April 6, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.3, having to do with a request for research on the effects of public health restrictions in London during the COVID emergency, by indicating that he is an employee of the Middlesex London Health Unit.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

That Items 2.2 and 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.2   London Community Recovery Network – Current Status and Next Steps

2021-04-06 Staff Report - LCRN

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken regarding the London Community Recovery Network (LCRN):

a)      the approach to develop a community recovery framework through the continued efforts of the London Community Recovery Network BE ENDORSED;

b)      the Civic Administration INVITE community partners to bring forward business cases relating to Ideas for Action identified in the January 12, 2021 meeting of City Council that seek funding from the City of London to the May 18, 2021 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for decision; and,

c)       the staff report titled London Community Recovery Network – Current Status and Next Steps BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   London and Middlesex Community Housing Inc. Meeting of the Shareholder - Resolutions Regarding Board Composition

2021-04-06 Staff Report - LMCH

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Squire

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.:

a)      the “Terms of Reference Board of Directors London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc.” as appended to the staff report dated April 6, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED;

b)      the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 6, 2021 as Appendix “B” being “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Special Resolution to the Shareholder of London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. to provide for a new Board composition”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on April 13, 2021;

c)      the proposed “Recruitment Process for Director Appointments”, as appended to the staff report dated April 6, 2021 as Appendix “C”, BE ADOPTED; and,

d)      two (2) members of the Interim Board of Directors BE APPOINTED as Directors for a period not to exceed one year to provide for support for board and organizational continuity, stability, and knowledge transfer.

Motion Passed

2.1   London Small Business Centre – Board Governance Structure Updates

2021-04-06 Staff Report - London Small Business Centre

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, City Planning and City Planner, and as requested by the Small Business Centre, Councillors S. Hillier and P. Van Meerbergen BE APPOINTED to the Small Business Centre for a special meeting (date to be determined) to undertake the actions required to amend the governance structure of the Small Business Centre; it being noted that the actions required are described in the correspondence from the Small Business Centre as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Nomination of a New Budget Chair

2021-04-06 Submission - Budget Chair

Moved by Mayor E. Holder

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Councillor E. Peloza BE APPOINTED as the Council lead for the Budget process, acting as Budget Chair with duties including coordination of all Budget activities with the Civic Administration and the Chairing of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meetings where discussion and consideration of the Budget takes place.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.2   Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Membership

2021-04-06 Submission - KCCA Membership

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That the current membership of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority allocating one (1) member each to the Municipality of Central Elgin, the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, the Municipality of Thames Centre, the Township of Malahide, and the Township of Southwold; and two (2) members to the City of St. Thomas and three (3) members to the City of London be maintained; and further the membership of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority be re-evaluated based on population data available prior to member appointments following the municipal elections in 2022.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Request for Research on the Effects of Public Health Restrictions in London

2021-04-06 Submission - Public Health-MvH

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the communication dated March 29, 2021 from Councillor M. van Holst with respect to a request for research related to the effects of COVID on the local citizens and economy, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.4   Operation of City Council

2021-04-06 Submission - Operation of City Council-MvH

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Governance Working Group BE DIRECTED to consider, in consultation with the Civic Administration, how the operations of council may be changed to potentially realize efficiencies in line with the corporate reorganization, while better serving London, including but not limited to: hours of council and standing committee meetings, standing committee structure, expense accounts, and support staff; it being noted that all Members of Council are encouraged to submit ideas for consideration.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Squire

That the meeting Adjourn.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:26 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (1 hour, 28 minutes)

Colleagues, it’s four o’clock. I wonder if we could ask you screens on, please. We have quorum. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the strategic priorities and policy committee.

This is a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency. And I would ask that you check this city website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request.

To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility to London.ca or 51661-249 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC at London.ca. I will look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Councillor Turner.

Your worship with respect to item 4.3 requests for research and the effects of public health restrictions in London, I’ll declare pecuniary interest as I’m an employee of the most excellent announcement. So noted. Any other declarations of pecuniary interest? Seeing, thank you.

I will turn to the consent agenda. We will be pulling 2.1. Does anyone wish 2.2 or 2.3 be to be dealt with separately? So I’ll look for a motion to accept 2.2 and 2.3.

Is there a motion to move this? Councillor later seconded by Councillor Squire. Comments, questions? Councillor Squire.

Just briefly on the London community recovery network. I read the report. The part that’s of most interest to me is the financial impact considerations. And I know we have $3,120,000 of available funding lab.

And it says when the additional phase one ideas for action community partners come forward on May 18th, 2020 when business cases may be presented to access some of this funding. Just from my point of view, I don’t think business cases may be, it should be an option. I think when we’re spending city money, I think business cases should almost be mandatory. So although it doesn’t appear, that’s the case.

I mean, that’s certainly something that I’m gonna use to judge expenditures of money as we move forward. Ms. Livingston, I wonder if you might have a comment on that? Yes, Your Worship, thank you.

Sorry that we were not clear. What we meant was if the idea required was looking for city money, there would be a business case. There may be some ideas that can be implemented without city funding. Those would not require a business case, but any of those that would come forward with a business case.

Councillor Squire, if I had framed my comment as a question, I would say that was a great answer. Thank you. Because it was a great answer, I concur with Councillor Squire on that. Any other comments or questions with respect to two, two or two, three?

Councillor Halmer. Thank you on item 2.2, I just wanted to say, I really appreciate the report. I think this is going in the right direction. I think it’s a good idea to come and check in about how we’d like to proceed with the sort of next phase.

And I think agreeing on what does recovery look like, figuring out what that vision is, is really important. And so is the ability to measure progress across all these various organizations, including the city, but not just the city. I think this is the right kind of approach to be taking. I think it’s a good one.

I want to commend the staff who are working on it. And I know there’s a lot of partners outside of the city who are participating and I really appreciate their work. On 2.3, the staff report on LMCH, glad to see this landing as well. I think this is a good change for the overall governance.

And I’m glad to see it going ahead now. I think housing is at a critical point right now. And I think taking some time to get it right was the right approach. But I do think that time is of the essence in terms of moving ahead.

So glad to see that as well. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Yes, thank you, Your Worship. On 2.2, I also wanted to add my thanks to Mr. Thompson, Ms. Livingston and the team for putting this approach together.

I agree with the comments that were made. I think this is the right approach, figuring out where we want to get to and developing some metrics on how we’re going to measure our progress in getting there will allow for a lot of flexibility between all the different organizations. I am interested in how London will track its initiatives. And I wonder through the chair, I can ask Ms.

Livingston or Ms. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, do you foresee a change in the way that we present reports at council?

Will there be some way in how a section on whether or not this is contributing to the recovery and how? Or are we going to have specific initiatives come forward? I’m just wondering if you’ve thought about the operationalization of this on the city’s end of things, not necessarily the community’s end, which I think flexibility is key there. Mr.

