Open Council

Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

Open Council

Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

November 30, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Turner discloses a pecuniary interest with respect item 4.10, having to do with the London Public Library (LPL) Board of Directors vacancy, by indicating that his spouse is employed by the LPL.

2.   Consent

2.1   Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy

2021-11-30 Staff Report - Strategy to Reduce Core Area Vacancy

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to a proposed strategy that sets out potential tools that may assist in reducing core area land and building vacancy:

a)    the staff report dated November 30, 2021 entitled Terms of Reference to Address the Council Resolution from July 6, 2021 BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Terms of Reference described in the staff report as Appendix “A”: Terms of Reference: Scope of Work to Address the Council Resolution from July 6, 2021 BE APPROVED;

c)    the integration of the work to address the Council Resolution from May 25, 2021 with respect to parking in the core into this Terms of Reference BE APPROVED;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the LEDC to develop a business case for consideration from the $10 Million funding previously authorized to be contributed to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to support social and economic recovery measures; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to move forward with the Implementation Plan described in the report dated November 29, 2021.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.2   November 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report and 2021 Report to the Community

2021-11-30 Staff Report - November 2021 Progress

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated November 30, 2021 including the November 2021 Semi-Annual Progress Report and 2021 Report to the Community BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.3   2021 Resident Satisfaction Survey

2021-11-30 Staff Report - 2021 Resident Satisfaction Survey

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated November 30, 2021, including the 2021 Resident Satisfaction Survey, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Delegation - Brian Hill, Member - 9th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

2021-11-30 DIAAC Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Helmer

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 18, 2021:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Policy and Planning Sub-Committee:

i)    the final DIAAC 2021 Year End Report BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and the Civic Administration for their consideration; and,

ii)    the verbal update from K. Arnold, with respect to the Policy and Planning Sub-Committee report, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee (DIAAC) held a general discussion with respect to the following Council Policies: Flags at City Hall, Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities, and Issuance of Proclamations Policy;

it being further noted that the Policy and Planning Sub-Committee will report back to DIAAC with potential recommendations for amendments with respect to the above-noted policies;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the River Road Golf Course Arson Incident:

i)    B. Hill, member of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee (DIAAC), BE AUTHORIZED to speak on behalf of DIAAC with respect to this matter, at the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) meeting to be held on November 30, 2021; and,

ii)    a Sub-Committee BE ESTABLISHED to prepare a communication, with respect to this matter, to be presented at the above-noted SPPC meeting;

c) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2,4.4 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal report from B. Hill with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   (ADDED) - REVISED - Committee Appointment Preferences submitted by Council Members

2022 Committee Appointment Preferences-REVISED

2022 Committee Appointment Preference-1-REVISED

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Turner

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2021 to November 14, 2022:

a) Planning and Environment Committee 

Councillor A. Hopkins (Chair)

Councillor S. Lehman

Councillor S. Lewis

Councillor S. Hillier

Councillor S. Turner

b) Civic Works Committee

Councillor E. Peloza (Chair)

Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar

Councillor M. van Holst

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Councillor J. Helmer

c) Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor M. Cassidy (Chair)

Councillor M. Hamou

Councillor J. Helmer

Councillor M. Salih

Councillor S. Hillier

d) Corporate Services Committee

Councillor S. Lewis (Chair)

Councillor J. Morgan

Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar

Councillor M. Cassidy

Councillor M. Hamou

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Voting Record:

Appointment to the Planning and Environment Committee

Majority Winner: Councillor S. Lehman; Councillor S. Lewis; Councillor A. Hopkins; Councillor S. Hillier; Councillor S. Turner

Selection of Chair for the Civic Works Committee

Majority Winner: Councillor E. Peloza

4.2   Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors (Requires 1 Council Member)

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Councillor J. Fyfe-Millar BE APPOINTED to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Consideration of Appointment to the London & Middlesex Community Housing (Requires 1 Council Member)

Moved by M. van Holst

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the following actions be taken:

a)  Councillor S. Lewis BE APPOINTED to the London and Middlesex Community Housing for the term ending November 14, 2022; and,

b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to bring forward applications to be considered to fill the tenant vacancy at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 22, 2021 from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.4   Consideration of Appointment to the London Transit Commission (Requires 1 Council Member)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Councillor A. Hopkins BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Voting Record:

Councillor appointment to the London Transit Commission

Majority Winner: Councillor Hopkins

4.5   Consideration of Appointment to the Middlesex-London Health Unit Board of Directors (Requires 1 Council Member)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Councillor M. Hamou BE APPOINTED to the Middlesex-London Health Unit Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Voting Record:

Councillor appointment to the Middlesex-London Health Unit

Majority Winner: Councillor Hamou

4.6   Consideration of Appointment to the Tourism London Board of Directors (Requires 1 Council Member)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Councillor S. Hillier BE APPOINTED to the Tourism London Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated September 23, 2021 from C. Finn, General Manager, Tourism London regarding this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Voting Record:

Appointment of a Councillor to the Tourism London Board of Directors

Majority Winner: No majority

Appointment of a Councillor to the Tourism London Board of Directors

Majority Winner: Councillor S. Hillier

4.7   Consideration of Appointment to the Western Fair Association Programming Council (Requires 1 Council Member)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Councillor S. Hillier BE APPOINTED to the Western Fair Association Programming Council for the term ending November 14, 2022; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 14, 2021 from R. Ash, CEO, Western Fair District with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.8   Consideration of Appointment to the Committee of Adjustment (Requires 1 Member at Large)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That Antonio D. Santiago BE APPOINTED to the Committee of Adjustment for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Voting Record:

Appointment to the Committee of Adjustment

Majority Winner: No majority

4.9   4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group

2021-11-30 GWG 4

2021-11-30 GWG Report 5

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group from its meetings held on November 8 and 15, 2021, respectively:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the November 15 meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to draft information related to the following potential amendments to the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, prior to moving any recommendations to the SPPC:

i)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account that would provide for one annual ward-wide mail out per year, including printing and distribution by Canada Post, to be covered by the Office budget, not individual expense accounts; it being noted that this opportunity would provide for a more equitable opportunity for outreach with citizenry between wards of various size and population;  

ii)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account (and related policies) that would remove the ability to claim home internet costs for reimbursement;

iii)     an amendment to 4.2 c) iii) to add additional permissive wording for community and/or ward events, including but not limited to prizes, rental or other “sponsorship” while maintaining the annual $1,200 maximum value and include some potential examples of these uses;

iv)     an amendment to 4.2 c) vi) to add more permissive wording for advertisements that would reduce limitations on use and types including to not be limited to newspaper publications, permit various media opportunities and while maintaining the annual $1,000 maximum;

v)     an amendment to 4.2 a) to include conference registration for FCM and AMO as an expense that is excluded from the expense account, and to be covered by the general office budget; it being noted that any associated travel expenses would continue to be covered by c) i);

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the general operations of Municipal Council:

i)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary changes to facilitate Council meetings to be held starting at 1:00 PM, beginning with the 2022 term of Council, while still being based on the current meeting schedule; it being noted that the 2022/2023 meeting calendar will reflect this change when it is brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration; and,

ii)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the GWG with respect to recommendations related to the survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councillors’ office, in terms of the themes of increased resources and more flexibility in support duties;

it being noted that the Governance Working Group received the Councillor survey results with respect to this matter;

c)     that consideration of clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, related to the Advisory Committee Review Final Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) in order to invite all members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter;

d)    the attached revised Council Members’ Expense Account Policy BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for approval; it being noted that the proposed changes would come into effect for the next term of Council; and

e)     clauses 1.1 and 3.3 from the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group and clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 4.2 from the 5th Report of the Governance Working BE RECEIVED:

