A Commentary by Doug Draper
‘Get rid of the regional government!’
As a reporter who has covered municipal affairs in Niagara, Ontario for more than 30 years, I’ve heard that line from residents across this region time and time again. And little wonder.
Regional council meetings are not for you. File photo by Doug Draper.
When after 40 years of regional government in Niagara, you still have what seems like a critical mass of people out there who don’t know what services the region delivers (I’ve talked to plenty of folks who still don’t know it’s the region that picks up their garbage) or can’t see why they couldn’t be delivered just as well, if not better, and for less of a cost by their local municipalities, you’d think the region’s council might want to do a little more to encourage members of the public to get engaged in its affairs.
Instead, a majority on this current regional council (who are supposed to be representing our interest rather than someone else’s) has been going out of its way to discourage public participation.
It has, as Niagara At Large discussed in a post as recently as this September, left delegations of residents barred from the council chamber, sometimes hours on end while (just as an example) it decides where it should locate a new police headquarters that will cost the taxpayers of Niagara tens-of-millions of dollars. Were the taxpayers of Niagara ever welcomed to engage in a robust debate over where a new police headquarters should go or whether we even need to build a new headquarters at all? No!
And now, just to make it clear how little the council wants the public involved in regional affairs, a majority of its members passed a “procedural bylaw” at the back end of a marathon meeting that began about 6:30 p.m. this past Sept. 23 and ended around 2 a.m. the following morning. In the bylaw is a clause that effectively bars individuals or groups from speaking as a delegation to the full council unless they are invited to make a presentation or receive two thirds of the councillors’ votes in order to speak.
In other words, it is one more way of keeping the peasants from having a forum at meetings a majority on the council apparently feel run so much smoother if there is no riff raff around. And the peasants are we – the very people who are paying most of the bills for this operation. Of course, at least a few of those who voted in favour of this bylaw would adamantly disagree with that and some already have in media reports this past week. They argue that the unwashed still have an opportunity to express their views at committee meetings, all scheduled during the regular working day when many of the unwashed, if we are lucky, still have a job to go to. But whether we have a job to go to or not in a region with (according to the latest Statistics Canada figures) the fourth highest unemployment rate (9.7 per cent) in all of Ontario, why should ordinary residents have to jump through hoops (either receive a special invite or get two thirds of the council to support them) for an opportunity to speak at a full meeting of council on an evening rather than a committee made up of a perhaps a third or if lucky, maybe half of our elected representatives during the working day?
Some of the most insufferable and, dare I say, arrogant arguments in favour of this bylaw came from Brian Baty, a two-term regional councillor from Pelham and retired high school principal, who was quoted in the local media this week saying that the bylaw is an attempt to “streamline” ever longer council meetings and prevent the meetings from being overtaking by “individuals using council’s (Cable 10 Cogeco television) access to forward their own personal agendas. … sometimes in a boisterous or insulting manner.” Baty went on to say that residents still have an opportunity to make their case at committee meetings or on a “one-on-one” with their councillor.
Excuse this tax-paying Niagara resident for taking exception with anything said by someone who seems to have let a little bit too much of that ‘I-can-boot-ass’ stuff go to his head while occupying a high school principal’s office. I know from past experience with this type (and yes, I’ll admit it. I got hauled into my share of principal’s office) that it is useless trying to reason with someone in a head space that seems to go back a few centuries before the Magna Carta was written.
So I am writing the rest of this for the rest of us. To argue that individual citizens and groups are using any more time than regional councillors to play to the Cogeco cameras is crap.
To the extent you can stand it, have you tried watching this regional council as the election has grown closer. If any kind of issue that might seem the least big important to a cross section of us pops up, almost every councillor in the chamber, including ones that have spent most of the last four years sitting there like potted plants, has felt compelled to get up and say something. Even Councillor Baty!
And of course why wouldn’t those councillors (and I hope they are only a few) who don’t necessarily want citizens playing a role in setting the agenda prefer that these citizens simply talk to them “one-on-one.”
Hey, isn’t it better just to keep it between ourselves? Wouldn’t want the general public to turn on Cogeco and hear any of this. By God, it could start a public movement in favour of an idea that didn’t necessary come out of the mouth of anyone sitting on the council. But then there is all that time those pesky people would take up at a general council meeting that might be better spent doing what?