Thompson? I’m happy to take a stab at that question. The city as one partner within the London Community Recovery Network would, as part of this, sort of have to look inwardly on how it’s going to participate in this. I really do see this as an opportunity for the city, as well as all the community members.

So I think that we’ll keep that on the plate for when we determine or as we go through this work with the recovery network. And as we’re doing this work, we, as city staff, will be thinking internally about how we can make the most of this opportunity as well. Deputy Mayor? Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Thompson. I appreciate that answer. The reason for my questioning is I grew up the approach and that means it will be incumbent upon the city to think about once we’ve established the destination and the metrics to get there, obviously to measure our progress with all the various activities. As we run over 100 different business units, there’s obviously going to be a multitude of ways that the city will be able to contribute to the recovery.

And I’m interested in, at the appropriate time, knowing exactly how we will track and report out on that as a city, not as just the recovery network as a whole, but as our contribution and our component to that work as well. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. Just with respect to the 2.3, those two interim directors from the Board of Directors, is that in addition to the anticipated nine members or is it to part of the four members of the K&A at large? Ms.

Williamson. Your Worship, I believe I’m actually going to, okay. Thank you. The answer is it’s part of the four.

That’s for sure. Well, thanks, that makes sense. So then it would be seven members in addition to the two for a total of nine members. And then at the end of that first year, then they would be appointed.

Two new members would be appointed to replace those interim directors, is that correct? Ms. Williamson. Yes, Your Worship, that’s correct.

Thank you, Councillor. That’s good, thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. And if I cut out, I am having difficulty with my broadband at the moment. So I do have a quick question for you to staff regarding the two members that are going to be tenants, which I think is a great idea. I just would like to know a little bit more how the term of the tenants will be served if one tenant for whatever reason may leave and is no longer a tenant, what that process would look like since I just would like to have a better understanding or can they still be tenants, even though they aren’t a tenant in our housing buildings.

Ms. Williamson. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to refer that question to Ms.

Wilcox, she’s joined the meeting and would be better prepared to provide that answer. Go ahead, Ms. Wilcox. Thank you, and through you, Your Worship.

That is something that we will be working through with the City Clerk’s Office on how we do deal with a situation like that. As per the process that’s outlined before you in the report, it would be subject to the regular recruitment process that is carried out by the City Clerk’s Office, but we will be sure to and make sure we have a process that if a tenant were to no longer be a tenant of an LMCH property that we could manage that going forward. Councillor Robinson. Yeah, thank you for that.

I’m glad staff are still going to be looking into that. I think that’s something that it can be a unique, unusual situation given that we are asking the directors to serve until their successes are appointed. And there may be a bit of a lag in between that, but I’m glad staff are aware of the situation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? It’s been these items two, two and two, three been moved and seconded. So I’ll turn your attention to the screen as we vote.

Councillor Hopkins. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. We’ve pulled item 2.1 because there are two appointments required on an interim basis, but I wonder if I might before we look to the recommendation from staff, I ask Mr.

Barrett to give us a little background on this. I know you’ve read the report, but I think it might be helpful. If there are any questions that are being directed. Mr.

Barrett, would you go ahead, please? Thank you. Through your worship, just very briefly, the Small Business Center was established back in 1986. And in 2004, amendments were made to their bylaws and they amended their governance structure.

The city was one of the original members of the Small Business Center back in ‘86. They’ve recently done, apparently, a historical review of their files. And what’s been discovered is that when they amended their governance structure back in 2004, we’re supposed to also have been amendments made to the letters patent. So the Small Business Center Board of Directors has come up with a way to essentially fix this situation and it would require a special meeting being convened and it’s going to be convened with temporary directors pointed from the original members.

So what the Small Business Center has asked is that municipal council appoint two members of council to attend this special meeting, to essentially put this all back in order to be consistent with the changes that were made back in 2004 to their governance structure. Thanks very much, colleagues. I’ve had communication from both Councillor Hillier and Councillor Van Mirberg and that they’d be willing to have their names put forward on this interim basis. It may go beyond that depending on how the letters patent develops.

But having said that, I would also look to see if any other colleagues wish to have their name put forward there, we have two to a point. Seeing none, then I would amend slightly the recommendation is put forward by staff that we appoint two representatives, Councillors Hillier and Councillor Van Mirberg and for that I would look for a mover. Councillor Van Holes second by Councillor Lewis, comments, questions, Councillor Van Holes. Oh, thank you, Your Worship.

Just happy to move that and grateful to the Councillors to step up in support of the Small Business Center who does great work and it’ll be my pleasure to see them do much more great work in the future. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, then we’ll call the question. Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, I’m unable to get into my e-scribe, so I will vote yes. Thank you, closing the vote and the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. So let me thank Councillor Sillier and Van Mirberg and for that as well and thank you Mr. Greg for your report items, but we do have four items for direction.

The first is 4.1 nomination of a new budget chair. I’d like to turn the chair over to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I have the Mayor on the speakers listed first for this item. Thanks very much colleagues.

I received a communication from Deputy Mayor Morgan of this desire to relinquish the role as budget chair. As such, I’m looking for all of your support with respect to a motion that is in your package, but for the benefit of those watching, I will read this. The Councillor E. Palosa, Elizabeth Palosa, be appointed as the council lead for the budget process acting as budget chair with duties including coordination of all budget activities with the civic administration and the chairing of the strategic parties and policy committee meetings where discussions and consideration of budget takes place and with that, I’ll turn it back over to the Deputy Mayor.

Yes, and I’ll just look to see if there’s a seconder for that motion, Councillor Cassidy. So that is moved and seconded, Mr. Mayor, you have your hand up still, were you making comments to the second? Yes, I’d like to comment now if I could.

Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the Deputy Mayor. You will all know that he had accepted the role by appointment from previous Mayor Matt Brown to handle the budget process. I don’t think there’s anyone that would argue that the Deputy Mayor has served with distinction in this capacity, helping guide us through some fairly challenging times. At the same time, what I did when I was first elected, I took the appointment of the budget chair, which I’m told is within the purview of the Mayor only to a point without seeking council support, and I don’t think it’s correct.

I know that’s the rules and I’m not here to change the rules, but I thought it was important that for the sake of the process, and I think in support of the individual who is appointed that that person get full council support. And you were wonderful. All council members supported current Deputy Mayor unanimously for that four year role, and that was the intention. But I think it’s important to share these duties, and the Deputy Mayor to his credit acknowledged that by coming to me and saying that he would like to focus more on the role of Deputy Mayor, and his former Deputy Mayor, Helmer, will tell you the commitments that are taken on in that capacity are pretty significant in the role of Deputy Mayor, and I appreciate, as we all do, the work that’s done in that capacity.