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 25, 2021 from S. Franke, President, Urban League of London with respect to the City’s Advisory Committees.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group - excluding clause 3.2 - Operations of Municipal Council:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th and 5th Reports of the Governance Working Group from its meetings held on November 8 and 15, 2021, respectively:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the November 15 meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to draft information related to the following potential amendments to the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, prior to moving any recommendations to the SPPC:

i)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account that would provide for one annual ward-wide mail out per year, including printing and distribution by Canada Post, to be covered by the Office budget, not individual expense accounts; it being noted that this opportunity would provide for a more equitable opportunity for outreach with citizenry between wards of various size and population;

ii)     an amendment to the Councillor Expense Account (and related policies) that would remove the ability to claim home internet costs for reimbursement;

iii)     an amendment to 4.2 c) iii) to add additional permissive wording for community and/or ward events, including but not limited to prizes, rental or other “sponsorship” while maintaining the annual $1,200 maximum value and include some potential examples of these uses;

iv)     an amendment to 4.2 c) vi) to add more permissive wording for advertisements that would reduce limitations on use and types including to not be limited to newspaper publications, permit various media opportunities and while maintaining the annual $1,000 maximum;

v)     an amendment to 4.2 a) to include conference registration for FCM and AMO as an expense that is excluded from the expense account, and to be covered by the general office budget; it being noted that any associated travel expenses would continue to be covered by c) i);

and,  clauses 1.1 and 3.3 from the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

Motion that clause 3.2 a) of the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group BE APPROVED.

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the general operations of Municipal Council:

i)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the necessary changes to facilitate Council meetings to be held starting at 1:00 PM, beginning with the 2022 term of Council, while still being based on the current meeting schedule; it being noted that the 2022/2023 meeting calendar will reflect this change when it is brought forward to a future Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration; and,

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. van Holst

That a recess until 7:35 PM, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recesses from 7:18 PM to 7:35 PM.

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

Motion that clause 3.2 b) of the 4th Report of the Governance Working Group, BE APPROVED:

ii)      the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the GWG with respect to recommendations related to the survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councillors’ office, in terms of the themes of increased resources and more flexibility in support duties;

it being noted that the Governance Working Group received the Councillor survey results with respect to this matter;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group BE APPROVED:

On the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Advisory Committee Review:

i)    the report dated November 15, 2021 entitled “Advisory Committee Review – Final Report”, BE RECEIVED and the current review BE CLOSED;

ii)    the revised Terms of Reference for London Community Advisory Committees BE APPROVED for enactment in 2022;

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Governance Working Group with respect to an updated General Terms of Reference for All Advisory Committees, to support the structure approved in part b), above; and,

iv)    the membership appointments to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, Environmental Stewardship and Action Advisory Committee and Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee BE PAUSED until such time as the work of the Mobility Master Plan and Climate Emergency Action Plan Task Forces have initiated and/or completed their work;

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Turner

That consideration of clause 3.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, related to the Advisory Committee Review Final Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group (GWG) in order to invite all members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Moved by M. Cassidy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That section 4.2 c) vii) of the Draft Council Members’ Expense Account Policy BE AMENDED by deleting the following:  “but excluding home internet costs, services or equipment;“

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Clause 4.1 of the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group BE APPROVED:

d)    the attached revised Council Members’ Expense Account Policy BE FORWARDED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for approval; it being noted that the proposed changes would come into effect for the next term of Council;

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the balance of the 5th Report of the GWG and the relate correspondence from the Urban League of London, dated November 25, 2021, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.10   London Public Library Board of Directors Vacancy

2021-11-30 Submission - Library

Moved by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. van Holst

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Library Board of Directors vacancy notification:

a)  contact current applications on file, to confirm that those individuals remain interested in consideration for appointment;

b) seek additional applications to fill the vacancy on the Board; and,

c) bring forward applications, noted in parts a) and b), above for consideration at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Governance Working Group Membership

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That members who may be interested in an appointment to the Governance Working Group BE INVITED to submit a communication for the December 7, 2021 Council meeting for consideration along with the 18th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 9:23 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 (5 hours, 31 minutes)

[9:28] Greens on, please colleagues. We have everybody in attendance, Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much. Welcome to the 18th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, a virtual meeting held during the COVID-19 emergency.

[10:01] We invite the public to check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impacts. Meetings can be viewed via livestreaming 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@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. And to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca.

[10:39] Colleagues, I’ll look for any disclosures of the committee of interest. Very good start. Thank you very much. I see none. (mumbles) Oh, sorry, Councilor Turner, there you are. Thank you, Ursa. With respect to the number of 4.101 public library board of directors vacancy, I’ll declare pecanning our interest as my wife as an employee as the London public library. So noted. And thanks, Councilor Turner, I can always count on you to get us started there. Thank you so much. Any other declarations? Thanks very much.

[11:16] Then colleagues, we have three items on the consent agenda. I’ll look to see if anyone wishes any of these items if you dealt with separately. Councilor Turner, please. Ursa, if I could have risen to, or sorry, item 2.1, a strategy to rejoice, Corey or a vacancy, please. Sure. Any others that colleagues wish I’ve done separately? I see none. So I do see, Councilor Hopkins, so please. Sorry, Mr. Chair for being last minute here, but I do have questions around 2.2.

[11:50] It doesn’t need to be really pulled, but I do have a number of questions. Well, in so far as there may be as a result of that, some changes to the recommendation. Why don’t we do with them all separately? Let’s look then please to 2.1. Any strategy to reduce poor area vacancy? Call these page three of your notes. I can call on Mr. Cott’s fist, but first let me ask if there are any comments or questions. Mr. Turner, please.

[12:23] Thanks, Sir, Your Worship. But through you, I have two questions and comments, I guess on this and concerns. One is with respect to the direction to ask it, LADC to develop strategies. I recognize it’s asked this is case to come back to us for this $300,000. I’m trying to figure out what’s materially different in terms of deliverables compared to the work that downtown London did with the live work play, that consultant’s report and a plethora of other reports that have been done in the past.

[13:01] The second question is around the strategies all seem to be focused on incentives. And I think it’s time we really start talking about some disincentives as well, especially around land speculation within the court, because that seems to be the largest impediments. And instead of continuously extending carrots such as the development charge grant, I’d like to hear about some strategies or in corporation in this plan that might take a look at at those who are long-term holding of lands and making very little movement to occupy those buildings.

[13:40] Well, why don’t we ask those questions of Mr. Kott’s fish or you can direct us a coordination? Through the chair, actually, that would be part of this review. We would be looking at both incentives and disincentives. Primarily, obviously, incentives are a great way to positively incite folks to change their models and look at building vacant buildings. But disincentives also do work. We’ve had, for instance, vacant taxes, policies, things like that that could be applied.

[14:16] We need to look at the different types of vacancies, so it’s not just about residential, it’s office, it’s vacant land, such as parking lots, vacant units within buildings, as well as the buildings entirely themselves. So there’s different policies that we can look at with respect to both incentives and disincentives. With respect to the actual proposal with LEDC that is looking, although I appreciate there’s other reports that have been out there like the work play, there’s also, we could look at that as a, it’s kind of a reference document, but it wouldn’t be the guiding document.

[14:54] We’d be looking at other ways to quickly, in the short-term, sorry, to quickly try to address some of the vacant buildings right now, in terms of what we can do in a short-term fix. It wouldn’t be a long-term. It could play into a long-term strategy, but it’s primarily looking at a short-term quick win to get some of these buildings filled. And we would report on that, as the council mentioned earlier, before we would do anything, in terms of how much it would cost, what it would look like and provide far more details than what I’m providing you at this moment.

