Mayor Smith’s sloppy procedure

Today, I continue to share links found on the Town’s Website. The Procedural Bylaw in conjunction with the Code of Conduct (shared in discussion 312) provides the “basic” framework that would guide anyone with no experience if they sit at a Council table.

Any procedural matter not addressed in the Bylaw would require referring to Roberts Rule of Order.

It amazes me how often our Mayor simply asks the clerk to remind him of the rules. There is an ongoing struggle for our Council to use a rule when it’s convenient for their purpose, but refuse to allow its use by a member not falling in line.

A couple of GLARING examples of disregard for the process and rules were entertaining in this month’s meeting.

The most laughable one was when Mayor Smith adjourned the meeting. The gavel came down and he declared the meeting closed. But wait… the clerk then had to interrupt his hurried departure to remind him that he had forgotten to pass a particular motion.

No Problem! He has done this before, so he handled it the same way he has done in the past. He simply referred to the outstanding motion, had members first and second it, then called the vote. But wait… is the motion legal if the meeting was declared closed by Mr.Mayor? Well, it doesn’t matter… his next order of business was to quickly adjourn the meeting AGAIN. lol. Wait… they were not officially in a meeting, as it had been adjourned already.

Oh well, the above just shows how sloppy Mayor Smith is with procedure. In his defense, he had to deal with putting a Council member in what he felt was her place moments earlier, so he was likely flustered and in a hurry to get off camera to unleash his possible distain.

I’m certain that he will take a deep breath in future, look at the papers in front of him (prepared by the clerk), think about where he sits and the importance of that seat and then and only then… he will close the meeting…. (Maybe).

He fumbles procedure so often, others in the room simply let it slide and hope nobody else notices. A couple of months ago, not a single staff member dared mention it and not one Council member corrected him when he declared “Deputy Mayor Bray” as seconding a motion. lol. That’s right, my wife hasn’t been Deputy Mayor for over two years and he continues to call her name when referring to Deputy Mayor Snell. That example may also be entertaining and certainly should be insulting to Tanya Snell, but more importantly… is the motion or bylaw passed at that time legal? Hmmmm. Deputy Mayor Bray wasn’t even in the room, so did ANYONE second the motion? Again, although this was certainly NOT the first time he had made this very mistake, I am certain the next time it will at least come with an appropriate apology and a correction for the official record. Maybe even one member of Council will dare to correct him with a point of order.

However, the most important procedural issue at this month’s meeting was the handling of the “Notice of Motion” section of the meeting. Councilor Dileo wanted to read a notice of motion, then she wanted to read a second notice of motion asking to set aside policy in order to discuss the first motion. In her defense, the Council she helps form has made similar moves on several occasions in the past. Of course, those prior instances were to send off letters that the MAYOR felt were important, so procedure was set aside in prior instances.

As the Mayor, if a member wants to bring forward a motion, (not a notice of motion) he should discover if another member seconds the motion. If not, it dies on the table. If it is seconded, then the motion goes to a vote. Mayor Smith disregards this and simply declares he doesn’t THINK it’s urgent enough to warrant immediate consideration. His Council, his rules!

A notice of motion is to be read at the meeting it is presented at. That’s it. That’s all! There is not to be discussion on the motion. There is certainly not to be a vote on it. Why? Well it stops Council members from hijacking an issue and forcing an uninformed vote. The Motion is supposed to be added to the agenda of the NEXT meeting so that Council Members (and the public) have time to review the importance of the Motion, research it and make informed decisions.

This is not the first mishandling of Notice of Motions. To my knowledge, a notice of Motion read by Councilor Belanger over a year ago has still not made it to an agenda. I don’t believe it has officially been withdrawn either. It was the Motion where he asked for his Integrity Commisioner sanctions from the previous term of Council to be reversed. Maybe they simply found another way to compensate him for those costs when they retroactively reimbursed him for years of unclaimed expenses from the previous term for about the same amount of money. (As an aside; My wife took the opportunity after Belanger’s reimbursement, to follow his claim and do the same thing, but she was denied payment. I guess it’s a procedure reserved for currently elected members?).

Procedures and Codes of conduct matter. When a sitting Mayor ignores those rules he is laughing at democracy. If you are one of the many people considering running for office in the next term, read these rules carefully. Be prepared to hold those serving alongside you accountable.

At any time, any member of Council can interrupt the Mayors disregard with a “point of order”. Of course, that member of Council might have to live with the consequences after the gavel hits the table and they are summoned to the Mayors office. This may be true no matter how many times the meeting is adjourned.