So with respect to that, I’m accepting the retirement. We never call it a resignation, but the retirement of that of the Deputy Mayor in the capacity of Budget Chair, and which is why I’m asking for all of your support. I think Councilor Close will be amazing, and she will also continue to have strong support from the Deputy Mayor and staff, and all of us, I’m sure are going forward. So with that, I will now relinquish the floor, but say thank you to you again, Deputy Mayor Morgan for all the work you’ve done.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I’ll look for speakers for this. I have Councilor Cassidy next, and then I’ll start as speakers list. So just indicate if you’re interested in speaking.

Councilor Cassidy, go ahead. Thanks, Deputy Mayor, and I’m happy to second this. I want to just add my thanks to the Mayor, to you, for having done this for quite a long time. And I will say, it started when we did our very first four year budget, and that is a daunting task, especially the first time around.

And I will say personally, for me, that Deputy Mayor at the time, Councilor Morgan, did make it much easier for me in particular. So I really appreciate the work that’s gone into this. And I am looking forward to Councilor Kalosa stepping in and filling this role. It’s wonderful to see Councilor Palosa take on this role.

And I’m excited and I’m happy for her. And she has my full support. Thanks very much. Thank you.

I’m going to turn the chair back over to the Mayor and let them know there’s a Councilor Squire and Palosa on the list. Thanks very much. Then let’s start with Councilor Squire. Thank you very much.

I thought this would be a good opportunity. And I have no objection to the person obviously becoming the Deputy Mayor, but just for clarification purposes, it’s always been a little bit unclear to me what exactly the budget chair does. And in the motion, it says, including coordination of all budget activities with civic administration. And I suppose the point of view I’m coming from this, to this with is that I think every Councillor is an important contributor to the budget decisions and what comes before Council.

The only time I would ever be concerned is if the budget itself is shaped by less than full Council. So I’m hopeful that the new budget chair views their role as being to bring the information forward to Council and then Council can decide what to do with that information. I’m particularly sensitive to that because I’m not a person who’s probably consistently not been on board with the majority of Council on the budget directions we’ve taken. So that doesn’t bother me particularly, but what I would be concerned about is if any time in the future, that a budget is framed in such a way that decision points are taken away from Council.

So I just want to continue to make sure that that’s the course. I don’t think it’s been a difficulty up till now, but I think every Councillor should have equal access to civic administration on budget matters, areas of interest to them. And I just want to make sure we continue on that road. Thanks very much for your comment.

I’m quite confident that the role of budget chair going forward will be as it has always ever been. And I’m quite confident if Council blows this ability to do the same, Council blows it, you’re next on the list. Thank you, Your Worship. And thank you to colleagues for moving and seconding this.

I do look forward to this opportunity to grow my skills and knowledge of the city of London and our budget process in upholding the transparency in the multi-year budget process that we’ve followed. I believe it serves us well. And I look forward to bringing info forward to Council with staff support and making sure that we have adequate time for budget considerations, equal access to staff for everyone as always to sit down with the budget staff and look at any business cases or any concerns that Councillors have. Look forward to help facilitate those conversations around the horseshoe.

As we know the next two years with COVID-19 and the pandemic are still going to be challenging. And it’s going to take all of our attention going forward to see Londoners through this. Thank you, Councillor Flosse. Any other comments or questions?

Councillor Vanholst. Oh, thank you, Your Worship. I believe that the budget chair represents a good division of labor for Council. And I was, I was excited for Councillor Palosa to have the opportunity.

Once I found out she wanted the job. So I’m thrilled, I think this will go forward nicely at our next update. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. I just want to say thank you to Deputy Mayor Morgan for doing such a good job on a very difficult and challenging task. It’s a big subject that you have to hear head around and to be the focal point for budget discussions. It’s a big spotlight on you.

I also want to thank you for handling our meetings in a way that a professional chair handles such because they can be rather contentious and there’s a lot of items to be discussed. And to shepherd that through to a good result that everyone is, everyone agrees, I think, may not agree with the budget. They might, but I think they agree that the process was handled properly. So I think you’ve set a high bar to Councillor Palosa.

I’ve been very impressed with Councillor Palosa’s work at Council. She’s a smart woman that is very diligent works hard and throws herself into whatever she’s doing. So I have great confidence that she will meet that bar that the Deputy Mayor set. And I look forward to her as she goes, as she pleases through the budget process.

Thank you. Thank you, other comments or questions? I’ve come from Deputy Mayor Morgan, then. Thank you, Your Worship.

I wanted to say a few words on this as well. First and foremost, what I want to say first is I’m very excited for Councillor Palosa. I hope you all will support her. I certainly think she is absolutely 100% capable to take on this role.

Certainly the chairing of meetings, as Councillor Layman said, is an important component and anybody who has seen how Councillor Palosa has chaired the Civic Works meetings of late, particularly contentious public participation and delegation meetings will know that she’s fully capable of navigating us through the budget process. And she has my utmost confidence and support. On the role of budget chair, I did want to, and I wrote a letter and I know people can read the letter but there’s a couple of things I want to note. First is I want to thank both the previous mayor, Matt Brown and this mayor, Ed Holder for their confidence in me in taking on slightly different financial roles for each mayor, but in this case, one for council.

I appreciate the opportunity to have been nominated for this. I also appreciate the opportunity I now have as Deputy Mayor and I said in my letter that these two positions are very visible and one person need not occupy both because I think we’ve got a huge team of talented people on this council who are capable of stepping up and Councillor Palosa is certainly one of many. So this is a good opportunity for me to step back from this, a role that I have loved doing for council over the past number of years. Certainly I really appreciate Councillor Squire’s perspective on this.

I never foresaw the budget position as something where you got extra inside information or influence overshaping the budget, but a huge responsibility to ensure that you work with staff to ensure that council gets to make all the decision points they need to make, whether they are difficult or not on the budget and that is how I’ve tried to navigate both the approach to the structure of the way that the budget is debated and the debates themselves. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a massive thanks to the two treasures that I’ve worked with Mr. Hayward and Ms. Annalisa Barbone and the phenomenal teams that support them, one of the most wonderful parts of this experience is getting to talk with them on a regular basis about the budget and budget issues and the debates that council will have and how to make sure that we’re making all of those opportunities for council decision-making to come forward in a way where their colleagues have all of the information they need.

They are an incredible team. The city is exceptionally lucky to have them looking out for the finances of the city and managing the financial plan and I can’t say enough good things about the opportunity to work with them and as Councilor Squire said, certainly we’ll be able to get to work with them on a regular basis as an individual counselor but I’ll be a little bit sad not to be able to do it in this capacity moving forward because it’s been such a wonderful experience and I’ve learned just a ton about finances and budgeting from those two treasures and their support teams. So with that, I think there is great value in having a budget chair position to navigate us through the next multi-year update. I think Councilor Plos is very capable of doing so and I hope everybody supports her and again, thank you to the colleagues who commented on the kind words.

Really, I should be thanking you for the opportunity to have been able to do this job and contribute to the city in this way, so thank you. Well, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Almer.