[15:34] Michael Thomas-Inseck also was quite heavily involved in this report, so I’d like to introduce him. And if he has anything further offer, I’d defer to Michael as well. Mr. Thomas-Inseck, do you wish to add to Mr. Casper’s comment? Thank you, that was a very comprehensive response. The only thing that I would add is that, the request by LEDC is intended to compliment some of the short-term collaborations with the LEDC, or the Main Street London in Oldman’s Village. And it’s, the details again will emerge, as we hopefully are able to prepare a business plan together with the LEDC for council to approve.

[16:14] Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thanks, appreciate those. So yeah, whatever we come back with, I think would be really important, especially in the business plan, that shows how it’s going to weave in the work that’s previously been done. When it says that collaborations through LEDC, Small Business Center, Main Street London and OAV, is Main Street London in reference to the Main Street London facade program, or to downtown London, the agency, and if not downtown London, should they be represented in this somehow?

[16:48] Mr. Casper’s question? Through you, your worship, it’s actually downtown, and that was a typo in the report. That was a good catch, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thank you. And then the one last thing, if perhaps, while the report is coming back, as it’s getting generated, one option that might be something was considering as expropriation in certain circumstances, where it might be a little more surgical. I’d be interested in a bit of an analysis of whether that’s feasible or warranted, because I think the land locking that’s happening right now downtown is significant in terms of stalling any progress or material progress that we might have in revitalization of the court.

[17:38] Mr. Thomson, do you wish to comment on that? Mr. Your worship, I think that’s an excellent idea, and it was also intended to be part of the comprehensive strategy that we review next year. Thank you, Councillor. That’s all I’ve got, thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, your worship, and through you to staff, I’m gonna ask a couple of questions here. I’m gonna preface it a little bit. I share some of Councillor Turner’s concerns that we are potentially just duplicating work that’s already been done with the live work play investment that downtown London made previously.

[18:19] We’ve had a number of reports come through the London Community Recovery Network, making recommendations on some things for short-term wins, and I’m actually really concerned when I hear what we’re looking for some short-term wins, because I think quite frankly, the downtown we need a long-term focus on, not a short-term, because I don’t think we’re going to fix it quickly. I’m concerned as well, and through you to our staff, it’s not referenced in the report, but I think all of us are well aware that one of the concerns we hear from residents is a feeling of, and it’s a feeling and a perception, it’s not necessarily the reality, but a feeling of being unsafe in the downtown.

[19:01] We’ve heard stores who can’t get insurance because they’ve had their front windows broken so many times that their insurance company doesn’t wanna carry a policy with them anymore, and yet I don’t see London Police Services reference as a partner in this, and is there gonna be discussion around community safety protocols that go with this vacancy assessments? Because I think if we aren’t addressing some of the root causes that are keeping people away from the downtown, we may not be getting a good value for a dollar out of that.

[19:34] Mr. Thomas NSYNC, care to respond. Your worship, sir, sir, I see Ms. Livingston. I’m just so excited to hear from Mr. Thomas NSYNC. I’d encourage you, Ms. Livingston, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to indicate that what is being suggested in this report is in addition to all of the work that is underway through the core area action plan. So they are meant to complement and assist each other, and in the core area action plan, there is a specific piece of work around the community safety audit, which is underway, and should assist with the kinds of issues that the counselor has, through you, has just raised.

[20:15] So I just want to emphasize that these are meant to be working together, it is not one or the other, and we are not stopping the work on the core area action plan in any way, which is addressing many components, including safety. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and I appreciate that input from Ms. Livingston on that piece. We heard Councillor Turner reference disincentives and in his response, Mr. Costafis mentioned vacancy taxes, but it was actually not that long ago that Councillor Palosa and I brought forward a motion to address residential vacancies, and we were actually advised that it can only be applied to residential property classes at this period of time.

[20:59] So I’m looking for some clarification from our staff. Have rules from the province changed recently? Can we now start applying a vacant tax penalty to other classes of property? Mr. Tom is in sync, please. I could jump in there to Mr. Constance, but no, the rules have not changed. I just brought up as an example of things that we could look, continue to look at, and that would be one that you just mentioned, or the Councillor just mentioned as well. It’s, things do change between from time to time. This study will be ongoing all throughout next year, and we’ll report back to you with our best recommendations at that time.

[21:40] So there’s a lot of incentive type of measures. Like we, as an example, just look at the 3000 unit affordable housing for conversions, potential incentives there, that could be applied not just in the downtown. So although the learnings that we would have in the downtown could be applied to the rest of the city, and as well as disincentives. So we would be looking at both. At this point in time, you know, I can’t say it was any certainty what those exact incentives or disincentives would be. That is something that would be scoped out through the review, and we would welcome feedback from all the stakeholders as we embark on this process.

[22:22] The other thing Councillor, or sorry, our city manager did mention is exactly correct. This is to complement the work of LCRN and through the, sorry, am I, I’m having a little bit of a brain freeze here. But all the other work that we’re doing in the downtown, it’s not, it’s not the all in that we’ll be looking at those for short-term recommendations, which we already are implementing in many cases as well as long term. Thank you.

[22:54] Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m not gonna take up too much time anymore. I’m gonna listen to what others have to say about this topic. I’m just gonna share that I’m, I still have some reservations. There’s some things in this proposal that I like, and I see that the reference to not just parking counts, but actual geographic location and a thorough parking study is included in that, and I like that, because there are some spots where vacant lots are being used for parking where it’s just not warranted. There are other places where the parking zones need intensification in order to fill the buildings.

[23:30] There’s some trade-offs there and taking a look at it through the bigger lens of filling those vacancies, I think is helpful. My main concern remains that I do not believe as a municipal government, we have all the tools in the toolbox to address the issue of vacant commercial spaces, whether they be retailer or office spaces. The private sector will decide where it wants to locate its businesses, and I’m concerned when I say this with all due respect, ‘cause I’m certainly not ruling it out, but when I hear things like expropriation, that I, and Councilor Turner did say very surgical, and I agree with him.

[24:13] There has to be a very good municipal justification for expropriation, and I’m not sure that vacancy in the downtown would give us grounds to do that, but I would like to hear what other councils have to say about this, I’m kind of on the fence at the moment. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from colleagues? I have Deputy Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Your Worship. So I just wanted to add a few comments on this and reiterate what Ms. Livingston said, sorry, I’m choking on some water, that this is an addition by Council direction to existing strategies in the downtown.

[24:56] And as we know, if we had the magic solution to revitalize the downtown, we would have done it by now. It’s a complex problem. It requires a number of approaches, and it requires the involvement of a number of strategic partners in a thoughtful and meticulous way. And when the report talks about short-term actions, short-term is still a year out, and so there is time to do this, but this is a good approach that I am supportive of to integrate what are some new Council directions into the existing pieces of work, bring in partners like the LEDC, and try to formulate a path forward to address issues that have arisen.

[25:41] Since we last set the direction on a number of plans downtown, and the pandemic has had a very specific impact on the downtown core, including core area vacancy. So it is a challenge that both us and other cities of our size are facing. I think that this is a good strategic approach, and what it will produce is recommendations for our consideration. And so I think it’s important to start the work so we can get to those recommendations so we can start to move forward. And I really like the integration with the other work that’s being done, and that this is in partnership with that. And I know Councillor Caste has our name on the list next.

[26:17] I know I supported her motion when it came up to start some of this work, so I’m interested in hearing her thoughts on this as well. Me too. Let’s call on Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have a question. When we talk about some of the tax incentives and Councillor Lewis brought up the, we did have that discussion when the first, when we made that motion a ways back that led to this report. And there was the discussion about some buildings may have commercial on the ground floor, and we could look at them right now.

