Recommendation: That, on the
recommendation of the City Clerk, the attached revised proposed by-law
(Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on May
1, 2012 for the purpose of amending By-law No. A-41 entitled “A by-law to
provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of The
Corporation of the City of London” as it relates to reconsideration of
matters, conduct of public at meetings, scheduling of Investment and Economic
Prosperity Committee meetings and a housekeeping change to properly reflect
the committee responsible for recommending the appointment of Chairs for
standing committees; it being pointed out that the following individuals made
oral submissions at the public participation meeting held in connection with
Hobson, 45 Evergreen Avenue – indicating that the suggested measures related
to public conduct are excessive; stating there is a need to allow public views
to be expressed; and expressing concern over the lack of notice given with
regard to the proposed changes.
Van Linden, 431 Ridgewood Crescent – indicating strong disagreement with the
proposed changes relating to public conduct; saying that she hopes her
position on this does not negatively impact her relationship with Council
Members; noting that it’s not always the public who behave badly, some
Council Members have behaved badly and decorum starts with the Council
Members; suggesting that anyone running for office should sign a document
which acknowledges that not every person will agree with them, but every
person can speak their views loudly and clearly; and noting that this is
“our” City, the Municipal Council is our leader but not our boss.
Temme, 66 Palmer Street – indicating that this is the first time she has
carried a sign; noting that she finds there are less disruptions in the
gallery than there are on the Council floor; and suggesting that section
15.1.5 be deleted as there is a fine line between simply expressing one’s
views and being seen as being disrespectful.
Van Lierop, 55 Carfrae Street – noting there are some positive amendments and
some that are “over the top”; and suggesting that the City of London needs to
create its own rules and not just look at what other cities do.
Quigley, 59 Pennybrook Crescent – noting there is a need to balance
engagement with decorum, which is not an easy task; not suggesting one over
the other, but rather a balance in order to allow engagement.
Dimitrie, 1128 Adelaide Street – noting that issues of security are valid for
people gaining unauthorized access, however the way the matter was brought
forward was wrong; and noting that he would never disrespect the Council and
he doesn’t think most other people would either.
Klee, 75 Fiddlers Green Road – suggesting that these changes will provoke a
response; and pointing out that some Council Members are as entertaining as
McBurney, 4-466 South Street – indicating that this is a matter of decorum;
suggesting that a code of conduct be put on agendas or posted by meeting
rooms; and stating that people who disrupt a meeting are the antithesis of
Zaifman, 605-836 Ridout Street – enquiring as to what municipalities were
canvassed; expressing disappointment that this matter was being heard at a 1
PM meeting on a Monday, making it difficult for a lot of members of the
public to come and express their views; noting that the changes are really
“caretaking” and “entrenching” existing practices; suggesting that 15.1.1 and
15.1.3 seem redundant; stating that 15.1.2 is silly if we are trying to
address quiet as signs are a quiet means of expressing views; expressing
concern about a ban on food and drink given that some meetings go on for
several hours so it’s difficult for people to not have any food or drink;
suggesting that the requirement to silence electronic devices is a fair
expectation so the inclusion of this requirement is redundant; and suggesting
that there should be a warning before someone is ejected from the Chambers.
Brown, Council of Canadians, 59 Ridout Street – the issues at hand relate to
freedom of speech and citizen engagement; suggesting that we are trying to
legislate common sense; noting that we are trying to engage youth and if we
don’t let them use signs, this could curtail their involvement, citing the
use of signs by youth in the bottled water debate.
Growden, 389 Salisbury Street – stating if these rules are approved, people
may as well attend meetings with tape over their mouths; and asking that
Council not approve these changes.
Rumsey, 85 Fiddlers Green – noting that it is the 30th Anniversary
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; stating that Mark Emery put signs on
utility poles and the Supreme Court upheld the placement of signs on public
property and that there was another case in Chatham where the wearing of
t-shirts was upheld by the constitution; suggesting as a Ward 8 taxpayer that
the City cannot not include these prohibitions.
Levin, 54 Longbow Road – noting that lots of good things have been said by
the delegations; suggesting that signage assisting the public needs to be
more easily seen; asking that applause, t-shirts and signs not be banned as
these are all means of public engagement, and public engagement should be
supported; and stating that democracy is messy. (2012-G05-00/G06-00)