Port Moody to release details on unlisted development committee

A Port Moody councillor was scolded by some of her colleagues after requesting information on an unlisted development committee be released to the public.

Council narrowly passed the motion by a vote of 4-3 on Tuesday, Sept. 10, directing staff to provide details surrounding the Development Liaison Committee, which is not listed on the city’s website alongside other committees.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki introduced the motion after hearing reference of the committee for the first time at a July 16 council discussion related to advancing the city’s energy efficiency standards for new buildings. 

“I am not inferring that there’s anything wrong here, I just think the public should be filled in,” Lurbiecki said. “There’s immense public interest in the city’s approaches to housing and development because of the potential impacts of these approaches on the community.”

Dubbed “supporting transparency through reporting on city meetings with industry representatives,” the motion requested details on the membership, purpose, meeting minutes, and a list of policies and bylaws which have been reviewed by the committee.

Lurbiecki said she’s since learned this committee is made up of members of the Urban Development Institute, a provincially registered lobbyist.

Staff said that committee was established last year, and only a couple of meetings have taken place. When developing policies and strategies, they said they regularly engage with industry stakeholders, including businesses. Minutes are recorded, and producing the requested information would be no issue, staff said.

The motion, however, drew a sharp response from several councillors.

Coun. Diana Dilworth said Lurbiecki was trying to “demonize” homebuilders, describing the motion as “embarrassing.”

Dilworth said hosting development liaison committees is considered best practice across B.C., adding she knows of at least a dozen in the Lower Mainland alone.

“To suggest that there is something nefarious about our staff meeting with developers and homebuilders is disrespectful and an insult to our staff, Dilworth said. “(It) suggests we don’t trust them to do their job and that they need political oversight.”

Coun. Kyla Knowles agreed, stating she was “flabbergasted” to see the motion in front of council. She said the motion attempts to politicize routine staff responsibilities by insinuating wrongdoing is taking place through attendance of industry workshops.

When Lurbiecki called these criticisms “misinformation” and tried to defend her position, Mayor Meghan Lahti cut her microphone, stating she did not want the discussion to turn into an argument.

Coun. Callan Morrison took issue with the tone of the motion, stating it infers a lack of transparency, and the wording of the motion unfairly casts doubt on city staff.

He encouraged other councillors not to second such motions in the future, stating sometimes items are not worthy of discussion.

“It’s happened far too often,” Morrison said. “Some things just shouldn’t make it to the table, and should die before that.”

Although other councillors described the motion as unnecessary, noting the information could have been provided through email, they were not totally opposed to releasing details.

Coun. Amy Lubik said it was a simple request, and it would be helpful information for the public to know.

She took issue with the lack of respectful communication on council, stating if they ask the public to maintain decorum, council needs to abide by the same standard.

Lubik said that back-and-forth bickering has been a frequent occurrence since council took office, and it is not conducive to strong discussion or policy.

“When we get into situations where we’re going on personal attacks to anyone on council, it makes it really hard for any of us to listen with open minds,” she said. 

Lahti agreed, stating the language used at council at times seems “rhetorical” and “hyperbolic,” rather than focused on the motion.

“If you have a concern . . . I think it’s important to raise them,” she said. “(But) there is a slippery slope around comments that are being made.”

Lurbiecki, for her part, said her fellow councillors should withdraw their previous statements and issue an apology. She said there is no ill intent behind her motion, and it does not make any accusation.

“Conjecture on intent that is completely false is just not acceptable for council,” Lurbiecki said.