[26:57] Many of those buildings are vacant above the ground floor, and the idea of having residential units and above. So can we provide some of those incentives to encourage property owners to convert that those upper levels into residential units? Mr. Cautzfuss. Your Worship, it’s Michael Thomas in sick here. Part of the review here, and it was specifically directed by Council, is that we review the existing incentive programs.

[27:32] So right now, those incentive programs aren’t directed to for tenant occupancy, but it’s something that we’re gonna be reviewing. So right now we are doing facade improvement and upgrade to building codes, but there’s nothing directed directly to tenant the ground floor units or the upper floor units, but that is something that Council gave a specific direction to look at as part of this review. And we will be doing that. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you. So in thinking along those lines, if this is the area that will be explored further, I also wonder if then we could use some of those disincentives if we could proactively rezone portions of buildings so that it may be a commercial zone currently, but we could rezone upper levels to be residential, and then therefore have those disincentives kick in for the upper floors.

[28:29] Is that a possibility? I will always call on Mr. Cott’s face and it can be responded by whomever is the appropriate party, Mr. Cott’s face. So and Michael Tumsuske is an expert in this, but just generally speaking. So in the downtown areas there’s a multitude of zoning permissions already permitted in these buildings. So residential is typically permitted in the downtown core as of right. In other areas, however, as we look outward, if we were to study that, I think that would be something we would have to bring back to you in terms of a kind of an area plan review or on the basis of what we’re trying to achieve.

[29:16] There has to be a municipal purpose for that. And clearly that is something we could look at. It would be proactive kind of zoning and possibly some sort of area plans. But I defer to Mr. Tumsuske to provide more specific. Anything else to add, Mr. Tumsuske, please? Yeah, just very quickly. We do have a very specific council direction to look at planning permissions as well. But we just want to make sure that any of the incentive programs and the planning permissions work together. We wouldn’t want to undo any policies of the official plan or any vision for the downtown in the short term without seeing how it integrates with some of the other incentive programs or those types of action items.

[30:03] So we don’t want to do anything in isolation. The whole intent of this comprehensive strategy is to make sure that all the pieces work together. Right, Councillor Cassey. Thank you. So I have one last question and then a comment. And my question is about LED season involvement. The downtown, when we look at what their mandate is, the downtown isn’t generally part of their mandate. So I recognize the great success that we have through LEDC with industrial land. I’m wondering how much involvement LEDC will have in this. And is this the best use of the LEDC?

[30:42] Recognizing we also gave them the film office. I worry about taxing the LEDC. So I just want to get an idea of how much involvement LEDC will have in this. And I also have, sorry, a kind of lied. So I’ll have another question after this, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councillor. Through your worship, yes. So that’s exactly the conversation we need to have with LEDC. Their mandate is citywide. It’s not necessarily focused just on the downtown. So we would need to see how they can resource themselves for this in terms of the film office.

[31:18] They had to resource up, obviously. And that’s what the funding was for. We would likely have a similar scenario and hence the funding request for this as well to garner that in-house expertise for them. Thank you, Councillor Cushing. So my final question is about proactively acquiring properties in a strategic manner. And Councillor Turner brought up expropriation. I’m not necessarily talking about expropriation, but that could be a possibility. And when I first spoke to staff, when I first brought the motion forward a while back, I had in my head the idea of the industrial land development strategy, the fact that we have a set of funds set aside to allow us to purchase strategic sites and put that in our bank of industrial land.

[32:10] We service that land and then it’s available. And that provides incentive for companies like Maple Leaf Foods to come to London, invest in London, bring jobs to London. So I always thought that the possibility exists to do a downtown land development strategy or core area land development strategy or any sort of like non-industrial land development strategy could be to build affordable housing or any other uses that would fit our strategic plan and provide benefit to the city of London. Is that idea of strategically acquiring sites, something that we’ll also be looked at?

[32:46] Ms. Scott’s first. Yeah, through the Councillor, through your worship. Yes, of course, that is something that we’re looking at and it deals with expropriation land acquisition and building acquisition. But there needs to be a missable purpose, obviously. We would need to come back to you whether that would be a recommendation we would proceed with and what the purpose would be and the strategy behind it. Clearly at this point in time, there’s no funding for it other than the monies that we have put together for the affordable housing strategy, but there’s no other funding.

[33:20] So should it be safer to complement the affordable housing strategy could be encompassed within that strategy and the funding within or if it’s beyond that scope and into something else, that would clearly be a multi-year budget discussion and we would need to bring forward a business case. But those types of scenarios we would bring to you with our recommendations as to whether we consider them or not and the council would be able to deliberate on those issues and bring them forward as a multi-year budget discussion. Thank you, Councillor Cressy. Thank you, Your Worship.

[33:51] And I will just say thank you to staff for this report. It’s very comprehensive and yet it is still flexible and it’s wide open. So I’m really looking forward to seeing what will come back. I like that it’s not a siloed approach. I like that it’s not just the planning people that are taking hold of this. I like that we’re including outside agencies as well. And I think initially the motion was to look at our affordable housing crisis and how we can solve our vacant land problem at the same time and maybe the two could marry together and help each other out.

[34:34] So I do recognize as everyone on this council does that we have an affordable housing crisis. I think going forward, if we do look at strategic acquisition or even expropriation that there is a municipal justification there when we’re looking at the crisis that we have with housing in the city. But having said that, I’m looking forward to the strategy coming back. I’m happy to see the collaboration that’s expected through this and to see people different divisions within City Hall and area and other agencies outside of City Hall working together to try to tackle this together.

[35:09] So thank you so much for this report. I do appreciate it. Thank you. Before I recognize Councillor Turner, I wonder if there’s anyone who hasn’t yet spoken who would like to comment on the report. Councillor Fyfe Miller, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, I think one of the things when I read this originally, I thought this is a great action piece to go with the core area action plan that we’ve already worked on in the downtown and put a lot of energy and time into. I think one of the things that we can all agree on is that our downtown has and will continue to be our calling card to the community.

[35:51] This is where people wanna come. To some of the Councillor’s comments on the facts that there have been other reports ahead of this, there always has been. When you look at Live Work Learn Play, they used 2014 numbers and told us that 55,000 people came into our downtown. Every day, the numbers on the new strat plan for the BIA used 2020 numbers and that was down to 33. What we don’t have is an actual looking at what do our post COVID numbers look like. What’s our downtown going to look like as we roll out of COVID?

[36:27] To me, this plan gives us that opportunity to look at that and to look and see what our downtown can actually be coming. How do we build it forward to be that calling card again that we want it to represent? I loved the word that Councillor Cassidy used, which was siloed. One of the things that we heard when the organizations came here, when LEDC came here, when small business center came here, one of the positive things that have come out of COVID is their ability to work together and they’re doing that.

[37:04] I see right now a renewed energy in our downtown. To have these organizations come together and put together a collaborative strategy that we can build on so that we can move forward. And I think the big thing for us moving forward in our downtown is it’s not about our downtown, this is about our city at the end of the day. The economic generator in our downtown affects our whole city. And I think it’s imperative that we come together as a strategy bringing the best minds of our city together to come up with something that we’re all really proud of as we move forward.

[37:43] So for me, my support on this isn’t just the support because it’s for the downtown. My support is this for the whole city because I think this will be impactful on our city for years to come. And so I can really get behind this. I thank the staff for their report because again, I agree with Councilor Cassidy, it was an extremely thorough report. So thank you for your time. Thank you. I have no other first time speakers on my list. Councilor Turner.

[38:19] Thanks, Your Worship. I’ll be brief. I wanted to Councilor Lewis’ point. We did address vacancy tax a little bit ago in the last term where we took a look at the vacancy tax rebate that was provided for vacant properties that ended up being a double discount because of the impact assessments accounted for vacancy as well and decreased the taxibles. So the province had allowed us to remove that vacancy tax rebate, which was a secondary almost bonus for those that had vacant properties.