I want to say to Deputy Mayor Morgan, good work through two multi-year budget cycles. The first one is difficult because it was the first time we tackled a whole bunch of years at once and I think that one in particular, yeah, you did a really good job of trying to navigate through that to work with staff in a really productive way and be a bridge between Council and what was going on in the civic administration. I don’t want to underestimate how much work it was really landing that multi-year budget. First one and doing it so successfully.

So I thought that was really good. I think it showed how a multi-year budget can be very successful. And the second one, I think, was difficult for other reasons, having gone through an election cycle, having the first year carrying over, making sure that that transition when as smoothly as possible, I think was key. And I think it was a good move for Mayor Holder to tap you to do that again.

And I think you did a very good job in the second budget too, the fiscal pressures, frankly, were even worse than they were in the first multi-year budget. And I think we, as a group, managed to navigate it fairly well. And it’s in part because of your work as a budget chair. So I want to say thanks very much for that.

I know it must be tough to walk away from something that you love so much, but you’re on audit committee and now you’re in the chair. So we can still dig into all the budget things. And now you’re more free to make motions during the budget, which has up Council blows a job. Definitely, Mayor Morgan.

It’s got lots of ideas about what we should do. And now these not sharing the meetings. You may have a lot of motions coming from him. I know Council blows is going to do a good job.

I think, Mayor Holder, you made a very good choice in tapping her to take over. Certainly walking into a difficult part of the budget cycle. The election year budget is not the easiest one to handle, even when it’s just an update to the multi-year budget. And the fiscal pressures are very intense, but I’m very confident that Council blows is going to do a great job at sharing the meetings and filling the whole role of budget chairs.

So good choice, Mayor Holder. Thank you, other comments or questions? Seeing none, this has been moved and seconded. We’ll call the question.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero. Thanks very much, congratulations, Councilor Plaza. And thank you again, Councilor Morgan. This, of course, will be formally ratified at Council.

But colleagues, excuse me, I’ll turn your attention to 4.2. The Kettle Creek Conservation Authority membership, what you’ll see in front of you on page 34 is a motion. I’ll just read it for the benefit of those who are watching. That the current membership of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority allocating one member each to the municipality of Central Elgin, the municipality of Middlesex Center, the municipality of Thames Center, the township of Malahide, the township of South Walden, two members of the city of St.

Thomas and three members to the city of London be maintained. And further that the membership of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority be re-evaluated based on population data, available prior to member appointments, following the municipal elections in 2022. Well, that is, the motion is the remover for that. Councilor Plos is their seconder.

I see Councilor Cassidy. Comments or questions? I see Councilor Helmer and then Councilor Plos are pleased. Just a question from me in the communication.

It looks like they’re using a very low population number for London to figure out how many seats there should be. And it’s not entirely clear to me why we would use a number that we know is so far out of date. So I wonder if perhaps somebody is on the Kettle Creek Board. I don’t know if Councilor Plos was looking to weigh in on this specifically, but I’d be interested to know why and when exactly that will be updated ‘cause it looks like we could have a couple more board spots using this formula.

Councilor Plos do you want to help us with that? Yes, thank you Your Worship and to colleagues as Council’s appointed representative to the Kettle Creek Board. They do use the impact members and absolutely they are out of date, but we have to go with what the ministry is giving us. We did have three appointees, then the population within the watershed has dropped.

So that would put us down to two members. The Kettle Creek Board ratified the last meeting that we do not wish to eliminate one of the citizen appointees that Council selected. So the motion that’s before you is to allow all three members to serve until they’re under the term in 2022, at which point the general manager of Kettle Creek will bring back forward update reports and hopefully MPAC will be updated by then to allow for the three members, but also for Council’s knowledge going forward due to the changes of the Conservation Authority Act in February in 2022 after the election, unless something changes, the ministry will want 70% reps being Council members not citizen appointees at that time in of Council wishes to do any other direction in 2022 outside that we would need ministry approval to do so. Councilor Humber?

I think we had something I’ll discuss with Councilor Palosa between now and Council just to make sure I understand why we’re using impact counts for population. Thanks. Thank you, other comments or questions? I see Councilor Turner then Councilor, I’m sorry Councilor Palosa, did you have a separate comment?

Your hand was raised almost simultaneously with the Councilor Humber, your comment first? Yeah, I kind of worked it all in there. I guess extra sneaky. If colleagues have any extra questions, I’m happy to answer them.

Just the motion before you is strictly to allow us to maintain all our current representatives on Kettle Creek. Each member of municipality will be passing this motion at their committees and Council and bringing it back. And even if this doesn’t pass, the city of London will still have the same weight on our voting at that table. We just have one last member, but we don’t anticipate losing any of our three members as this passed unanimously through the Kettle Creek Board.

Thank you, Councilor Turner. Thanks Your Worship. There’s more of an observation on the comment about the 70% of appointees needing to be from members of Council. In some circumstances I could see where there’s large boards where this might provide opportunities for citizen participation in a situation like this, it absolutely removes it unless we go to the province and ask explicitly for it.

You would need to have at least four members on the board in order to have one of them to be a citizen representative. And I think citizen representation is important in conservation authorities. So I hope, I know this isn’t a decision for us this term, but I hope the following term will see fit to see the merit of having citizen appointees to conservation authorities. Because I think having just basically the sole view of elected representatives doesn’t provide for that richness of debate and discussion that is needed in conservation authorities and to represent broad constituencies.

I do recognize we as elected officials are meant to do that, but I think it serves well to have the citizens on there as well. So, but happy to support, it doesn’t look like we have much choice at this point. So I think as it comes forward, we’ll vote. And then hopefully in 2022, council will see if it can get that citizen appointee on as well.

Thanks very much, Councilor Holst. Oh, your worship. I think Councilor Turner had covered the comments I was gonna make, so thank you. Thank you, and your other comments or questions.

This has been duly moved and seconded, so we will call the question. Those in the vote and the motions passed 15 to zero. Thanks very much, colleagues. I now turn your three communication from Councilor Van Holst for the motion request to research on the effects of public health restrictions in London.

The motion is in front of you. I’ll look for a mover for the motion. And by the way, for the benefit of all, as opposed to the pre-log, I’ll ask the clerk just to read the motion, please. Thank you, through the chair, the motion being requested is that the Civic Administration be directed to report back with a plan to commission research into the effects that the recent public health restrictions have had on London’s citizens and economy.

Is there a mover? Councilor Van Holst? Could you point where you’re working? Yeah, please.

Yes, I don’t, I think we’re at committee. So I don’t believe that the motion has to be put on the floor and seconded right away. We’re actually dealing with the communication. So it’s more than a, sorry, Councilor Van Holst, and I’m not trying to preempt you.

It’s more than a communication. It’s an actual motion. So I was looking for a mover and a seconder and then open it up for discussion unless colleagues would like to have that handled a different way. That’s why I thought it was important.

