Going back to the council chambers for the first time in almost exactly two years was a fascinating experience. Fascinating, because even in a near empty chamber with half a council, the clerk, the exec team, and a couple of media guys present, it felt like not much had changed in terms of the dynamics.
So let’s recap the events of this month’s committee of the whole, live and in-person!
If you felt underwhelmed by the report about what happened on the demolition of 797 Victoria Rd. N., I don’t blame you. The explanation that the right hand basically didn’t know what the left hand was doing is profoundly mundane, but it’s also sadly understandable. The dilapidating status of many local heritage properties is pretty much out of sight, out of mind until someone dares to look at it.
The debate over the recommendation of the City Council Remuneration and Support Advisory Committee couldn’t have unfolded any more predictably if some guy had pre-visioned it on this very website a week ago. And while a 20 per cent pay increase for council makes a very tasty headline, the real story was committee’s unwillingness to take the advice that they were seeking in the first place.
Despite praise for the work of the Remuneration Committee, that work was met with some of the most skeptical interrogation of any City of Guelph board or committee I’ve ever seen. While you’re shaking your fist at the Twitter headline about the raise, several committee of the whole members had doubts that the math was correct on the pay raise that they just voted in favour of.
My question after the meeting was the same from before the meeting: Why did council go through this process to begin with? Why did they waste the time and energy and experience of an accomplished consultancy and a quintet of dedicated local volunteers? The 13 members of council knew the answer they wanted, and they got it despite all advice to the contrary.
In other words, council entered this process knowing that it would end with a mayor and 12 part-time councillors from six wards.
My ability to stifle my own colour commentary was tested when one councillor said that the recommendation for full-time councillors would have made more sense if they had approved a smaller number of councillors to begin with. Strange that this was only a consideration now when council purposefully asked the Remuneration Committee to answer the full-time or part-time conundrum.
So that brings us to a pair of motions coming from inside committee.
The first one was a request to establish “more rigorous accountability and reporting requirements” for groups that received Community Benefit Agreements worth $200,000 or more. Seems straightforward and uncontroversial, right?
You would be wrong.
The motion might as well have read that city council was going to insist that groups receiving Community Benefit Agreements will be turned over and hung upside down by the ankles and then vigorously shook until all their pennies fall out onto the ground!
It turns out that the entire situation was a bit of mass confusion because the reporting being sought is already given to city staff but just not widely shared with council or the public. After the biggest fight over words on a page since Wallace Stevens broke his hand on Ernest Hemingway’s jaw in 1936, a more politely worded motion was passed.
I suppose now the big problem is getting the information off the city’s own website in the future, which often requires you to be one of those hacker sidekicks every TV superhero has in order to find the one piece of information you need, but that’s not too different from any other day.
The final item was also a motion around groups with a Community Benefit Agreement, a request that they voluntarily sign on to the Code of Conduct that applies to city council and local boards and committees appointed by council. Again, there was a clear intent, but the practical application was another matter altogether.
I’m not sure what prompted the motion, and the councillor that brought it forward has refused to name names, but the sensitivity of this area should not be underestimated. For instance, a symbol of pride and service for one group can be read as a symbol of hate and authoritarianism to others.
I took a walk down Fountain Street last Sunday, and in the parking lot across the road from Guelph police headquarters was a pickup decorated with the flag bearing the blue stripe across a grey maple leaf. This is not the first time that the Blue Lives Matter flag has flow in proximity to our police service, a symbol that the RCMP leadership asked their own members to stop wearing almost two years ago.
I mention this because the point of the motion was to create a venue for councillors and city officials to have polite conversations with CBA holders about things some community members might interpret as controversial or inappropriate. There are two members of council on the Police Services Board, which perhaps give you an idea of the effectiveness of council advocacy.
So overall, a productive meeting! It didn’t break the mould, but it was good to be back.
