EDITORIAL – The metrics of dampening the public’s voice at council meetings

An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.

WHEN PUBLIC INQUIRIES — that is, whether or not there should be such a thing at regular City council meetings — came up for discussion in October, it seemed as though councillors were genuinely committed to finding ways to keep them.

The issue appeared to be how to improve their functionality rather than how to get rid of them. Yet, the three councillors charged with digging deeper into the question will, instead, recommend to their colleagues that public inquiries be at least temporarily banished from future agendas.

The governance and service excellence committee met last week and, at first, talked about continuing to allow members of the public to have a voice. The options of putting a strict time limit on the public inquiries section as a whole, or setting up some sort of system for residents to give prior notice of their questions, more closely defining what a public inquiry is and isn’t, for example. But the conversation gradually took a turn, going back to the old complaints about public inquiries taking too long, detracting from council’s ability to get business done, and inappropriate comments sometimes made by those asking questions.

And, of course, their old favourite, blaming Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson for not keeping things under better control.

Coun. Katie Neustaeter spoke of council chambers not feeling like a safe place during public inquiries. “I wouldn’t let my little nephews come into this room and watch these proceedings, I wouldn’t do it, it’s not a safe space,” she said.

Coun. Bill Sarai returned to his theme of residents having other ways to connect with council members. And Coun. Dale Bass, who chaired the meeting, gravitated to the view that maybe public inquiries should be banned for the rest of the current term, and the next council decide whether to bring them back.

In the end, they decided to ban them now, for a period of six months. Theoretically, it would be a pilot program during which the effect of having no public inquiries could be assessed. Have council meetings become more orderly? Has the public’s ability to communicate with council been reduced? Has money been saved by not having to have a Community Services Officer present? Things like that. As Neustaeter said, put “metrics” in place to evaluate.

“Metrics” is such a good word. It sounds so logical, so positively….. scientific. The metrics of this thing are pretty simple though — the less input, the more order. But that doesn’t mean better.

I have no doubt the committee’s six-month plan will be adopted by council in an 8-1 vote. I also have no doubt that six months from now, the ban will be made permanent, by another 8-1 vote.

At the same time, a proposal to save about 30 seconds by removing “readings” from the agenda will be rejected. The readings will stay. Priorities.

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.