Mayor on why banning people from city hall bylaw is needed -  to be approved July 11th. Part 1

By Staff

July 10th, 2023



In a tweet Mayor Meed Ward sent out yesterday she explained the banning people from City Hall decision that will go before Council on Tuesday for approval.

She said: “We wanted to put in place some formal policies if there ever is another time where we have to ban somebody from City Hall.

“It has happened in the past; people who have engaged in offensive, abusive, sexist behavior, harassing behavior. You know, I like to tell folks we’re elected officials. We’re not punching bags. Our staff are not punching bags, we’re not there for you to beat up on.

“So we really do require and insist on a respectful workplace; doesn’t mean you have to agree with us, but it means you have to treat everyone with respect.  In the past there have been limited but still some occasions where it’s been required to limit contact from some members of the public who would not behave.

“But we didn’t have a policy around you know, how do I get back? How long is this? You know, and that provides transparency accountability, not only for Individual in terms of our expectations but for the public so that’s what we did.”

Part 2 explains the bylaw and the fees people will be required to return to city hall.

Part 2






Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 comments to Mayor on why banning people from city hall bylaw is needed –  to be approved July 11th. Part 1

  • Pat Brod

    The only cases of banning of which I’m aware are those of a local couple, who have been long standing advocates/activists for Council procedural integrity as well as accessibility for the disabled and a local media publisher who, without explanation or due process, was charged with harassment. In the latter case, I believe that all members of the 2014 Council, including yourself, are being personally sued with the City funding your personal legal fees. In both instances the banning neither followed prescribed due process nor was, on its face, an appropriate action. It would appear that it is the public that become “punching bags” at the whim of a progressively autocratic and entitled Council.

    • Very well said Pat. It is the public who try to promote attention being given to what Council want hidden from public who are used as punching bags. We are not in Burlington right now but hope to register for this item for in Council delegation. Like many we are big fans of Churchill’s ‘Never, never, never give up” When we are dealing with such dangerous mindsets (just like the Titanic could never go down) we believe the Churchill spirit will prevail and ‘Suddenly their own words will be used against them and all who see them will shake their heads in scorn.’ Words from the Psalms that have proved sound many times through the ages.

  • What the city claims is misbehaving I.e. submitting an audit report to the Audit Committee that demonstrated issues with the commissioning of two nomination papers of two elected members of Council as per the Chairs instruction (will send publisher the recording excerpt, likely before council) and the public”s understanding of misbehaviour that results in a two year trespass notice are two entirely different things. There is a huge alarm sounded by the staff and particularly Blake Hutley’s silence on this subject. Further, the lack of protection for the public, Council does not want to hear from in terms of “The Sins of the (City) Fathers” is mind boggling. We know what happened in the past election to stop a candidate who had something to say at Council to stop him speaking.