Revised Anmore bylaw cuts public input and question period from committee meetings

Anmore council is making several changes to the way it runs its public meetings, the most significant being the removal of public input and question period from committee meetings.

By unanimous vote on Dec. 3, council approved an update to its procedure bylaw. Staff will be seeking feedback before the final reading.

“A committee of the whole meeting, in essence, is a workshop,” said Mayor John McEwen, adding residents will be able to receive more fulsome answers by emailing councillors or staff.

Council was initially considering cutting public participation from all its meetings when the bylaw update was first discussed last October, but they ultimately decided against staff’s recommendation.

A majority of council said they still found value in participation at regular meetings, but most said changes were needed as some residents frequently abuse the process to waste time, pontificate, or attack staff and council members.

Aside from changes to committee meetings, the bylaw also adds more restrictions to public participation at general meetings.

Time limits have been put on residents providing questions and input, though council can extend it by a majority vote.  

In addition, a clause has been added prohibiting speakers from touching on items related to the official community plan or zoning amendments, if a public hearing has already been held.

One of the reasons staff gave in their recommendation to completely cut input and questions from all meetings was potential legal issues if a rezoning application was jeopardized.

Another clause allows staff to screen delegations, and issue refusals to subjects deemed inappropriate or redundant.

Other changes include simplifying minute taking, allowing meetings to be held outside municipal boundaries, the addition of a new code of conduct clause, and general housekeeping improvements.

Coun. Doug Richardson, though approving of the changes, said he was uncomfortable with the removal of public input and question period.

He said he would have preferred leaving council discretion at each meeting.

“We’re having trouble as a village with the perception,” Richardson said. “We need to do better with the public, and I don’t quite know the way to do that.”

Staff pointed out there’s nothing in the bylaw that prevents council from allowing input and questions at a committee meeting if it is deemed valuable.

McEwen noted at previous committee meetings, he has called certain residents to speak if they had specific knowledge relevant to the discussion.

But, he added that meetings are most productive when it is a conversation between staff, council and proponents. 

Coun. Kim Trowbridge expressed concern that his idea, to restrict speakers from lengthy preambles during question period, did not find its way into the bylaw.

He argued that without a “ground rule” forcing residents to be upfront with an immediate question, it simply turns into a second public input period.

“This is not the intent I was looking for,” Trowbridge said. “If we’re going to retain the question period, then it should be about questions.”

Staff said the time limitation should ease these issues, but further restrictions could hinder the scope of discussion.

While McEwen said council could choose to revisit Trowbridge’s suggestion in the future, adding he will try to better moderate discussions as the committee chair.

He said if “ridiculous” questions continue to be asked, council can adjourn the meeting.

“A lot of councils in Metro Vancouver . . . are withdrawing out of public question period,” McEwen said. “The intent of this council is to continue it, as long as it isn’t abused.”