Of course, I’m gonna, I hope to move that. I hope to move that so you can consider me a mover. I haven’t looked for a seconder. I was gonna bring that up and then see if their council, there would be a council member who would second that or see how much support that would take.

But I’d first like to speak to that. Well, since this is a committee and we’re somewhat flexible about these sorts of things. If you want to speak briefly to this, Councilor Van Holst, Bell means we have that in front of you the letter. So Bell means please go ahead.

Yes, thank you. So I think everyone understands that COVID-19 has placed us in a catch-22 situation where we do our best to cut down the number of cases but in doing that, there’s some other negative effects that have happened. And I think that there’s an opportunity for us if we were to understand those impacts well on a local level, we being the local government might have an opportunity to take some actions within our purview that could mitigate those negative impacts. So for that reason, I’m hoping that we can do some research on this.

And I believe this is a good time for it because the impacts are taking place now. It’s easier to study them. We can find out what’s happening and what we might be able to mitigate those things. So I’m a person who lost a friend to suicide during the first lockdowns and that’s colored my perception of these throughout.

And I’m really concerned that the isolation and the dismantling of support systems and coping mechanisms for people is looked at. But also the many other effects as well. And I think there’s an opportunity for us to understand better and to take some action based on that understanding. So there’s my request.

I think if we commissioned some research, we’ll be able to get some information we can act upon. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a seconder for the motion?

Councilor, I do not see a seconder. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you and thank you for the explanation. That moves us to item 4.4 operation.

Excuse me, clerk. So I’ve been so corrected by the clerk as she has wisdom beyond my capacity. And that is that we need then to have a motion to receive the communication from Councilor Van Holst. Is the remover Councilor Lewis seconded by Councilor Palosa?

We’ll call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed 14 to zero with one recused. Thanks very much colleagues and your items for direction 4.4 Council. We have another communication.

This is from Councilor Van Holst and Councilor Van Holst will do it the more thoughtful way and I did not mean to be less so. I’m going to presume you’ll move the motion but I’m going to ask the clerk to read the motion, ask you to speak to it and then move. And if there’s a seconder there, we can go from there. If you would, please.

I’m sorry, Your Worship. If I can, if I can, if I have just briefly, an updated motion has been provided that with the help of Councilor Lewis. So perhaps if I may, if the clerk would read that motion that would move us along a little more quickly. This is the motion that came in at 3.38 this afternoon.

Go ahead there, Clerk, please. Thank you through the chair. The motion reads that the governance working group be directed to consider in consultation with the civic administration, how the operations of Council may be changed to potentially realize efficiencies in line with the corporate reorganization while better serving London, including but not limited to hours of Council and standing committee meetings, standing committee structure, expense accounts and compensation and support staff. It being noted that all members of Council are encouraged to submit ideas for consideration.

Are you moving at Councilor Van Holst? I am Your Worship. And is there a seconder, Councilor Lewis? So if anyone wish to speak to this, I’ve got, I’m ready for you.

Councillor Hopkins, please. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple questions to the Councillor who’s making the motion.

And my first question is around, I know we’ve had a change in motion. So originally my question was going to be around the code of conduct. So will this also include an update on the code of conduct? I understand that City Clerk’s is doing an update on the code of conduct, but we’ll, I just would like to ask the Councillor, he’s including the code of conduct, is my question.

Actually, since we’re talking about the code of conduct, let’s ask the clerk if she would wish to comment on that, Ms. Hunters. Okay, I’m wondering which clerk you meant for waiting. My other favorite clerk, Clerk.

(laughs) So we are reporting back on some accountability and transparency issues, including the code of conduct, the integrity commissioner and the lobbyist registrar, as a result of some new court cases that haven’t come to our attention, including the Collingwood inquiry. So I will be bringing reports forward for Councils to consider a consideration to see if they wish to update the code of conduct. Councillor Hawkins. Yes, and thank you for that.

I think looking at the code of conduct would be an important conversation for Council to have as we’re looking at this motion. The other question I have for the Councillor as well is the conversation around our meeting. So we know we have this hybrid model here in the city. Half of this are virtually, half of this are not.

And is there going to be an opportunity for us as a council or to have that review a year later to see how these meetings have been operating? I would think that information would also be important as we look at our operations. But I’d like to ask that question of the Councillor, what his intent is here. Before we go to the Councillor for his intent, thank you, Councillor Roberts.

I wonder if the clerk has, the Ms. Saunders clerk has any comments with respect to the Councillor’s question. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s difficult for me to comment on the intent of the motion.

However, if the intent of the motion is for review of the governance model of the standing committees to be reviewed and report it back on to see if there’s some efficiencies that can be found. And then after that, if council decides to change that model, if you wish us to report back in a year after that has come into place as to how, what the results of that was as a result of efficiencies. I can certainly do that. And Mr.

Chair, if I could, with respect to the code of conduct, I think that’s a separate report from what this motion is of, from my understanding. My understanding of this motion is to take a look at the standing committee structure and compensation and expense accounts and support staff support for counselors that’s my understanding the motion. I could be wrong, of course. Thank you.

And I just gonna clarify with Councillor Hopkins, the reason that I went to the clerk as opposed to the counselors, you may be looking at intent, and I understand that. What I’m looking at is what the actual motion says. So intent might be one thing, but if it’s not specified in the motion, intent is less critical than what the actual wording of a motion typically is. But you did ask the question of intent, so I will ask Councillor Vanholst if he or Councillor Lewis wishes to respond to that.

Councillor Lewis has said he’d like to respond. Thank you, Your Worship. And I don’t presume to speak for Councillor Vanholst on this, but I can share with Councillor Hopkins and all council colleagues actually, Councillor Vanholst and I had a good conversation about this on the weekend. In my perspective, certainly when we’re looking at the effectiveness or the extra demands on staff resources and counselors in terms of the virtual meetings, whether we maybe need to update our Council policies and procedures and bylaws to continue to allow some form of virtual meetings to continue.

I think that that would all be in my intent to colleagues part of the discussion, yes. I think that even as we come out of COVID restrictions, there may be times when some counselors want to continue to join a meeting through a virtual means because of other commitments. And I think that’s part of a discussion that should be had. And I think it’s important that we start having that discussion at this time because of course we do have an election cycle coming next year.

So if we don’t have a discussion soon, we won’t have that discussion until 2027. So I think that it’s very timely to start looking at all of these things now. And I don’t presume to know where we’re going to land, but through you, Chair to Councillor Hopkins and others, I think that that’s absolutely part of the discussion we can have around meeting structure, yes. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the clerk’s comments about the code of conduct. It’s very hard when we talk about our own governance here, not to include the conversations around the code of conduct.

So I appreciate Councillor Lewis’ comments around his comments about, you know, the intent reviewing efficiencies, maybe looking at how these virtual meetings and how we can be doing it even better and even asking for a survey, comments from each and every one of us. I think there’s opportunities there as we do this review. I did ask the question and I appreciate Councillor Lewis’ comments. I know he seconded it, but I was hoping to hear a little bit more from Councillor Van Halston in his intent behind this motion and what he was looking and seeking for.

