In a July meeting, the discussion on public input and its role in decision-making processes brought forth a multitude of perspectives from various directors. As the meeting unfolded, the directors shared their insights, revealing both the challenges and potential improvements in the current system.
During the meeting, one staff member suggested that speeches from the public could move to the end of the meeting so that directors could receive all the same information from staff (suggesting that was the only factual information), make a decision, and then hear from the public after the decision was made. Director McClinton seemed to agree, as he suggested a potential modification to enhance the decision-making process: “I’m wondering if it might be possible, and I guess this would have to be referred back, but to permit members of the public to speak after the fact. I know we typically close meetings with questions, but at least we would be making our decision with equal information.” This proposal aimed to remove the public from being seen as any source of “information.”
Director Acton raised concerns about the quality and timing of the information presented during public input periods. She noted, “I think sometimes we’re presented with kind of misinformation—not on purpose—or kind of like information that is slanted and not fully factual, so sometimes it’s hard to completely process it so quickly, right? We make a decision and, like, you know, people are—the public is invited to our meetings because they’re witnessing our meeting—but getting that information so quickly right before, I mean, I don’t think is good governance.” The challenge, as Acton described, is ensuring that decision-makers have accurate and sufficient information to make informed choices, suggesting that the only facts presented to the board are from staff and not the public. Director Acton also indicated that the question period was somewhat pointless as it just becomes a time to “stump the chair or make a speech.” We ask, if the Chair is “stumped” by a public question, should he/she not be open to that and seek the answer for the public?
Director Marmon emphasized the fundamental role of public input in democratic processes, despite its occasional messiness: “Honestly, I think it’s engagement. We want to engage the public in any means possible and to have them come in to be able to say something or listen to somebody that they came with say something—the engagement is so powerful.” Marmon further underscored the value of participation in democracy, quoting, “The highest measure of democracy is neither the extent of freedom nor the extent of equality, but rather the highest measure is participation.” Director Wilson echoed the sentiment, highlighting the essential nature of public input: “There are two words that came up there, valuable and essential, and to be quite honest I could never, ever contemplate doing away with public input. I couldn’t, and I’m surprised we’re even discussing it.”
On the procedural fairness front, Director Deck and Chair Morrison discussed the potential issues arising from the current system. Director Morrison noted the strategic use of public input by some individuals to influence outcomes: “I think this becomes a problem of procedural fairness because people have been using the public input very strategically, and people who have received negative outcomes have noticed that an application can be either delayed or kiboshed as a result of a one-sided opportunity of someone targeting a comment or a committee or a council and there not being the fair opportunity for the applicants to be able to rebut prior to a vote.”
Director McClinton pointed out the logistical challenges of public engagement, particularly the timing of meetings: “If we want public engagement and true public engagement, we wouldn’t be having the time for that at noon on a Wednesday. The people that cannot attend in the middle of the week, at the busiest day of the week—you know, we see it in those who are not here to give that public engagement.” He also suggested it may be flirting with the rules of the Local Government Act. This remark called for a reconsideration of meeting schedules to enhance accessibility. Director Abbott agreed with the timing issues of the meetings and stated that, from what he heard, most of the speakers have been respectful and that more input from the public is needed.
In an attempt to address certain concerns, Director Segall proposed a motion to remove 6A from the public input policy, focusing on rezoning or land use amendment applications. This motion aimed to address the procedural fairness issues while still maintaining public input. Director Abbott supported the motion, emphasizing the need for the public to have adequate time to understand and respond to proposals: “Often we and the applicant work diligently for months, and the public get about five days to distill what’s being proposed. So I’m in support of this motion to remove 6A.”
As the meeting concluded, it was clear that some of the directors were united in their belief that public input is an invaluable component of the decision-making process. However, others seemed to suggest that the information provided by the public could not be relied upon, that staff were their only source of “real” information, and that some citizens just come to make speeches.
During the public input period of the meeting, a citizen stated, “I would just like to point out that this has been ongoing since at least December of 2023. I think it’s as exhausting for you as it is for us. The other question that I have for you is in all of the documentation, whether it’s public input or question period, this committee, this board, puts a high degree of importance on being respectful and being courteous. Some of the comments that we heard within the discussion today were not courteous, and they were not respectful of the public who tries our best to come up and express our opinions or ask our questions in a very respectful manner. I would hope that the board please review or consider sometimes the language that you use when speaking about the public.” The Chair responded with an apology and a commitment to respect: “I think all of us value the input of yourself and others that come here. We will endeavour to, if we haven’t been respectful, to always strive to be better.”
The citizen concluded with a suggestion for more collaborative discussions: “We are the users of this system, and maybe could you consider talking to us offline to help facilitate your discussions and directions and what’s really important, because I think we sometimes get off in the weeds, and a lot of things have been put in here that maybe could be avoided and sound less offensive.” The Chair agreed and emphasized the importance of hearing and considering public input: “It’s important that we hear public information, but we all hear it and package it similarly so that we’re all processing it and using that information.”
This interaction highlighted the ongoing dialogue between the board and the public, emphasizing the need for respectful communication and collaboration in refining the public engagement process.
