On January 8 at 9:00 a.m., Ritchot council held their biweekly public meeting to address a variety of topics on the current agenda. One delegation was heard by council, presented by resident Robert Doiron.
Doiron shared his concerns regarding Ritchot’s proposed Procedures bylaw, which is a set of official policies used by council to clearly identify how council will govern itself in terms of meetings, public notices, council conduct, and public participation at council meetings. The Municipal Act requires that councils review their Procedures bylaw at least once during each term of office.
In December, after careful review, council proposed amendments to their Procedures bylaw which passed first reading. Second and third reading were set for the January 8 meeting, at which time council was to vote to determine whether the bylaw would pass into effect.
“Bylaw 11-2018 has three areas that, in effect, will significantly reduce the transparency of how this council conducts the important business of the citizens of Ritchot,” Doiron told council during his presentation. “It should be noted that this bylaw has appeared on the agenda for the December 4 meeting… and for this January 8 meeting. On these occasions, only the bylaw number was listed, but the actual bylaw was not attached and there was no description of the bylaw content.”
Doiron added that he’d acquired and reviewed a copy of Ritchot’s proposed bylaw by performing his own due diligence.
“I am most likely the only citizen of Ritchot who has seen or has a copy of the bylaw,” continued Doiron. “This very important bylaw, fundamentally changing how council operates, could be passed into law today without giving any citizen the opportunity to review its content. It would also give this council, in the future, the ability to pass any other bylaw they wish without a citizen getting an opportunity to read it. That is not transparency in government.”
One area of concern for Doiron included a section which would eliminate the recording of council votes unless a recorded vote was specifically requested by a member of council. Thus, meeting minutes which are accessible to residents would only indicate whether a vote was carried, defeated, or tabled until a future date. Without attending a meeting, residents would not have access to information indicating which councillors voted in favour or against a particular motion.
“It is unrealistic to ask citizens take time off work or, in some cases, arrange for someone to care for their children so they may appear at a meeting, especially when the information is easily recorded in real time and easily made available for access on the municipal website,” Doiron said. “Recorded votes have been a part of the meeting minutes for over 30 years. It has been the best way for the citizens to view how their elected councillors and mayors are speaking up for their issues and concerns.”
Another key area of concern for Doiron was a bylaw proposal providing the mayor with the singular ability to deny a delegation from speaking at a council meeting if the topic was considered redundant.
“That power would… allow a mayor the ability to prevent anyone from coming before council that he or she does not agree with, or someone from appearing for purely political reasons, by simply calling the application redundant,” Doiron said. “A delegation should be allowed to appear before council without interference by a mayor. If council, as a whole, wishes to prevent someone from speaking, it should be done by resolution, [with] a recorded reason and a recorded vote.”
Finally, Doiron addressed another section of the bylaw which would allow council meetings to be held by the mayor or council via electronic devices. Doiron’s concern was that this broadly worded proposal would open the door for public council meetings to be held solely via telecommunications, preventing the public from attending or participating if they did not have use of the specified communications method.
Council acknowledged appreciation for Doiron’s concerns and admitted, based on his address, that some bylaw wording would require change. Mayor Chris Ewen clarified that the word “redundant” was simply intended to prevent numerous delegations from making the same points repetitively, taking up precious time that might otherwise be used to address new concerns or ideas.
Council also indicated that the addition of “electronic devices” into the bylaw was intended to allow a council member or mayor the ability to interact within an in-person meeting should they be unable to physically attend. Council says that have no intention, now or in the future, of discontinuing the bimonthly public meetings held in council chambers. This, too, will be made clearer in the bylaw wording.
The second reading of the Procedures bylaw was put to a vote and, by majority vote, was tabled until the next public meeting, to be held on January 23.
Another item on council’s agenda was the first reading of the Dog bylaw, which addresses pet licensing, vaccination requirements, and animal control. Of specific concern to council were amendments to the section relating to dog kennels in the RM. Under the proposed bylaw, households may not harbour more than three dogs over the age of four months without receiving a kennel license issued by the municipality.
As before, no kennel would be allowed to operate within the RM without approval of council through a resolution held on a predetermined meeting date. Council would provide a minimum of ten days’ notice to affected property owners within 101 meters of the proposed kennel operation.
Finally, council reviewed a request by the St. Adolphe Curling Club to forgive a water bill charge incurred during the summer of 2018. Excessive water use occurred due to a water line break in the premises. Water bill costs during that period came to over $1,400, in comparison to their typical $56 charge. Council agreed that, due to the circumstances, the excess charge would be reversed.