But I appreciate the comments and the conversation so far. Councillor Van Halston, I think that’s an opportunity for you to respond unless you would like to respond in due course when I recognize you formally. I’ll be happy to make a short response to the Councillor’s question near worship. The intent.

Sorry, before I go ahead, Councillor Van Halston. Okay, thank you. So, of course, the intent of my motion is for us to have a conversation. And one that I think that’s been brought up in a number of times before because of timing, it was suggested that it should be delayed.

I think this is the perfect time to have a conversation about how we move forward. It may turn out that we decide that the best way to serve London with the Council is to have it exactly the way it is. But we can also have a look at some other possibilities. So that’s what I would like to do, really bring that up.

And I appreciate Councillor Lewis for putting some more specificity into the motion. So we can have a better idea of the kinds of things we could discuss. But I’m looking forward to having just a very open conversation about London and what’s possible for us with the next term of City Council. Councillor Square.

The one thing I’ve learned since I’ve been a Councillor is this Councillor’s never tire of talking about themselves and their own functions and how much they get paid and what they do and how they do it. And I don’t want to stop anybody from chatting and talking about these things, but there’s a lot of stuff in here. And some I’m concerned about, in other words, first of all, saying that we should be consulting with civic administration, how our opera, how we operate can realize efficiencies in line with the corporate reorganization. I’m not part of the corporate structure of the City of London.

I’m an elected representative of the constituents who voted for me. So I don’t want to put staff in the uncomfortable position of starting to tell elected officials, well, you should make this change because we think it would fit in better with the corporate reorganization. You know, maybe you should have more deputy mayors ‘cause we have more deputy mayors sort of thing. You know, I’m uncomfortable with that.

I think we have to do these things in consultation with the public. I think a lot of these things are going to need public input. You know, once you go back to the salary issue, the way we dealt with it last time, we went out for a full public consultation process that was independent of us. It was run by other people and they came back with a recommendation that we adopted.

So there’s a lot in here. I think it’s a strange time to be having this conversation. I think in a lot of ways, it’s better had at the beginning of a council term. So you have time to work through it, but that didn’t happen.

And I’m just really, I mean, it’s gonna be really challenging to keep, from my point of view, to keep this conversation in focus, on track. And it’s not clear to me what we’re trying to achieve or we’re trying to achieve a better council, a better operating council, I suppose that’s it. And I’m open to that, of course, but I still think it’s something we’re apparently gonna keep talking about until we stop talking about it. Cashalouche, thank you, Your Worship.

And I just wanted to offer some general comments. I actually wanted to do that at the start, but I’m going to offer them now. And I think to, first of all, through you, just to confirm, and I believe this was confirmed at corporate services, but through you to the clerks. One of the reasons that I included civic administration is I believe that in addition to the code of conduct, the clerks also have a compensation review report coming forward later this year.

Through you, Mr. Chair, if I can just get confirmation that that’s accurate. Let’s go to the clerk and confirm that. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, that’s correct. Thank you, Cashalouche. Thank you, so, you know, there are reasons that some of these things are in here in it. And, you know, I don’t, with all due respect to Councilor Squire, I disagree a little bit.

I think that we are a different, a very different, but nonetheless, part of the corporation of the city of London in our elected roles. And I think that we do have to have civic administration involved in some of the discussion points. For example, when I look at the issue of the expense accounts in there, I think about things like the fact that although we’re provided corporate phones, we’re not provided phone protectors, either cases or the screen protectors. We’re provided a corporate printer, but toner cartridges have to be purchased individually and through our expense accounts.

And I think there’s perhaps an opportunity to realize some efficiencies by centralizing that instead of having 14 members of Council going off in all directions at all times. I just think that there’s an option there to be looked at, and that would have to include civic administration in the conversation in terms of how that would look if we decided we were going to centralize things. I, in some cases, you know, another good example. We just discussed the ward boundaries and a number of wards not too long ago.

One of the points that kept coming up was the Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan or Councillor Cassidy or Councillor Plaza, for example, have very large wards when compared to individuals like myself who actually have a smaller population ward. So there’s a fairness question there in terms of when they are doing a constituent mail out, it’s going to cost them a lot more to reach their constituents than it costs me. Is it fair that that has to go through their expense account or could there perhaps be an efficiency realized by having a central mailing option made available to Councillors once a year and equalize that difference in ward populations by providing the support internally rather than expensing it and then having, you know, to be honest, what can be a silly but nonetheless aggravating media cycle where, well, how come, you know, Councillor X had to pay $5,000 for their mail out when Councillor Y paid 3,000? So those are just some of the examples of the conversations I think that we can have through this process, but I do think that we do need to consult with civic administration as we do that because some of the pieces may involve changes to how they operate in terms of their support for us, including the volume of our support staff.

So thank you colleagues for considering this and I hope that we will get it passed and have a good conversation with governance working group and including the public at that point, getting some input from them. I have a sense of the arguments that we’re hearing put forward are the ones that will ultimately go to governance working group. If this goes through, Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. Thanks, Your Worship.

And thanks for the conversation again on this item. It’s one of those perennial things, Councilor Squire identified. I agree with a lot of his arguments here. One of the concerns that I do have is explicitly with respect to compensation.

The Council compensation task force was struck, created recommendations. The intent of that was to create some sense of evergreenness to that where it could be indexed to CPI and not have to go through a very large and involved process again. By having this in the motion, it creates the, I get that basically authorizes or moves forward that Council compensation task force needs to be struck again. And I don’t have any appetite to go through that again.

And I think it’s very self-facing. And it looks at us instead of towards the population that we’re meant to serve. There are some merits to the parts of this motion in terms of taking a look at how Council’s standing committees interact with the administration. I think that’s a discussion that we need to continue to have.

And I, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily a, well, I guess it goes to governance working group to consider this, but it’s a conversation we need to have together with the administration to say how does Council move issues of the day of the various departments of the civic administration? How should the civic administration be grouped? Well, that’s been decided. So how should Council be grouped so that the two complement each other?

Fair enough. The rest of this, I don’t have a lot of appetite for it. We’ve been down a number of times. Multiple times per term.

And we find ourselves here again. So I understand the desire to have another kick at the can at it. As it’s worded right now, I probably wouldn’t support it if compensation and expense accounts were taken under it. I could possibly support the discussion, but at this point, I think I would look to the mover and seconder to consider if those are elements that are critical for it to be there for them.

If that’s a question to them, then let’s ask Councilor Lewis, Councilor Van Holst. Your worship is, it’s more just if they wish to amend it at some point, it’s their prerogative. I was just putting my opinion forward on it. Not so much a question.

Okay, thanks very much. I appreciate that, all right. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Have Councilor Van Holst. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. So I will agree that this has come up a number of times, but just talking about having a conversation, we’ve never actually had it. I’d also point out that at any time, Councilor Lewis and I could simply bring each one of these things as a motion to the SPPC, and we would be forced to discuss it here.