[38:55] But you’re right. I think we absolutely need to go the other way and tax vacant properties as a disincentive for those that maintain vacancies. My question, I forgot to ask earlier, perhaps through Mr. Thompson-Sink, was is there an opportunity as well to investigate how we apply the Development Charge Grant? We have taken a look at modifying it a little bit. So we provide it as a grant and a rebate over, I think it was 10 years.

[39:28] Is there an opportunity to be more prescribed in the way that we provide those grants, whether that be through making it time limited accessible for somebody who buys a property, that grant would be available to them for five to 10 years or it would be of decreasing value over that period of time or something like that, something that gets the clock ticking. So once that property is acquired, they have something to march towards in order to try and get something developed on that site. I think in general, the concept is for us to try and be as creative as we can with our incentives so that they do what they’re supposed to do.

[40:09] I think we’ve had some good success with the Development Charge Grant Program, but I think it needs to be refined a little bit more and that’s nothing new that I’ve been saying over the past several years as we’ve gone through budget time. But I think as we’re looking at this, I do recognize that it says that we’re supposed to spend some time to evaluate the changes that we made, but I think we can do this concurrently and start that process. And if at the end of the day, our Development Charge Review says everything’s cool, then we can pull back on anything that we might add right now.

[40:45] I think there’s a question in there directed through, I’ll direct it through Mr. CostaViz though. Through you, your worship, since council very specifically asked after review the existing incentive programs, in my mind, that’s one of the big three incentive programs when you look at the facade improvement in the upgraded building code as well. So that is certainly in scope of this project and we’ll look at that. Councillor Schoen. That’s it, thank you. Thank you, colleagues. I see no one else on the speakers list. Therefore, I’ll look for a mover.

[41:19] Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We’ll call the question. Although it’s Councillor Steve Lehman, I’ll vote, yay. Thank you. Doesn’t come up, I might have clicked the wrong meeting.

[41:56] So I will vote yes. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Closing the vote, the motions passed. Thank you, colleagues. I’ll turn your attention out in 2.2, the semi-annual progress report 2021 and report to the community. Any comments or questions for staff? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me. And I first of all wanna thank staff for this report.

[42:32] There’s a lot of information that we’re getting. And to me, it’s an important part of understanding where we are as a city. I understand that this document does not provide an update on every strategy, but I do have a couple questions. And when I review the report, it speaks to some indicators that are not defined. And when I review the report, a lot of the not defined is around the London Health Middlesex Unit’s work that we’re starting to see in our strategic plan.

[43:14] I could be wrong, but my first question is, am I reading that correctly when it comes to not defined? And when we look at the total of additional actions that it tends to be around the health unit, is my first question, just to make sure I’m reading the report correctly. Ms. Williamson. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, the Middlesex London Health Unit has been a very active participant for a number of years in the strategic plan, both the previous one and this one.

[43:50] And they always report as do we through the progress reports. However, because of the impact of the pandemic and the draw on their resources, they were not able to participate in this reporting cycle. They did in the one prior. And so that is why we’ve identified it as not defined. It doesn’t mean that work isn’t happening. It’s just that those folks are so overtaken with other activities. So we keep in touch with them and they’ll have another opportunity in our next progress report next May to be able to provide an update if they are able depending on where we’re at with respect to the pandemic.

[44:33] So that’s why it’s defined the way it is. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that explanation and reminding me it is the challenges with this pandemic have been great for the health unit and for the city of London. I wanna make a quick comment on what I’m starting to see or maybe I may have it wrong as we move forward. But as a representing the city of London at the AMO board, we just had a board meeting last week. And one of the recommendations that was passed by the board was that we advocate for recommendations to the minister of health about substantially improving municipal engagement and mandating appropriate relationships with Ontario health teams.

[45:22] And for me, it’s starting as a city councillor, an indication of how we as municipalities are starting to see or really, you know, the pandemic has really shown the importance of health to our residents and how we as a municipality are dealing with this. So this report sort of highlighted the work that the health unit is doing, but also as we move forward, the importance of health and how we deal with it as a municipality.

[45:57] I know it’s a big conversation at the AMO at the moment, but I just wanted to pass on that information as well. I wanted to make a quick comment on the three pillars for the framework that’s being done for the gender coordinating the gender lens, keeping our city safe for women and girls. And I’m really looking forward.

[46:31] I know we’re a little bit behind, but it’s good to see that this framework will be coming to us in the middle of next year. And I really appreciated the Western Student Council speaking at our budget public participation meeting yesterday, the importance of that. So I think that’s an important conversation, not only gender, but equality, equity. And the list just goes on and seeing this framework come forward. I really appreciate that as well as all the great work that staff’s doing.

[47:07] You can just see all the work in this report. And I thank you very much for it. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Any other comments or questions with respect to this report? I see none therefore, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Cassidy. We’ll call the question. Councillor Turner.

[48:05] Worship, I’ll vote, yay. For some reason, voting progress bar is here, but it won’t allow me access to that button. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. I’ll turn your attention out to 2.3, the 2021 resident satisfaction survey. Any comments or questions to staff? This was on the consent component, and it was the other two items being pulled.

[48:38] So with that, then I will look for a motion to accept the report, Councillor Palose, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. But are there any questions? Councillor Cassidy, go ahead. My apologies for not putting my hand up sooner. I fully expected other people to comment on this, and I was lost in the report itself. I just wanted to highlight that the three top of mind issues that were identified by the people, the respondents to this survey, and put in this report were transportation, poverty, and development and infrastructure, which I would include to mean development of things like housing as well, even though the examples given were urban sprawl and then roads and infrastructure, et cetera.

[49:31] But I do want to mention that those three issues, transportation, poverty, and development as it relates to housing are intrinsically related, and it’s heartening to hear that the community recognizes the importance of these issues. If you’re talking about poverty, access to good and reliable transportation to get to work, to get to the industrial lands in particular, to get to where the jobs are, is extremely important.

[50:04] Access to housing and also having good, well-maintained infrastructure within the city. It’s all related, and I think these are important points. I feel good that the people of the city of London that responded to this survey also recognize that these are very important, and we can’t solve any single one of them unless we solve all of them together. And again, it goes back to that idea of breaking down silos and making sure that across the board, all things, because they’re so interconnected, all things are addressed adequately.

[50:39] So I just want to say thank you to staff for this report, and I just wanted to highlight those top-of-mind issues. And thank you, Your Worship. Thank you, Councillor Casterly, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Your Worship. Just a couple of quick comments on this. I’m glad we do this on a frequent basis. The information’s informative to us, and it helps us see how things have moved from a year to year basis. The people who are generally satisfied to remain generally satisfied, it seems that we’ve had a decrease in the amount who are really satisfied and increase in the amount who are unsatisfied.

[51:15] So it’s something for us to keep in mind of. One of my concerns that always comes out of these, and especially when we do peer benchmarking, we love to kind of be happy when we’re in the middle of them. We’re the goldilocks city, we’re not too hot, not too cold. But I worry about that because it seems sometimes we’re not setting our targets on greatness and excelling in any of the areas. So look at us, we’re on the low end of the tax side, and we’re in the middle of the satisfaction side, but we’re not knocking it out of the park in these areas when we do these benchmarking service.

[51:53] And so I’d like to see us have a bit more of a drive towards those things. In this similar survey we did a few years ago, one of the questions was have you access to city service in the past year? And about 47% said no. And I wrote a column on that that said half of Londoners not flush their toilet last year. And the challenge is that there’s so many municipal services and they’re so ubiquitous that sidewalks and roads and snow plowing and things like that to parks and water service and all of those things just become invisible.