Going back behind closed doors to discuss how best to spend tens-of-millions of dollars on police or other operations? I challenge those who believe that the odd person who actually cares enough to show up and speak at a regional council meeting takes up more time than all of the closed sessions this current council has held over the past four years and the time taken up by invited guests.
I challenge them to explain how the odd person who wishes to speak to a full meeting of council has taken up more time than the council has by moving from a two to three week schedule for its regular council meetings – a move that has only made these meetings longer. But most of all I challenge the rest of us not to take this draconian, anti-democratic bylaw sitting down.
We have a few days left to elect members to regional council who promise to kill this bylaw. We, who live, work and pay taxes in this region, should expect no less.
(Share your views on this issue below and visit Niagara At Large at http://www.niagaraatlarge.com for more news and commentary on matters of interest and concern to residents in our greater Niagara region.)
Niagara At Large 
Who of the many voted in favor of this injustice?
LikeLike
Hi Dan – There was no recorded vote. This thing was rubber stamped with a pile of bylaws at the infamous Sept. 23 meeting that lasted until 2 in the morning after a marathon closed session on the location of the NRP headquarters and residents from welland, fort erie and port colborne sitting there until after 1 p.m., only to find out the regional council would not favour a call for an investigation of NHS management. By the way, Pat Scholfield asked to speak at this meeting and was denied as she was told her side had already presented a position at an earlier public health committee meeting. take care, doug draper
LikeLike
Preposterous is one word to describe the regions new law to muzzle the public. How dare they blame the public for being the cause of the lengthly regional council meetings. That is nothing short of a joke. Baty is concerned some “individuals” want to hijack the television access to forward their own personal agendas. He prefers only the politicians be allowed to use the tv time to their advantage. Is there anything wrong with a tax paying citizen wanting to inform the public what is happening in their region. And when Baty said sometimes the public is boisterous and insulting, I nearly guffawed. The most insulting thing I have witnessed recently at regional council was when Mayor Badawey stood up to speak to a resolution he was presenting to have the Niagara Health System HIP reviewed and evaluated and Councilor Casselman said she could not vote as she had a conflict and referred to Badawey as an “ass” and stalked out. Why was she not reprimanded for this and made to apologize? Is there no code of conduct at the Region, or does it make a difference who you are?
Let me give you a personal experience. Recently I requested to be allowed to make a presentation at a Regional meeting to discuss a motion to have the NHS investigated. I had completed a considerable amount of investigation and documentation of material that was absolutely relevant to the topic, but was told I would not be allowed to speak as I had already spoken once before. I had addressed the region almost a year prior relating to whether or not we in the southern tier should be contributing $21 million of taxpayer’s money to the new hospital in St. Catharines. Does that mean you are only allowed to speak at the region once in a lifetime….if you are an ordinary citizen? I wrote up my information and submitted it. The councillors did not receive it until that night and I know from talking to them, most did not read it. They simply did not have enough time.
It is absolutely outrageous the region is trying to curtail input from taxpayers. They ought to be ashamed of themselves for this backward move. Reverse this decision or get rid of Regional Government.
You are right on Doug…….Taxation without Representation.
LikeLike
I can’t think of a more opportune time to express our displeasure than to vote out incumbants who allowed this by-law to pass. When elected officials deny a voice to the electorate to “save time” you can be sure they’ll soon be wasting more than taxpayer time — try our money!!
LikeLike
What is in this infamous by-law is simply the actual practice of Niagara Regional Council for the last three years. I know this because it seems to have first been applied to me!
Three years ago, I requested to speak to Niagara Regional Council on the proposed Thundering Waters Subdivision in Niagara Falls. My request was that a greater area of the forests in this subdivision be protected from development and designated as environmental protection areas. My request was received in ample time for the usual speaking arrangements.
I was told before the council meeting that I could not speak by the Regional Clerk’s office. As a result, I phoned a long time friend, the now late Michael Collins. He asked the Regional Chair if he concurred with the refusual to allow me to speak. When he stated that he agreed with the Clerk’s department ban on my speaking, Councillor Collins made a motion to allow me to speak. It was only supported by three councillors- who were- it turned out- to be the same noble fewl that supported more forest protection in this development. Eventually, I was able to protect this forest through other means, by appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board, and then negotiating with the developer to have the wetland mapping reviewed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Michael Collins made a very commendable act to preserve the venerable tradition going beck to the 19th century origins of municipal government in Ontario for citizens to addrss their councils on issues of public interest. The recent by-law simply codifies the bad break with tradtion that was made over his objections, shortly before his death.