It just seems like that the governance committee is a better place to do that. And these conversations could go very quickly. And I’ve just bring the example of the previous item on our agenda. I brought up an idea I thought would be valuable for us, and there was no appetite for it, and it was over.

And so I may suggest at the governance committee, we think about the advantages of a daytime hours for Council or a full-time Council. I’ll say a few things about that. And then that conversation will go somewhere or nowhere, but at least we will have had it, which I think is important. So we need to consider a number of things.

And then I believe we’ll have done our job. So that’s why we picked the governance working group for this. It seemed like the best place to have a conversation, which doesn’t need the officiality of putting motions forward. It’s a great place for it.

It can go quickly. And so I hope we’ll finally do it, have the conversation and get it over with, and then move on. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, I’ll make a couple of comments.

First, I wanna thank the mover and seconder for thinking of the governance working group as the place to discuss this. I think Councilor Van Wals is right. If we are going to discuss these things, it’s probably better to do it. As more of a working group style discussion then, as individual motions on different items brought to SPPC, it will ultimately come back here, but it would allow for some discussion.

I would agree that this has come up multiple times in multiple different ways. In some cases, I’ve been the one to bring up components of this. And although I don’t agree with everything contemplated in the motion, I do try to be respectful that the way that I want to do the job as Councilor and the way that I think I need to be supported and the changes that I think need to be made are my own opinion. And that because there is a level of equality around the horseshoe and the supports that were provided, I try to be as open as possible to listening to the perspectives of my colleagues on this, because I don’t presume to know the ways that they want to do their jobs and the ways that they want to be supported and the things that they would want to discuss.

So I will say I am open to the conversation. I would support this going to governance working group on the issue of compensation. I’m not sure it matters whether it’s in the motion or not. My understanding is last term as part of the Council compensation review motion that we passed, it was directed that this compensation would be reviewed once per term.

So this would be the time that it would be done. I think that that direction has already been given. So I’m not sure it needs to be in the motion. So I’ll support this.

I think it can be torn apart and put back together at governance working group. And I think we have to establish a process that allows the feedback for everybody because we shouldn’t presume how the person sitting beside us wants to be supported or wants to do their job. Thank you, Councillor Caster. Thank you, Your Worship.

I share the concern with the inclusion of compensation that has been raised already. And I, if the mover and seconder would like you to remove it or we could vote on it separately, otherwise I won’t vote. And I have been in favor of looking at all of these things, but I won’t, I won’t vote on this in favor if it includes compensation. And the reason for that is partly what Councillor Turner brought up, but we did engage a very robust process of citizens volunteering their time and they spent almost two years coming up with the compensation that was agreed upon.

They did extensive public engagement. And that’s why it took them so long, almost two years because they wanted to expand the public engagement. They wanted to really get some citizen involvement outside of the task force that was immediately working on it. They came up with a very good solution, I thought, and Councillor endorsed it.

And I think the review was not intended to review the entire concept that was suggested by the task force. The review was because the stipend is tied to the median full-time income in the city of London. And the review is so that every four years or every few years, it’s ensured that we are keeping up to whatever the median full-time income is in the city of London. It’s not to review the entire process, although that is always on the table as well.

But I think it was very recently that we engaged citizens to do this work for us. We took their recommendation, we put it in place, and I don’t want to have that conversation again right now. So that’s why I won’t support it as long as compensation is in there. Thank you, I see Councillor Hopkins is on the list and Councillor Lewis is as well.

Is there anyone who has not spoken to moving this to governance to be discussed again? So my question then becomes, is there anyone that has not yet commented on this? Councillor Hummer. Thank you, so I’m not gonna support the motion because it includes the compensation part specifically.

I actually think discussing the expenses is a fine thing to task governance working group with, but picking an even smaller subset of elected officials to talk to a compensation than the whole SPPC is in my view, not a great idea. I think actually this is an area where we do really benefit from having people who are not currently Councillors, considering how should we set the level of compensation. I would have to hear a very clear articulation of why it is a good idea to have governance working group specifically consider this issue and what exactly we think is gonna come out of that. There’s gonna be some kind of recommendation to SPPC and some decision that comes to council.

If the recommendation from the governance working group, for example, was you should have a citizen task force, look at it, you know, I’d be supportive of that, but I don’t need governance working group to do that. We can just do that at SPPC. And, you know, I know we have this working group. I think it’s done great work in the past and a number of fronts, you know, the review of all the council policies, for example, was a major undertaking that was long overdue and we managed to get through a lot of that work, but it also has a pretty good list of things to work on already.

And I don’t really wanna task it with a whole bunch of other things. Many of which are gonna require a lot of resources from the civic administration, unless I really understand what the problem is. So, you know, with daytime meetings, I’ve talked about that extensively. People know where I stand on that.

I actually think it’s fine if governance where you want to talk about that. It’s something we need to hash out. I think, and the working group is fine. Commutation is just a non-starter for me.

I don’t know why we would take it to the working group specifically. So, since it’s in the motion, I’m gonna vote against the whole thing. Thank you. I have Councillor Lewis and Councillor Hopkins and a couple more.

So, by the way, before I do, though, recognize Councillor Lewis, I’m asking if there’s anyone else that has not yet to comment on this that wishes to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna be brief. I’m just gonna focus in on what I’m hearing colleagues objecting to, which is, and in fact, Councillor Helmer even went smaller and said expenses would be something that he would consider but not compensation.

You know, I wanna respectfully remind colleagues that notwithstanding the governance or the citizen task force and the policies that we have in writing, in the two years that I have been on council, this council discusses its compensation each year. We’ve had two votes on it. And colleagues, there were colleagues who, for whatever reasons, in their deciding to do so, voted against the existing policy. So, to say that, you know, we shouldn’t have a discussion about it.

And Councillor Helmer’s right, the recommendation may well be, let’s get some citizen involvement. In fact, I’ve already had a very fruitful discussion, a preliminary one, with Patty Dalton, who’s the president of the London District Labor Council about it. And they would be quite interested in having some further discussion about this issue. But to me, if we’re going to look at expenses, and I think we should look at expenses, and I’ve outlined a couple of the things I don’t think should be in the expense account already, but I think that those two things are part and parcel of a discussion.

But to say that we just shouldn’t have the discussion because it makes us uncomfortable, while respectfully colleagues, we’ve had this discussion twice already this term. Sorry, Councillor, I would call, I did not hear uncomfortable in that discussion, so I know it’s not necessarily an offensive word, but I don’t want this to be misleading, so let’s carry on. So that’s really what I wanted to finish on, is that the discussion will continue beyond this Council, beyond the next Council. And I actually agree that it would have been better to have this conversation in year one, but here we are, and so that’s my thoughts on the matter.

