By Don White.

Some of the best learning happens serendipitously, and I just had another of those lessons.

It came from thinking about the contentiousness of two recent City Council motions to promote gender parity on committees and provide childcare during meetings. And from wondering why a similar motion for childcare was passed unanimously by the North Vancouver City Council.

So I contacted them, and while I was speaking with one Councillor, she asked me about existing mechanisms we had for the public giving input to our council in Nanaimo. That question was followed by a comparison of council meeting structures in our two cities.

While this had nothing, per se, to do with gender parity or childcare, it got me questioning how open our own Council really is to receiving public input and about the value Council places on the voices and views of voters. Because, it turns out, there’s a key difference between the cities.

In North Vancouver, any member of the public wishing to address council during a regular council meeting – on any topic they think important – is granted two minutes at the beginning of each meeting during a Public Input Period. The number of public speakers is limited to five.

Additionally, at the end of each North Vancouver meeting, a 10 minute Public Clarification Period is held. This time is not unlike the Question Period of Nanaimo’s own Council meetings.

In Nanaimo during a regular council meeting, members of the public wishing to ask a question of council or staff through council are each allowed two minutes during a 15 minute Question Period at the end of every meeting. Questions can be only about agenda items of that meeting.

Unfortunately, Nanaimo lacks a Public Input Period at the beginning of their council meetings. That eliminates the public’s ability to make short statements about issues that concern them. To do anything resembling that, interested parties must ask to make a five minute presentation during a council or committee meeting. (More on that in just a minute.)

In the past, Nanaimo City Council had been open to public input. However, things began going off the rails during the Colliery Dams debacle at the end of the tenure of Mayor John Ruttan. That discord continued during the early days of the next mayor, Bill McKay, before derailing completely during the interregnum of our previous CAO, Tracey Samra. That history is echoed in the wording of Nanaimo’s bylaws regulating Question Period.

Since the year 2000 (and most likely earlier), time was provided at the end of meetings for the media and public to ask questions on matters Council had considered at that meeting. No time limits were imposed, and the Chair determined when sufficient discussion had occurred.

That all changed in 2018. Purportedly to reduce the vitriol, personal attacks, and chaos that developed from public dissatisfaction (to put it mildly) with the previous council and certain senior managers, Council changed the bylaws for Question Period.

Fixed time limits and rules of decorum for speakers were added. The Chair still theoretically determined when sufficient discussion had taken place, however, the CAO at the time, Tracey Samra, also added her own process.

Under the new rules, those wishing to ask questions were required to put their names on sign up sheets and include the questions they were going to ask. These sheets were then vetted by Samra or her staff before Question Period began. For a brief period, Samra had staff exit so neither the public or Council could ask for their assistance or clarification of agenda items.

Although the vetting of questions and questioners has stopped, the practice of signing up for Question Period continues with our present Council. Questions are still limited to the meeting’s agenda items and responses are still limited to five minutes. Statements or opinion are still excluded by the same bylaws, effectively constraining public input.

As already mentioned, the only other way the Nanaimo public can give input is by appearing as a delegation. To do so, a written request must be first submitted to the Legislative Services Department outlining the presentation topic. The deadline for submission is generally 11:00 am on the Friday before the meeting. It can be later if the request is made to a Council member and she/he takes it to the meeting. Approved presenters have five minutes to speak on any item.

While presentations appear to provide more latitude, for example by allowing statements of position, they also come with limitations. For one, because of the necessity of applying a minimum of 96 hours ahead to obtain approval to speak, the process tends to exclude more spontaneous observations and immediate concerns of those attending council meetings.

For another, if a citizen wants simply to flag a topic she/he believes important to Council or the viewing public, a presentation seems hardly the best form. Presentations are, by convention, more elaborate, lengthy, and structured. A speaker may only want to flag an item for attention.

Additionally, since City committee meetings, like the Governance and Priorities Committee, are typically held weekday afternoons, many people wishing to make a presentation must take time away from work or other obligations. Hardly an incentive for increasing voter engagement.

Taken together, these limitations raise questions. Aren’t regular Council meetings deliberately scheduled in evenings so anyone working or otherwise engaged during the day is able to attend? If Council desires public input and engagement, why are speaking opportunities limited to formal presentations or to questions on agenda items for fifteen minutes at the end of every meeting?

In practice, the limitations of Question Period are amplified by its placement at end of council meetings. Those wishing to speak are, not uncommonly, made to wait late into the evening. Little time, less energy for everyone, and almost no public audience are typical when Question Period rolls around. Intentional or not, these are not strategies for encouraging participation.

If the purpose of Council is to primarily to limit free-ranging or repetitive questions at the end of a lengthy meeting, that seems reasonable. But it their purpose, more generally, is to facilitate public input, we might ask them a key question. Why isn’t an additional agenda item such as North Vancouver’s Public Input Period created earlier, perhaps at the beginning of the meeting?

Yes, we have inherited many of the practices and protocols of earlier councils. Yes, during the tenure of the previous Council more emphasis was given to limiting, rather than facilitating voter input. But things have changed – on both sides of the Council table.

Not only has Nanaimo elected a new Council, its citizens have become a more settled, civil audience. At its first meeting, Council saw fit to discontinue the prescribed statement of decorum required during the previous administration. It is now time to do the same for Question Period bylaws. Citizens do not need those rules of decorum, either. Like the ones read at the beginning of previous council meetings, such rules are more challenging than ameliorating.

Perhaps even more important, if Council considers regular council meetings to be anything more than one-sided performances enacted before a purely passive audience, it is also time to revisit meeting structure.

Democracy is both practiced and protected by facilitating voter input and encouraging engagement. A focus – intentional or not – on limiting rather than creating mechanisms of two-way communication is neither an effective nor healthy strategy.

If Nanaimo Council wants the voters who elected them to feel they are a recognized and acknowledged part of the governance of our city, which they are, Council would be wise to begin communicating that desire and backing it up by creating additional, real, practical mechanisms for public engagement in their meetings.

Many voters understand it will take Council a long time to undo all damages done to our city during the previous administration. But they also realize this is one aspect that need not wait. Council can remove the perceived controlling aspects of Question Period bylaws with a simple motion. They can create more opportunities for public input in meetings with no monetary cost.

These are acts of reparation and implementation that Nanaimo Council might wisely consider at the earliest opportunity. Delay can only create and/or prolong the sense that public concerns are not at the top of Council’s mind.