[52:30] And when they’re invisible, then they’re taken for granted or not recognized that these are core services that the city offers on a regular basis and does really well. And so it’s important that we blow our horn a little bit and say these are things the city does. This is a good indication of where that satisfaction lies on each of the services or the service areas. And so keep doing this. It’s important for us, it’s important for us to help set priorities.

[53:03] But I think it’s also important for Londoners to see and understand as well. Thank you, Councillor Van Halston. Thank you, Your Worship. So I look and as Councillor Turner pointed out, there’s a general reduction in satisfaction. And I’m gonna interpret that as being mostly related to the pandemic, certainly there are services that weren’t available at times. So we could see how those would have been impacted. But just in general, I think people are feeling lesser quality of life and that’s gonna show itself in a report like this.

[53:43] So I still think staff’s doing a great job and we’re doing our best. And that under similar circumstances to previous years, we would have very much likely have gotten similar or perhaps slightly better results. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you to staff and I’m not gonna repeat what my colleagues have said. I agree with a lot of their comments.

[54:19] And the, I do have a quick question. And it seems that every time we do this survey, where we tend to be a little bit behind without population, I know we’re quoting 2016 population stats. And I wonder through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, if I can be reminded when the next population stat will be coming out, because obviously, it’s going to be quite different than 2016. And does it really make a big difference when we do these surveys?

[54:51] I know the survey was just done, I think it was in September to October, but just if I can have a better understanding with that population stats and how that relates to the survey, that was just done. Thank you. I always declare London as a 10th largest city in Canada. So perhaps Ms. Livingston can give us some wisdom here. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask Ms. Wilcox to provide the detail on that question. Go ahead, please, Ms. Wilcox. Ms. Wilcox, are you there?

[55:36] Don’t— - Hopefully you can hear me now. Yes, thank you, go ahead, please. Thank you. And through your worship, the data that we use to derive a representative sample for the survey is based on the most recent census data that we have. So that is based on the census profile from 2016. The next census is coming out in 2021 though. And so as that data is released, that enables us to be able to update that profile and then create a representative sample based on that.

[56:11] But it does rely on census data. Gotcha, thank you for that. But my question, I guess, is more or less how these census numbers of 2016 relate to the survey. I just wanna have a better understanding, is it separate to the survey or do you, how’s it incorporated? Ms. Wilcox. Thank you and through the chair. So when the third party vendor that we use is creating a representative sample, they are using census data.

[56:50] And so that picture of London to create the profile. So it is used to inform that sample. And so when, and then we do a benchmark against the census data to make sure that that is in line with the current demographics of our community. Okay, thank you for that. So it is adjusted to identify more or less what’s happening now. I just wanna thank staff for the report and for clarifying that for me, thank you.

[57:25] Thank you and your other comments or questions. I’d like to make a comment from the chair if I can. Colleagues, I think it’s fair to say that most communities across the country would salivate to have satisfaction survey results like this. And I really do believe as we’ve indicated when we have committee of the whole through SPPC and through our council meetings when we acknowledge staff at the end, I think this is a great tribute to the commitment to service excellence that they provide. And you’ve heard of those who have spoken already, acknowledge is the great work that they do.

[57:59] And I think that’s great reinforcement. Any other final comments? So with that that’s been moved and seconded, we will call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Thank you very much scheduled item. I’ll turn your attention to page 233 of our report, which is the Diversity, Inclusion, and Anti-oppression Advisory Committee report.

[58:38] We do have a delegation, Mr. Brian Hill, who is going to provide a verbal report based on the ninth report of this committee meeting. So Mr. Hill, it’s a great to welcome you to committee and the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and the city councilors. It’s an opportunity to acknowledge being here tonight present a letter on behalf of the Diversity, Inclusion, Anti-oppression Advisory Committee.

[59:14] So (speaking in foreign language) I’ve been authorized and asked by the chair and the vice chair to speak on behalf of the Diversity, Inclusion, Anti-oppression Advisory Committee. We’re here to share some concerns and look for direction. We as an advisory committee have been given a mandate to provide leadership on matters related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and elimination of discrimination in the city of London, to provide consultation and advice report finding to make recommendations to city council as necessary.

[59:52] That such time is constantly deemed desirable to work actively with police services, education, community groups, municipal organizations, social services, business, labor and government agencies, in order to facilitate a stronger understanding of the needs of the city’s diverse population to initiate and participate in the development of new policy and programs or the refinement of existing ones related to matters of discrimination, diversity, inclusion, inclusivity, and equity in the city of London. Further, the role of the advisory committee is to provide recommendation, advice, and information to the municipal council on those specialized matters which relate to the purpose of the advisory committee to facilitate public input to say council on programs and ideas and assist in enhancing the quality of life of the community in keeping with the municipal council’s strategic plan principles, the advisory committee shall conduct themselves in keeping with policy set by the municipal council pertaining to advisory committees and also in keeping with the council’s procedure bylaw.

[1:00:54] We feel that our roles as advisors is being overlooked, especially with the events over the past year where incidents have occurred, that specifically targeted people of color on the arsenal at the land and announced indigenous homeless assistance site that the city has worked and partnership with the last Adelosa down the hewing services. It was only after it was publicly announced as being indigenous specific to fire occurred at the clubhouse at the old River Road Golf Course where this site was to be housed. Reports later stated that the elected perpetrator was upset that the property values would be adversely affected due to the presence of indigenous homespeople in the neighborhood.

[1:01:39] Although a new plan has been developed and put in place, I am personally concerned that this will also become a target again because of the specific nature of the indigenous people that will be housed there, positive indigenous based activities initiatives have always been a target as it can be seen as intent by indigenous people to take something away from the community where these events are held. This type of targeted actions can be directly connected to the longstanding belief that indigenous people are a drain on society.

[1:02:11] And we should have kept the fact that we have been defeated as a people and become Canadians like everyone else. We can take the Indian Act of 1867 in a residential school system for instilling that belief into society. The indigenous people of this community have continually been targeted both openly and by an ominous means. We’re always at the top of the list when we hear of the percentage of indigenous children in the care of CIS or the percentage of indigenous people involved with the justice system are youth among the lowest rates in high school completion and levels of indigenous homelessness and as partners in mental health and addiction issues.

[1:02:53] The city has made efforts to aid in assisting with this work namely the community diversity inclusion strategy which has built in a priority group that is attempting to implement specific recommendations derived from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. I do see that partnerships with urban indigenous organizations have been developed and steps are being taken to assist in some areas. But again, we need to openly and honestly ensure that these efforts are brought to light. We have also been witnessing the demeaning and degrading treatment of the Muslim community within the boundaries of the city of London.

[1:03:30] The specific targeting of a group of people who must bear the brunt of reactions by people who again have developed a distorted view of what the Muslim faith represents. The horrific targeted fact on a Muslim family is a walk along the sidewalk which caused the deaths of four of the five family members involved. Once again, the Muslim community had to stand together and deal with the outcome of a tragedy that was directed at the faith and belief in their creator and not who they are as human beings. Again, these systems bring to light the way in which society views people of different faiths and belief systems, this type of behavior towards both of our communities becoming commonplace and accepted as there is very little being done to actually change things in our city.

[1:04:18] Sadly, the constant and prolonged abuses that are being directed towards members of all of our communities of color is something that we have come to expect as the cost of being seen as being different based on what we look like and not who we truly are. We have many, we have had many discussions where we are shared our sadness, anger, and frustration about what has been occurring. These events also reveal a fact that racism and discrimination is part of our city, even when there is denial in much of the population of these feelings and ideologies do not truly exist.

