ROTHENBURGER – A fly in the ointment of the alternative approval process

WHEN COLEY ECKER went to City Hall yesterday (Sept. 16, 2024), she was hoping for some reassurance about the thousands of AAP forms she and the Kamloops AAP Vote Group had turned in last Friday.

Those are the forms in which electors could indicate their objection to borrowing bylaws for the performing arts theatre and sports multiplex.

Specifically, Ecker was worried that forms that don’t include the postal code of the elector will be disqualified. She’d heard about that possibility when the forms were taken to City Hall on Friday and wanted to find out for sure.

Corporate officer Maria Mazzotta didn’t have any good news. Yes, she said, forms lacking postal codes will be considered invalid because they’re used to confirm that someone lives in the city, and because the City’s tabulation system is set up for them.

Mazzotta did say the staff tasked with validating the forms are being very careful to make certain that none is being discarded unless absolutely necessary.

After several minutes of respectful conversation, Ecker left disappointed. She’s not sure if she should appeal the postal code issue to the BC Ombudsperson.

Ecker, who already has an appeal pending on other issues relating to what she contends are “legislative errors” on the electoral response forms and public notices, estimates that as many as one in 20 of the several thousand forms she returned don’t include a postal code. That could make the difference between rejection and approval of either of the two borrowing bylaws under consideration.

While Mazzotta said yesterday her initial impression is that there are very few returned forms that lack postal codes, Ecker says she received many from residents she had to remind to add the code.

Whether the City provided adequate notice of the need for postal codes is a matter of opinion. Ecker says the form was unclear on whether it would be rejected if the postal code of the signatory wasn’t included. However, the City’s website did clearly state that a missing postal code would invalidate a person’s form. It said the field for residential address must include “the house number, street name, and postal code and must be printed legibly.” It gave as an example of an unacceptable address format: “7 Victoria Street West – address must include a postal code.”

Ecker makes the argument that “City Hall could easily determine whether the form was signed by an eligible elector without having the postal code.” The Municipal Affairs Ministry’s guide to AAPs doesn’t state that postal codes must be included in the addresses but Mazzotta says details of information required on the form are at the discretion of the municipality.

So it seems the only resolution would be for Ecker to appeal to the Ombudsperson, or for council to remove the postal code requirement should it make a difference in the outcome. Something council is highly unlikely to do.

By the way, Mazzotta also mentioned that the results may be available by Monday rather than waiting for a report at Tuesday’s council meeting. The report will include how many forms were rejected. A lot of people will be waiting nervously to see those numbers.

Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, and a Webster Foundation Commentator of the Year finalist. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor.  He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.