Given the subject matter, there was a certain irony in the fact that Monday night's meeting of Guelph City Council lasted almost five and a half hours.
One of the lengthy debates of the night surrounded council's move towards a committee of the whole governance system, a move in part designed to shorten council meetings.
In the end council decided to implement the new system, but added a clause that will see it reviewed in six months.
But the move towards the new system starting in September, which sees all of council sit as members of the city's main committees rather than just five of them, almost met an untimely end.
The theory is that issues will be discussed and debated at the committee level, not both the committee level and council meetings, unless there is new information.
Several councillors, and several delegates, expressed concern about a clause in the new structure that limited delegations from the public.
Under the initial draft of the new format, which was eventually approved by council, delegates can only appear once - before either committee or full council - unless new information arises.
Council later voted to remove that clause.
"We should be celebrating the fact that so many citizens want to engage," not limiting it, said regular council delegate Susan Watson.
Another regular speaker to council, Dr. Hugh Whiteley, said the process to arrive at the new structure "clearly violates" what community engagement means.
At one point it looked like the entire issue was going to grind to a halt and have to be brought back later in the summer, which led a somewhat-exasperated looking city clerk Stephen O'Brien to point out that this is what council directed staff to do last April.
Mayor Cam Guthrie was also a little perplexed.
"This is so contradictory to the direction given to staff in April," Guthrie said of the opposition to the move.
Councillors expressed a variety of concerns.
Leanne Piper, the most vocal opponent to the move, felt that committee of the wholes only work when you have a small board.
She said what was needed was council changing its behaviour, being more prepared in advance when it came to questioning staff and not repeating itself in comments on issues.
Cathy Downer felt "new information" was going to be a real can of worms to define if the clause about limiting delegations was left in.
James Gordon agreed, saying the "new information" clause would be "unenforceable."
"It's a well intentioned exercise that can't work," Gordon said.
Karl Wettstein wondered if the public might see committee of the whole decisions as the final decision, rather than the eventual one made by council.
Wettstein also didn't perceive much net gain in meeting length, given that having 15 people on committees would lead to "15 people taking their two bits."
Deputy CAO Mark Amorosi said the public and councilors will adjust.
"As people become more familiar, council meetings will become much more effective and shorter because it will only be dealing with new information," Amorosi said.
One of the main goals of the change is to eliminate repetition, both in information sharing and debate.