[1:04:54] We are told that we live in a diverse and inclusive city, but for those of us who live within those demographics, we see and feel that this regard no treatment, those who have perceived us as the enemy. We hear the talk of inclusion of being part of this city, of being a valued piece of this large conglomerate. Each one of us that’s at this community table have volunteered to do so with the idea and hope that we can make positive changes for the betterment of our community. There are some items that have come out of our sometimes lengthy and difficult discussions, issues that have become a hurdle to that positive work, specifically the bureaucracy that we are instructed to offer within policies and preteasers that are in place that have been developed to guide and direct the work, the system that has been put in place and that has become a mandated part of our interactions when we sit as a committee.

[1:05:52] There is a statement that has been utilized describing the work we have taken on. A statement that comes out occasionally and that is the system is broken, but in reality, the system is operating just as it was designed, benefiting the institutions and organizations that have designed it. The bureaucracy that we are asked to operate under is actually part of what stops the truth from being told in a way that it needs to be told. We sit on a committee that states whether it’s needed to advise counsel in an effort to enact changes to ensure all members of the community are treated in a equitable and fair manner, but we are bound by a system that is designed by and supported through policies, procedures, and bylaws to ensure that the balance of power stays where it’s meant to be.

[1:06:44] We are the people of those oppressed communities that sit at this table to have, in fact, now become tools of that system. We have become the oppressors. We come before you today to seek change, change to a system that needs updating for the 21st century and to reflect on the true makeup of the community, changes that will enable all of our communities to become more proactive in what they’re mandated to do. To allow us to bring forth, they used to sit, that city council may not be aware of on a regular basis. We also stand to ask counsel to direct city administration and staff to be more proactive in development initiatives, to develop policy and procedures, processes, to be more directly supportive and engage when events like this happen, to report back to us and to the public on efforts and programs that are being developed to address these issues.

[1:07:39] We are looking to be seen as a valuable asset to the council by action and not just works, and that we are utilized for the specific talents and understanding that we bring to the table from our lived experience as people from racialized communities within the city of London. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Hill. colleagues, I’ll invite you to, if you have any comments or questions with respect to the report or Mr. Hill’s verbal report, so we’ve got both written and verbal.

[1:08:13] I’ll start with Councilor Turner, go ahead, please. Thank you, Mr. Hill, for coming today. It’s something stuck with me. As you said, the system is broken, but then you said the system is working as it’s designed. I was just going through some classes recently and I was talking about healthcare systems designed. And there’s a quote that says, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it gets.” And I think that just all came rushing back as you said that. One of your requests in this is specifically around how we structure advisory committees.

[1:08:52] And this is one of the things that I’ve had concerns as we’ve gone through the advisory committee structure process, and we’ll talk about later today, is that there seems to be one of the drivers in this, is that to be frank, and don’t wanna hear the advice from the advisory committees, or that the advice is contrary to what direction Council may wish to go. We need to hear that contrary opinion, and we need to consider it. We can’t live in a bit of an echo chamber on that.

[1:09:28] And so the advisory committees, I think you’re absolutely right. Thank you for pointing that out. They need to be able to be empowered to provide advice or input that we might not wanna hear sometimes. And we need to be able to challenge ourselves in taking a look at where the system is designed to give the results that it gets, and say, are those the results that we want in order to be an inclusive society? Anyway, I wanted to focus on that specifically, your presentation as well in the broad context that really gives us, should give us pause and reflection.

[1:10:11] So thank you for coming today, but I did wanna focus on that one specific piece. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions from colleagues? Councillor Hummueh. Thank you, Mayor Holder. I wanted to just thank you, Brian, for your kind words. And I just wanted to let you know that read through your report, and I happen to agree with most of the points here.

[1:10:54] And I wanted to thank your organization for doing and your group, your advisory committee for continuously doing this work. I don’t know that there’s anybody else that’s advising council at present since I’m new. So I just wanna tell you know that it’s well appreciated, and thank you so much for all of your work. Thank you, thank you, Councillor Cassey. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you, Mr. Hill, for again, coming before this council, you have spoken to us before about these very same issues, not specific to advisory committees, but about the issues facing London, facing indigenous people in London and other racialized communities.

[1:11:43] I especially wanna thank you for persevering because I know how hard it must be to feel like no change ever happens, and yet you keep coming back before us, and you keep talking to us about all of these same issues. I wonder through the mayor to staff, is why have we set up our advisory committees to be these formal structures following Robert’s Rules of Order and all of those kinds of things?

[1:12:21] Is it absolutely necessary? I think of how a talking circle, and especially for DAAC, might be a more appropriate way for a committee to share information, but I’m wondering, are we strictly bound by the processes that we have set up for advisory committees? Ms. Livingston. Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that you refer that question to the court, please.

[1:12:53] Third, please. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. The short answer is no, there’s not a requirement to be in that specific structure, and in fact, one of the earlier reports that we brought forward proposed quite a different structure for the advisory committees, and that’s not the path that was recommended to pursue. I will say that there has been feedback from the advisory committee membership, both for a revised structure and against a revised structure.

[1:13:32] So we’re always trying to find a balance, and certainly the meetings are conducted with far less formality than a standing committee, for example. Councilor. So follow-up question to that. When DAAC first came to us a few years ago, and they had a different name, and they felt that the work they were doing was better reflected in this name that the advisory committee now has, diversity, inclusion, and anti-oppression advisory committee. There had been a little bit of pushback from some members of council over that chosen name and over the fact that they wanted to change the name at all.

[1:14:12] My thought at the time was that these are a group of volunteer citizens bringing these matters before City Council through standing committees, and if they believe that this name reflects the work that they’re doing, we should give them leeway to determine what they are called. I think it kind of, for me, that holds true as well for how the committee conducts its business. I wonder if there’s a requirement that every advisory committee must follow the same procedures, or could we not allow the advisory committee members on a case-by-case basis, determine how they best could be conducting their meetings?

[1:14:57] I’ll give that question to the clerk. Certainly, if that was the direction of council, we would undertake to facilitate that to the best that we are able to. Again, I will point out that we had, in a previous report, suggested some various formats for the matters that are currently before the existing advisory committees, and that was met with varying degrees of acceptance as well. One of the things that was mentioned numerous times was that the formality of the proposal established a hierarchy of importance of the committees.

[1:15:44] So there was a desire that that be sort of leveled out and all of the committees be treated the same to the fullest extent possible. Councillor Cassidy. So I share some of Councillor Turner’s opinions around the recent history of advisory committees and the feeling, I think, for many that serve on these committees that council doesn’t listen to them. And I get that they are providing advice, and then council chooses how to proceed with that advice.

[1:16:26] I understand that. But I don’t have a specific direction in mind. I’m hoping other colleagues have some comments or concerns or questions that they can share because it’s always concerned to me that these are citizens that come forward, that volunteer their time, they could be spending with their family, they feel so invested in the city of London and what’s happening in the city of London that they choose to share their time to try to make things better.

[1:16:59] So I’m hopeful that other members of this committee will have some thoughts to share because I don’t want this to just be left because we’ve run into this before as well, specifically with the accessibility advisory committee, they had concerns and they felt like they weren’t being heard. We did some specific things in the last term of council because of that, but I do recognize that they still have some concerns.

[1:17:33] So I’m gonna yield the floor, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll see if any of my colleagues have anything else to say. Thank you, any other comments? Pastor Hopkins, go ahead, please. Yeah, thank you. And first of all, Mr. Hill, thank you again for coming to us and for sharing your experience. We need to hear your experience. We need to hear the advisory groups and their experiences.

[1:18:10] I think one thing I agree totally is change is needed. And fortunately, it’s gonna take us a while for this change to happen, but we need to hear that. And again, thank you for being here. I think it’s really important that advisory groups are an opportunity for us as council to see the community. They’re vital, not only a DIAK, but all groups are really important to hearing what is going on.

