We’re either about to enter an election year, or cabin fever has finally set in and Guelph city council desperately needs to be liberated from their Zoom boxes.
It’s really hard to say what’s going on with the interpersonal dynamics around the virtual horseshoe, but what I do know is that the dramatics at this week’s meeting did not address any of the primary concerns of the people of Guelph whether its affordable housing, climate change, or road safety.
Frankly, it was embarrassing to watch.
Let’s split this into two parts. Part one involved the month-long fallout of the decision to demolish 797 Victoria Rd. N. without the input of Heritage Guelph. Concerns remained that the minutes of the Sept. 30 and Oct. 6 emergency meetings did not accurately reflect what happened, and while that’s important, it’s another example of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Put simply, we have not even come close to answering this question: How can we trust council when they make decisions in closed meetings?
For instance, this week in closed session council heard an update to labour negotiations with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) members who work at the River Run Centre, and afterwards Mayor Cam Guthrie announced that a memorandum of understanding was reached between the city and the union.
That’s good news, but it’s more information than we normally get out of matters held in-camera, and that remains a big problem.
It’s a curious fact that in the fallout of the 797 Victoria decision that a lot of information shared in the closed session, including now the closed meeting minutes, are part of the public record. Why can’t this be done going forward? Sure, redact the parts that need to be redacted like identifiable individuals or solicitor’s advice, but there’s a need for transparency beyond just being given the title of the report.
I know that the clerks office will probably say of this idea that the redaction process for closed meeting materials would take too much time if we do it for every in-camera discussion. Sadly, this seems to be a branch of city staff that’s averse to hard work because that’s basically the reason why on Monday they will recommend to Committee that they not adapt electronic ballot marking for next year’s election.
Is it just me, or does it seem like a fully informed electorate with easy access to our democratic systems not seem like a priority to the City of Guelph?
That brings us to the second part, the mayor’s bizarre motion to get an information report from staff about reviewing the governance of the Downtown Business Improvement Area and surveying the membership about a possible dissolution of the BIA.
Phew. I certainly know that of all the issues currently facing Guelph, the one that keeps me up at night the most is the continued existence of the BIA.
The staff specifically mentioned in the motion were the city solicitor, who’s just had a busy month, the city clerk, who, again, is reporting on Monday that they’re already swamped, and the city treasurer who has a busy month ahead doing that thing – what is it again? Oh yeah, The budget!
So what’s the urgent urgency?
It was mentioned in a GuelphToday article earlier this week, and it was also confirmed by my sources, that there’s apparently a small group of people inside the BIA that have a beef with it and are making waves. The mayor, never one to let moss grow under a pending crisis, seemed to act before the iron was even put in the fire to get hot, and now people are scratching their heads looking for the smoke.
Mixed metaphors aside, councillors were right to point out that people would become overly focused on that word “dissolution”, because we live in a time when people on social media read the headline of an article and react without reading the full text. The mayor can say again and again that it was a request for information, but the ask has an embedded presupposed conclusion.
In other words, why do you want to know how to dissolve the BIA if you aren’t thinking about dissolving it? You’re certainly not asking for information about a governance review because you have no intention of actually following through on the review.
We’re entering into a couple of very busy and substantial months at council, and that’s tough enough to stay on top of when you’re only assuming that there’s behind the scenes dysfunction at city hall and not when it’s being rubbed in your face on an almost weekly basis. Is council ready to deal with this slate in a direct and serious manner? Debatable.
This October was rough, and if council doesn’t keep their eye on the prize, then the ones who choose to run for re-election next year might find themselves having an even rougher October in 2022.
