council, seems only one wants (sometimes two) to act in the best interest of the City as whole…and one even wanted to slip a last minute amendment through to facilitate the project. My point is council has to be watched very carefully, to many have been in power for too long.
It’s difficult – probably impossible – to please everyone with competing interests, but Council should be acting in the best interests of the whole City and often that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I agree with Penny that council ignores citizens. To her Road Diets (poorly implemented, without a mandate) and downtown over-intensification, I would add: the pier – a quasi-industrial structure that was a huge waste of money and that in fact detracts from the appearance of the waterfront; the sale of public waterfront land to some aggressive private homeowners; the failure to address safety concerns of residents in neighbourhoods where coyotes are apparently deemed more important than people.
Another reason for Craven to lose next election. I vote Muir.
I have attended a few council meetings and have found that some councillors treat those delegating in a disgraceful manner. At the end of the day does it matter if someone delegates for 5 or 10 minutes, in most cases it is a waste of time. For a city that touts public engagement it rarely acts in favour of the wishes of the residents.
– Road Diets
– Over intensification in the downtown.
Etc. Etc.
I’m thankful for John Searle and Tom Muir, who can keep our council from losing perspective.
I’m also thankful for the Gazette, for reporting on important issues like this.