Today, I want to discuss something that has troubled me over my time in City politics. As you know, I have been opposed to many decisions made by this Council, but I have become increasingly concerned with the way a majority of Councillors peremptorily shut down discussion on Council and limit public access to City Council itself.

This change has attracted little public attention but it has fundamentally changed the information available to the public and thereby may have affected decisions that I believe will negatively affect the quality of life in our City. Examples include the stealth “defund the police” gambit, the declaration that “five homes on a single family lot is the new normal”, and the proposed plan to further insulate Councillors from public criticism by requiring any complaint by a member of the public to first be vetted by a Councillor.

I am not troubled by the fact that I am in a minority on these and many other issues, but I am troubled by the arrogance of a Councillor group that is riding roughshod over public access and input to decisions that affect our quality of life.

The MNP Governance Review Report was highly critical of the secrecy and absence of openness of the previous Council. Matters have worsened. Let me give you the details on three issues, starting with the Code of Conduct.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Code of Conduct Discussions:  City staff was directed by City Council to recommend a Code of Conduct including a process for handling complaints directed to City Council. On August 3^rd, staff came forward with a Code of Conduct with a robust complaint handling process including an independent third party (Integrity Office/Commissioner) to assess complaints.  The staff proposal included limiting those who would be subject to the Code to members of City Council and Council committees. Staff cautioned against denying the public’s ability to make direct complaints, suggesting this might “negatively impact the public’s perception of fairness”.

 After querying staff on the complaint screening process, I was fully supportive of staff vetting and processing complaints.  Staff had found a workable balance among the conflicting interests of all parties. The recommended process was quite simple: it allowed members of the public to file complaints, and it contained a mechanism to ensure frivolous and vexatious claims were filtered out. Only Code related complaints would be forwarded to an Integrity Office.

However, an amendment was proposed by Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Dell, and supported by Councillors Caradonna, Laughton and Kim, to prohibit direct access by the public to the complaint procedure. Under this plan, the public could access the complaint procedure only by submitting a complaint to a Councillor who would decide if the complaint was a valid Code complaint to be forwarded for Integrity Officer review.   

I am pleased that Mayor Alto voiced her concern over this exclusion of the public. The Mayor asserted that the amendment proposed by Councillor Thompson was a “fundamental undermining of the principles behind the need for a Code of Conduct” and further stated that she had “confidence in the [staff] design” and that there “has to be a way for the public to complain … I am disheartened …. I suspect that in the intervening months we will hear significant feedback from the public, which we may or may not consider”.

The vote on limiting direct public access to the Code was 5-4 (Opposed by Mayor Alto and Councillors Coleman, Hammond and me). City Staff were directed to go forward and create a bylaw for consideration in the fall.

This is a classic example of the “Coalition-of-5”, namely Councillors Caradonna, Thompson, Dell, Laughton and Kim, voting as a block.

The MNP Report clearly identifies broken “trust” between the City and those who live and work here.  I believe an effective Code of Conduct is needed to address public dissatisfaction with Council as expressed in the MNP survey with 68% believing Council did not make decisions in the best interests of the city and 82% feeling that Council was not focussed on the right things. The decision on the Code of Conduct will be before Council in a few weeks.  Mayor Alto has made a good point – for there to be any change from the path chosen by the Coalition-of-5, members of the public must make their views known.

Opportunities to Address Council:  At Council’s June 22 Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Alto proposed a motion directed at reducing opportunities for members of the public to address Council at regular evening Council meetings on a topic of their choice. The time allocation that had been in place for several years permitted 60 minutes (6 people, each speaking for 5 minutes, at Council meetings (usually 2 each month)).  The Mayor’s recommendation was to reduce public input to 6 speakers for 3 minutes each at one meeting per month.

I asked that the matter be brought from the consent agenda for discussion, and spoke of the 70% reduction of public ‘open’ time at Council.   This opportunity is valued by the public as evidenced by the over-subscription to speak to Council.  Councillors Dell, Thompson and Caradonna spoke of the need to hear from “new people” and not the “usual suspects”.  The original recommendation was altered to create a limitation to be placed on speakers to reduce “repeat speakers”. The vote on this amendment was 7-2, with Councillor Coleman and I opposing the amendment.

City staff were directed to draft changes to the Council Procedures Bylaw to reflect the altered recommendation.

Interestingly, in the final minutes of a Council meeting several weeks later, Councillor Kim switched her position, stating that she wanted public opportunities at 2 meetings each month.  She forwarded an amendment to that effect.  The vote switched to 7-2 with Mayor Alto and Councillor Dell voting in opposition to the change.

The final vote on the amended motion to permit 6 speakers for 3 minutes each at 2 meetings most months, or 36 minutes per month, was 7-2, with Councillor Coleman and myself in opposition.    

Official Community Plan (OCP):  The third issue where the Coalition-of-5 intends to limit public input is the Official Community Plan.  Development of a community plan normally takes 3-5 years.  City staff recommended an accelerated time framework of about 22 months over 2 years, acknowledging a reduced opportunity for public input.  Some Councillors proposed significantly reduced consultation, one suggesting a 15 month timeline and another cited the 2022 election result as sufficient public input to rationalise further reduction. Staff returned to Council with a further reduced timeline and further reduced public input. The final vote was 7-2 with Councillor Coleman and myself in opposition.  My next newsletter will be about the OCP review process.

Other Reductions of Public Input:  This Council has further reduced public input and citizen-led advisory committee input.  On several occasions, when City staff had recommended that an application be forwarded to public hearing, a member of the Coalition-of-5 brought forward a motion to waive the public hearing.  This has now become almost routine for development proposals.

While certain bylaw additions or changes require Public Hearings, many City of Victoria policies and projects do not require open public process.  Recent examples include the redesign of Centennial Square, parks work priorities, and sheltering in parks.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This Council is clearly headed in a direction chosen by the group of 5 like-minded Councillors.  The path they have chosen has not been adequately tested through public consultation; indeed, the budget survey a few months ago suggested that the priorities of the Coalition-of-5 did not match the public’s priorities.  When the issue of public consultation comes up at Council meetings, the desire to hear from specific groups of the public or those who are the “right people” is raised, without disclosing who is considered to be the “right” people and/or the “wrong” people.  I fear that decisions at Council will further divide our residents and businesses, rather than unite them.

At Council meetings, those of us outside the Coalition-of-5 are often out of the loop on a topic.  The most recent example is the VicPD “police calls” data chart on 19 locations in the City which was shared by some Councillors and kept from others while decisions were being made about sheltering.

I do what I can to keep citizens informed and to advocate for more openness and transparency.  Unfortunately, it has been a losing battle.  If you value careful and deliberate discussion in civic affairs, please make your voice heard.  If you are not happy with Council decisions on safe streets, spending of your tax dollars, decision-making practices, and lack of consultation on matters of importance to you, let the Mayor and all Councillors know.

There are several topics which I hope to explore in the weeks ahead including reconsideration of the Official Community Plan and the City Council response to the MNP Governance Review Report (including remuneration).

Regards,

Marg