File Photo (Image Credit: CFJC Today)

By Sadie Hunter

In The Loop

HUNTER: On public inquiries, stop editorializing for dramatic effect and start educating

Feb 28, 2023 | 10:30 AM

I WANT TO PREFACE THIS WEEK’S TOPIC by stating I unequivocally support public discourse and the ability of the public to engage in discussion with elected officials.

What I don’t support, is the fear-mongering, sky-is-falling narrative being shared in a recent editorial by Mel Rothenburger. Sure, editorials are by their very nature the opinion of the author. At the same time, I take having access to a platform to share my opinions as a privilege, and research and contextualize my opinions in facts. I believe it’s the responsibility of anyone with access to such a platform to also provide access to factual information. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the approach taken by some columnists who instead prefer to dramatize and sensationalize their content with the goal of boosting clicks. The content does nothing to further constructive community dialogue and discussion and only adds to the “old man yells at cloud” (or maybe computer) trope.

With that unfiltered opinion off my chest, I’d like to provide some of the factual information missing from opines about a motion being presented Tuesday (Feb. 28) by Councillor Dale Bass that will look to formalize the unstated process for public inquiries made during regular council meetings.

To start, I would point out the requirement for any public inquiry being related to the agenda is clearly stated on a powerpoint slide (slide 17) at the beginning of every meeting so it’s not a new approach or idea. An inquiry is a question. It is not an appropriate time to take 20 or more minutes to share all of your current concerns about the city.

It has been correctly pointed out that other municipalities already set time limits to each speaker. This is the piece not currently formalized in Kamloops. Unofficially, speakers have about five minutes, with some leeway at the discretion of the chair. It can be nerve-wracking to step up to the podium and share your concerns in council chambers. I admire anyone who takes the time and shows the courage to do so and support having some flexibility around the time limit.

Week in Review

Week in Review: Week of May 13

7h ago

Two and Out

PETERS: Connor Ingram shows even in hockey culture, it's okay to ask for help

May 17, 2024

ART OF GARDENING

Art of Gardening - Special May Long Weekend Edition

May 17, 2024

Setting a time limit, however, is a far cry from shutting down public engagement completely, an idea promoted in other editorials as fact.

What those editorials appear to have left out are the other very real considerations, and the other ways the public is very free to engage with council. The other considerations include the number of staff in the room to support the meeting, which is a business meeting, not a public forum.

Normally staff are there to support the section of the agenda related to their department, not the entire meeting. In the January 31 council meeting, which precipitated this motion, many staff were there all day waiting to present their reports. That’s a lot of salary dollars. Further to this, if the public inquiry section was open-ended and allowed for any topic and unrestricted time, how much more would this cost? Yes, council is paid to listen to the taxpayer, but does the taxpayer support this large investment in staff time? Staff are ultimately the subject-matter experts, not council.

Councillor Bass and other councillors (including Councillor Nancy Bepple in her own editorial) have spoken of the need to set time limits to create fairness across the board – for the public and for staff. If the first speakers get 30 minutes of time, does this mean others get less time or don’t get a chance to speak at all?

If topics aren’t related to the agenda, the chances of having the subject-matter expert in the room to answer a question — if the concern is presented as a question — are slim. Would all staff then be required to be on call? At the January meeting, questions weren’t asked. There were staff present who could have responded appropriately to some of the concerns raised had an actual inquiry been made – but one wasn’t. Without a question — or several questions — being asked, how can information be shared? How is this meaningful dialogue which might constructively address concerns? Those speakers had open-ended time to share but they didn’t leave with any answers.

There are other ways the public can engage with council. Individual councillors can be contacted by email or phone. All of the council can be reached at once by emailing citycouncil@kamloops.ca. While the current protocol is for the deputy mayor to respond, all of council receives the email. Many topical items can also be found on the city’s Let’s Talk website. I like this platform because your question is likely one others have asked and, instead of responding to the same question multiple times by email, the response can be posted there for everyone to see and access.

Contrary to commentary published last week, groups can request to appear as a delegation to council committees. The chairs and members of the committees can also request certain delegations be given time at a meeting. As chair of the Development and Sustainability Committee, I welcomed delegations and the opportunity to discuss topics in more detail than a regular council meeting allows.

Can more be done? Absolutely. That’s why I proposed the idea of a public health and safety forum as part of my mayoral campaign. These big and very important discussions require dedicated time and attention. I think there would be tremendous benefit in a facilitated conversation about community safety. I know it’s top of mind for most people, myself included. Health care, arts facilities, sport venues, senior’s services accessibility and active transportation are all equally important issues which deserve devoted and focused attention.

I know the mayor was looking for ideas from other candidates to incorporate into his approach –this is one I think the entire community would benefit from. Perhaps this is something the Community Relations Committee could look at as a future initiative. Wouldn’t it be better to be able to talk to others with the same concerns, have face-to-face discussions, meet the subject-matter experts, and not have to get up to a podium in council chambers to ask a question?

Formalizing an existing process during regular council meetings doesn’t mean voices can’t be heard. Saying otherwise is a disservice to the community and creates more turbidity unnecessarily. Why not use the privilege of an editorial platform to share solutions and promote positive dialogue? I’m hopeful the conversation about public engagement will lead to new, and better, ways for the community to come together and have meaningful dialogue with those they have elected.

——

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.