Some residents of Elliot Lake feel like communication between themselves and their city council is hamstrung by the existing Procedural By-law.
The procedural by-law (section 16-6) defines how the council conducts its meetings. It also describes how Elliot Lake residents are allowed to participate in council and committee meetings.
Presently, citizen input is limited to a two-minute opportunity to speak to an agenda item - if the resident registers before noon of the meeting day and describes their planned input using a multi-question online form on the city website.
The Ad Hoc Procedural By-law committee held an inaugural meeting, Thursday afternoon, January 30. The purpose of the committee is to review and update the current procedural by-law enacted in 2016.
A couple of interested Elliot Lakers who have brought input to council in the past were also in attendance at the meeting and addressed the committee.
'Pose that same challenge to council members'
Local resident, Laurie Blake, was one of them.
Blake was not preregistered to speak however, speaking to the still assembled group, he suggested it can be difficult for a citizen to put their input into a two-minute speech.
“If I may,” Blake said to Mann, “the reality is, [dealing with] a foreign subject, for someone trying to articulate in two minutes - I would suggest that we pose that same challenge to council members and see how effective they are at articulating it.”
Responding, “we need to have something,” Mann said, “what I don’t want to have, is this,” as he demonstrated turning away from the public. It was a word-picture he used before, last fall.
“Now we have a new group (council) that we have to be very clear on to set expectations, right?”
“Get that told. And that’s what I heard tonight, and that was very positive,” Blake responded.
Fear of constituting quorum stifles discussion
Local resident, Mike Thomas, preregistered to speak at Thursday's committee meeting.
He described council’s ability to speak to the public, and the public to council, as "hamstrung."
“One of the things that have hamstrung our council’s ability to speak to the public, and for the public to engage with them, is the constant nemesis of being mindful that they don’t want to constitute quorum and engage the public … for fear of breaking the law to engage with the constituency.”
Thomas: “There also has to be room for public engagement … so that council is able to answer a question [and] respectfully be asked a question.”
“I think it's an essential component," he said, continuing to ask rhetorically, “Are the rules governing public participation during meetings sufficient? No, they're not. They haven't been for quite some time.”
He concluded, “And I express this with gratitude because we’ve been waiting for two years - since the election, for this committee to occur, and finally it has. And those, Mr. Chairman, are my respectful submissions, and I thank you for the time to do so.”
Thomas’s public input covered other points too. It was about four-and-a-half uninterrupted minutes long.
Councillor Norman Mann appointed chair
Couns. Merrill Seidel moved that Couns. Mann be appointed chair of the committee, observing, “I will make the appointment of Councillor Mann, as he has the most experience in this situation.”
Later, during a table go-around introduction to the consultants, Mann shared that he has served on council since 2010. The other council members are serving their first term.
The meeting lasted one hour with little of the councillor's discussion time considering specific changes for citizen participation.