By Pepper Parr
September 23, 2022
BURLINGTON,, ON
OPINION
This is a story that somehow just got worse and worse.
There is an old army adage that goes like this.
When you are already in a hole – stop digging.
Ward 2 candidate for a seat on city Council Keith Demoe had sent in the required application forms to delegate.
City Clerk Kevin Arjoon
The City Clerk denied the request saying:
Hi Keith – Thank you for expressing an interest in delegating at Council. Due to the nature of this item (a breach) and that it is to be discussed in closed and is subject to solicitor client privilege your delegation request is denied.
In my decision I am using rule 46.10 of the Procedure By-law to deny your request.
Section 46.10 reads: Where the City Manager or the Clerk determines that a person requesting to delegate is likely to engage in unreasonable or offensive conduct, make unreasonable or offensive statements or demands, repeatedly speak on a subject matter that is not within the City’s jurisdiction, or otherwise misuse the privilege of addressing Committee or Council, the person will not be permitted to appear as a delegate at the meeting.
Before the ink was dry on the refusal the City Clerk sent Demoe a second email saying he had reconsidered the request and Demoe could now delegate.
Unfortunately Demoe did not get the email saying he could show up and delegate – but there were conditions: Here is the email the City Clerk sent candidate Keith Demoe:
From: Arjoon, Kevin <Kevin.Arjoon@burlington.ca>
Sent: September 20, 2022 11:14 AM
To: Hordyk, Debbie <Debbie.Hordyk@burlington.ca>; kdemoe@hotmail.com <kdemoe@hotmail.com>
Cc: Meed Ward, Marianne <Marianne.MeedWard@burlington.ca>; Shea-Nicol, Nancy <Nancy.Shea-Nicol@burlington.ca>; Commisso, Tim <Tim.Commisso@burlington.ca>
Subject: Accepted: New Request to Appear as a Delegate Submitted for 9/20/2022 City Council (*New Information Only)
Hi Keith – Upon further review at Agenda Review your request to delegate has been accepted. Please advise if you are coming to delegate in person or via zoom.
Due to the sensitivity of this issue I am requesting a copy of your notes to review.
Please note that our Council meetings are administered in accordance with our Procedure By-law 031-21 as amended.
Where does the City Clerk get the authority to require a delegate to submit what they plan to say before they say it?
Does the authority to do this even exist?
Ward 2 candidate Keith Demoe
Demoe’s concern is that the person that denied him the opportunity to speak to Council is the guy that counts the votes.
Demoe is very direct, he knows what he is doing and he knows whee he wants to go. He points out that the Clerk may not like his approach but that shouldn’t be the criteria for deciding who gets to delegate.
The Gazette is of the view that this is a matter that should be investigated by the Ontario Ombudsman and will in due course will file a complaint
Related news stories.
Candidate denied a request to delegate at city council
We, Dave and Anne Marsden have been requested on two occasions since Anne filed her nomination for exactly this information told if we did not provide it our delegation could be declined. We have also been refused a delegation on this same part of the Procedure By-law. We took this up with our Ward 2 Councillor in 2019 as an entirely undemocratic process contrary to the Engagement Charter she refused to respond to us about it. The same as she refused to respond to the public safety issues in Civic Square, that are now much worse.
It was included in the Procedure By-law at a time when we were unable to address council and nobody else caught it. The minutes and attachments of this meeting which were available to anyone who wanted to review 2009 – July 2016 have all been taken down and you have to request them – all this occurred after Anne filed her nomination.. Anne has as a priority a complete review with Council of the Procedure By-law to address huge concerns we have with such issues as this one and many others. The start of this shift away from democratic principles in terms of public engagement began September 29, 2014 with the cancelling of the last Council meeting without notice The Gazette covered it we believe September 30 – October 2, 2014.
Must be a priority with the new Council and addressed with whoever is able to successfully remove an incumbent. Hopefully the majority as anything less you can guarantee it will be more of the same and worse as they will take the position the public are happy the way things are or they would not have been returned.
This entire “fiasco” should not be a surprise to anyone. Over this term of council more and more seems to be dealt with less and less transparency.
How could Kevin Arjoon know and why should he assume the following?
“Section 46.10 reads: Where the City Manager or the Clerk determines that a person requesting to delegate is likely to engage in unreasonable or offensive conduct, make unreasonable or offensive statements or demands, repeatedly speak on a subject matter that is not within the City’s jurisdiction, or otherwise misuse the privilege of addressing Committee or Council, the person will not be permitted to appear as a delegate at the meeting.”
Allowing Mr. Demoe to delegate at the last minute after the first refusal, in my mind, only happened because the city manager, the head of the legal department and the mayor who were copied on this email must have realized how this could come back on them.
The optics are very damning, and yet when they realized the clerk’s error in judgement they made the matter worse by demanding what no other resident would be forced to do-provide them with his delegation before delegating.
What started out as a “breach” by Councillor Kearns has ended up with staff/council rallying around one councillor while another councillor was raked over the coals for the same thing. WHY?
For those of you who say Councillor Kearns was apologetic I have to ask does this give her a pass? A “breach” is a “breach”.
Residents deserve better.