And I still think that all of these things are worth having a discussion on. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And the more I appreciate the conversation, but the more we talk about ourselves, the more uncomfortable I start to feel. And I have concerns when we talk about us. And I am not comfortable at all now with the motion going forward. If we could say a task force should be set up, I would be open to that, but right now, we is us looking at ourselves, and we aren’t the ones that should be doing that.

So I won’t be supporting the motion, even though I appreciate there are things here that we can look at. The governance working group can do that, can do the research, find those efficiencies, looking at our standing committees. I think looking at our virtual meetings is another opportunity to get better, have a conversation about how we can improve on that. But for now, I won’t be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Councillor but also. Well, thank you, Your Worship. I think there’s an irony that we were asking to have a conversation, but we seem to be having that conversation here and now about these things. Could have been done at the governance working group.

The conversation doesn’t mean we’re not tasking them to do anything in particular. Regarding compensation, I think I heard someone say they thought there might be things that we could take out of expenses and just roll into this stipend. That’s something that I heard. Compensation was something that Councillor Lewis had put in here.

But I would say for me, one thing I’m gonna say is that I question whether London is served well by having a part-time council and other cities our size don’t have that. And if we decide that it would be better if we had a full-time daytime council, then I think that question of compensation might come up. Someone’s gonna have to say, well, that means we would be working more than we do now. And it would also mean that people who have presently a day job wouldn’t be able to have that.

And we might also say, well, if it means it’s a great, a lot more commitment with no change to compensation, would we suffer in terms of the quality of candidates that might try to run? Those are things that will come up in the conversation. And so somebody would bring up, well, maybe compensation has to be considered. And then we would send that back to the SPP probably with some kind of recommendation or suggestion or at least we might say when the compensation review is done, maybe look at having seeing what compensation for a full-time council would be.

That was the mistake, I think it was a mistake that we made when we set the task force because we told them to come up with the right compensation for the status quo rather than saying, what would a compensation be for a part-time or a full-time council, which was possible? And had we done that, we wouldn’t even need to have this conversation because that would have already been in place. We would have an idea of what that would be like. So I think that’s the reason in how compensation can come up.

I don’t think we’re not tasking things that Councilor Hopkins suggested a task force. This isn’t anything close to a task force, right? We’re just trying to come up with what we might recommend in terms of what to study. So it’s not like we’re necessarily studying these things.

So I’m not sure what to do. We could just strike the word compensation and then if Councilor Lewis is fine with that and then let people vote, but realizing at some point it might arise. So Councilor Van Holst, I’m not cutting you off, but you have to specific on that Councilor Lewis and then you can come back for the last minute you have. Good, yep, certainly if that’s the movers desire to strike that, I will support that as well.

You’ve got another minute if you need it to Councilor Van Holst. Oh, you worship. I think that’s fine. And if that makes my colleagues comfortable with this then, of course that’s, I want them to be comfortable with the directions we’re taking.

So why don’t we have that read without the words and compensation? And I think that will allow us to keep the primary. 30 seconds, Councilor. It’ll keep the primary discussion in line with I think what Councilors hoped it would be.

So we’re not gonna just bring up compensation. If that happens, we can always come back and say, hey, we might need to discuss this and we can bring another motion back to SPPC. So I’m fine with that removed, Councilor Lewis’s. So it’s been moved and seconded that and compensation be removed.

The colleagues are just a caution and that is this. The intention of this is I understand this revised motion and I don’t mean the last two words, but was to refer this to governance working group or committee to review and consider. And what we’ve heard a lot of is what we’d like to see in a nod and give opinions about various things that may well be discussed to governance working group. And I’m seeing that as we have now gone through several individuals who have already spoken once, but having said that, I’m gonna recognize Deputy Mayor Morgan.

Thank you, Your Worship. I was just gonna move an amendment to strike-end compensation, but it sounds like that’s been done. So it’s done, I was only gonna do that because it sounded like there was a wider level of support without those words in it. So I’m happy to vote whenever you’re ready.

Are there any new comments that need to be made? I’m not trying to be rude colleagues nor cut off debate ‘cause otherwise we’ll, if this passes, we’ll go to governance working group. That’s wrong. Thank you, I wasn’t expecting to weigh in again, but I object to the way that my comments, I think the Councilor Lewis was referring to my comments were characterized.

I’m not uncomfortable at all talking about compensation. We have to actually talk about it, and I have talked about it a number of times and I’ve voted on it a number of times. What I’m not in support of, and which sounds like it’s being dropped, so I’m wondering why I’m still talking about it, is sending it to the working group specifically. So I wanna be very clear that that’s what I don’t agree with.

We have to discuss our own compensation. That is the lovely way that the province has set up compensation for municipal councilors that we have to vote on our own compensation and the compensation of people who are gonna succeed us. There’s no way around it. So, Councillor Hummel, you’re a note that the chair ruled on and intervened on the comments that were made previously, but I appreciate you bringing them up for reinforcement.

Councillor Cassidy, your hand was up and now it’s down. Okay, any other new comments? Any other comments wish to be made? Let’s call the question.

Councillor Caivoga, closing the vote. The motion is passed, 12 to three. Thank you, colleagues. There are no deferred matters, no additional business and no items to be dealt with in confidential session before I adjourn.

Couple of things first, I’d like to say thank you to staff. You know, we do this regularly at SPPC and council meetings when we have an opportunity because of the great work that they do. I’d also like to thank colleagues around the horseshoe, virtually or otherwise. I will say that we’ve had and trust you all had a good and thoughtful break.

My comment is this, we’re in the second half of our term and I’ve noted that sometimes in the last number of weeks, things have become a little challenging in terms of some of the interactions between members of the horseshoe. And sometimes a little bit more personal than I think otherwise intended and not all, but some. And so I’m just gonna share something that I think I heard councilor Helmer say some weeks ago. I’m gonna reinforce it again.

And that is, I think there’s no Glen Campbell country song that my kid, Brett, mom said and it was try a little kindness and he didn’t put it quite that way but that’s what he meant. And I’d like to echo that. And I think that we have an opportunity, I think in this next go forward, look, we’re vigilant. We care, we’re passionate about what we feel and do and believe in, but I think as it relates to our dealings with each other, with our staff and those in the only areas that I’m able to comment on, that we try a little kindness and it can go a long way in getting where we need to get to.

So I’ll ask us all to measure our comments and thoughts with regard to that. Sometimes in the heat of these discussions, it can be a little otherwise and whoever chairs a meeting be it committee or a broader meeting has to always be somewhat mindful, but by and large we get it, but I’m just gonna ask as we go into our next number of months and the second half of this term that we, that we sing a little Glen Campbell song and try a little kindness. So with that, thank you staff. Thank you, colleague.

So look for a motion to adjourn. I see a Councillor Van Mirberg and I see Councillor Squire rushing in. So with that, can we have a hand vote please? All those in favor?

Motion’s carried. Meeting adjourned at 526. Thank you all.