I also wish to point out that St. Catharines City Council is more restrictive in allowing delegations that is usually evident. I recently gathered 208 names on a petition to oppose the sale of the Captain John Page Park and Fairview Golf Course for a road and development. I filed the petition with the Cleak’s department and requested a time to speak to address council. I was told a few weeks later that I could not speak because their was not staff report forthcoming on this issue.
John Bacher
Candidate St. Patrick;s Ward for City Council St. Catharines.
LikeLike
Strange as it may appear, I have some sympathy for the Regional Council. I strongly suspect that ever since Carlos Garcia was appointed, Andy Petrowski has been hectoring them at every meeting, trying to make them look as bad as possible and refusing to comprehend easily comprehensible facts.
Flesh and blood can only stand so much.
I calls ’em like I sees ’em.
LikeLike
It has been my observation that the Region has more than it’s share of screw ups and they close ranks to protect each other,remember the addition to the headquarters, a 2 million dollar overrun, they voted not to have an audit,and the proposed addition was too small to house the staff that was to move in, and the new building they bought for a police HQ that the police did not wan’t they are great at covering their mistakes. 3 times they have tunnelled under the QEW to the sewage lagoon in Stevensville, the engineering dept, put the wrong size pipes in,8″ pipe instead of 10″ they are a bunch of incompetent clowns and are not subject to any penalties.or reviews.
LikeLike
Municipal councillors have a tough job, and part of that job decription is to listen to their constituents.
Perhaps if they worked harder at listening they wouldn’t be subjected to so many deputations. Maybe if they acted more on the wishes of their constituents they wouldn’t be embarassed by angry presenters.
This bylaw is reprehensible, and its supporters arrogant.
LikeLike
In my experience, VERY FEW wish to get up & speak at local or regional mtgs.Those that do should have the right to express their views within reason. That is what democracy is!! Those representatives on Councils, have chosen to serve the people…… how dare they limit “the voice of the people” who have placed their trust in them . I was so pleased when I attended the Pt. Colborne Council Mtg. that the opportunity was given to anyone in the room to speak to whatever was on the floor. “That’s a democracy!!”Granted it doesn’t guarantee an outcome that’s requested. It does show some respect and willingness to be open & above board. I was at the mtg. that the mayors turned against their constituents re: the review of the NHS with an arrogance that spoke loud & clear that they seem to give themselves the right to GO AGAINST THE VOICE OF THEIR FELLOW COUNCILLORS AS WELL AS THE CITIZENS who made it very clear in seven municipalities that they definitely wanted a review!!. Now they are telling us that a gag order is in the making and they will try to shove it down our throats because they know what’s good for us! Please get out and vote on Mon. Oct.25th and put an end to this insanity !
LikeLike
For once I find myself in agreement with Mr Draper, thanks for the novel experience!…
Indeed the only lawful government is a representative one but how far is anyone will to go? The easiest first step would be election day, I would ask Mr Draper to publish the list of incumbents in an article titled “None Of The Above” so that everyone in the region knows who not to vote for and why.
However this does not repeal the bylaw. I would then urge my fellow residents to get their local councils involved and bar the Regional Member from local council meetings till it is repealed. At the same time the citizens can also send a message to the region demanding they repeal the bylaw.
Should the new Regional Council not heed our wishes we should then use the last resort of lawful protest, “Rescind consent to be governed” by the regional council…this can be done but must be done properly. (Mr Draper has my e-mail if he so chooses he can contact me and I will give the how to to him to publish) Then demand your regional taxes back and instruct the local council to subtract the regional tax off your assessment. This is a chance for the “people” to take control of their errant politicians in a perfectly lawful manner..
Sadly though I think the people of Niagara lack the interest and the resolve to demand anything of their servants, that is correct our servants. We pay them remember. We have the right to demand of them anything that is lawful and within their purview to deliver. Apart from a vocal minority the rest of Niagara is sleeping and will slumber through election day, after all there is a reason we are referred to as sheeple..
LikeLike
In my view, there were too many “in camera” meetings where issues of major importance were being discussed, such as a $100 million police headquarters. I also feel public deputations should not be banned, but a process be in place so presenters book ahead of time or submit written materials, and then speak for a maximum allotted time frame. Deputations must be on a topic that is before council that evening and those making deputations can have questions asked of them by sitting members. This is particularly important when issues like the NHS investigation and other important issues came up where the council was taking a vote that evening.
LikeLike