[1:18:51] I think we are going to be having a greater conversation later on in the agenda about how to proceed with advisory groups. And I think that what I’ve heard now with your presentation, I’ll be taking that information and going forward to see what the debate with the advisory groups will be later on in the agenda. But once again, thank you very much for being here. Thank you.

[1:19:23] Any other comments? Pastor Van Holst? Thank you, worship. And to our guests and advisory committee chair, thank you for the presentation. The one of the reasons that we wanted to do a review on the advisory committees because there was a dissatisfaction with the process and the system. And we were looking for other ways for people to provide input in however, there was also a response to that.

[1:20:07] And then no, we need to keep the committees and maybe to keep them the way they are. So there’s that challenge that we’re facing and coming up with something new. I will say that it’s not that often that the committee chairs have come and report as a delegate. And so that’s a possibility that I hope having done so today, you will feel at the end of the meeting that it was worthwhile and does present another possibility for you because that’s something that is available to you and to any committee to send a representative to council along with the report.

[1:21:04] I certainly appreciate the idea of talking about a system and that’s something that I’ve thought about a lot. The way I express it is by saying people, you know, imagine you and I went to Las Vegas and I said, wow, how is it that every one of these casinos seem so rich and opulent and the response would be, well, Mike, the odds for every game are in favor of the house. They win by design.

[1:21:40] And I would say, well, hey, what about us average Canadians? Do we win by design? And I don’t know that we do. And so there’s that possibility that how can we design things so that we get a better result? Because as you’ve said, and as Councillor Turner was talking about too, it’s the results that come out are based on that, based on that design. So there’s two things to consider there. What are the results that we want to get?

[1:22:15] And then what’s the design that will get us there? And we’re certainly open to something different. And of course, the solution to many, many problems is a new idea or a better idea. And so we’re certainly open for that. And again, that was the purpose of doing the review is trying to figure out what can we do different. So I certainly hope we see a change. And I also appreciate that the way events happen in this city, that it seems like we may take three steps forward and two steps back.

[1:23:03] Or maybe it seems like three steps forward and three steps back. But I think even in light of those situations, those steps forward do happen. And I think there is positive change taking place. And there’s a lot of human nature to contend with. And that change is kind of slow, but it does happen. And I appreciate your work and that of your committee in trying to make that happen.

[1:23:43] So thank you again for being here. Thank you. Councillor Hillier. Thank you, Mr. Hill, for being here. I appreciate it more than you can imagine. This one affects me and affects all of us, because we all know people that will not participate because they don’t like the structure. They don’t like the formality and having to remember the rules. And it’s very difficult for some people to come to these meetings, especially if you’re from another culture and not used to it. I myself, I found it very difficult to start.

[1:24:17] Now, I just listened in time in where I feel it’s appropriate. And I can imagine from being an outsider looking in, City Hall is looked on as all on high, but you know what? It’s not all on high. It’s supposed to be a companion to help us through our life. And it’s not helping these people. It’s not helping anyone. We need to be listening and not just, oh, OK. I acknowledge you, OK, and then pass it off. We need to listen. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Oh, excuse me. Deputy Mayor Morgan, please. Yes, thank you.

[1:24:49] And through the chair, thank you to Mr. Hill for your presentation. I tried really hard to listen to your words and not want to say something at the meeting that is linked into the structure that we’re currently operating in, to really genuinely listen. And one of the things that struck me was when you talked about how the structure has caused you and some of your colleagues to be the oppressors, the way that it’s structured as the rules of the game are structured in such a way that you’re kind of part of that structure.

[1:25:34] And as we struggled to build new structures in our organization and earlier, we’ve created a division that reports to the city manager. And we have a director of anti-racism and anti-oppression. And we’ve hired some staff under there. I wonder if you have any specific thoughts about how do we, within the restrictions of the current structures we’ve set up and even the current new pieces that we’ve added to the corporation, what is the path that you foresee us in having the conversation that you feel the municipality should be having?

[1:26:16] Like, do you have any thoughts on what the first or second or even third steps are to move forward through this processing? And am I allowed to ask that through the chair to our presenter because I’m very interested in not presuming or putting my own thoughts into what the next steps are without hearing them from you. Mr. Hildy, you have some comment to that? Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for giving me this opportunity. The new anti-racism anti-oppression group that has been just recently established within the city is, in one way, it’s another arm of that bureaucracy.

[1:27:10] Even though there are people of color, racialized people who sit in those seats, I think the trust factor. I know I’ve spoken about this before to counsel and to various counselors, well, there’s a trust factor that needs to be worked on, that needs to be built. And I know when I was trying to write this presentation tonight, it was difficult.

[1:27:46] It was difficult to put my words and my thoughts and my feelings into this system. And I know, personally, the people who are that work in this new group, I know them, and I know they also struggle with that. Again, being part of that system, and that’s one of the biggest things that I talk about was the need to change that system. The system is a two, three, four, 500-year-old system that wasn’t developed with us in mind, but in order to be part of that system, we have to change.

[1:28:39] We have to change who we are. We have to change how we think, and to those of you that do know me personally, you know, that’s not me. If I were to come to speak to you tonight as myself, as Brian Hill, as soon as you’re gliddy with your nation, I’m kind of long-winded because I take the opportunity to say what I need to say, how I need to say it when that time is allotted to me.

[1:29:18] But again, tonight, I couldn’t do that because I know I was coming, I was coming into that system. I do my best to operate in that system. It’s not comfortable, it’s not natural, and it’s very restrictive. So even though you have those people in place, they’re still gonna be operating under those restrictions. And how, as racialized people, how are we supposed to, again, be full participants of a system that was designed not by us and not for us?

[1:30:08] And part of my question again was, the change needs to be made. Bring these things into the 21st century. Look at the people who were involved. Help them, help them to help you design, ‘cause it’s up to us, it’s up to us to do this. We can’t keep going over the same thing over and over and over again, year after year.

[1:30:45] Like, here we are, four or 500 years. We’re still, you know, we’re still kind of basically in a semi-spot, we are, that thing. I heard a couple of counselors talk about change, takes time, I know it takes time. It takes a lot of time, takes a lot of healing, takes a lot of acceptance, and it takes acknowledgement. We have to acknowledge those things, those wrongs, those acts.

[1:31:19] We have to acknowledge them in order to heal them, in order to move forward. Yeah, it’s a tough job. I know it’s a tough job. I’ve been doing the most of my life. And again, you know, I want to thank Council for allowing me this time. You know, I don’t know if I completely answered your question. Councillor Helmer, but, you know, that’s, or sorry, Councillor Morgan, I believe it was. But, you know, just thank you for the opportunity.

[1:31:53] Uncle. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thank you for your words. And I will be honest, like, completely honest with you. Like, I do not know the next step. Like, and nor do I presume that I’m the right person to say that they’re, that I, like, I or anyone, my members of Council should have the answer to what the next step is based on your comments. And so your words are very important. And I’m very interested in figuring out how that works with you and whoever else needs to be involved in that conversation.

[1:32:27] But I will be clear. I think we will struggle through this debate within our current structure. And we will not have the right or even add an answer. And we won’t even be sure if we’re the right people to be deciding this. But I think your words are powerful. And I wanted to give you that opportunity to still share. And if there’s anything else that comes to mind, I know I put you on the spot. I would love to continue the dialogue with you anytime. So thank you for, thank you for your words today. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from colleagues? Seeing none, colleagues, we have, excuse me, we have a, I’m looking for a motion to receive the committee’s report and the verbal report from Mr. Hill.

[1:33:19] I see that’s moved by Councillor Hill. You’re seconded by Councillor Hummer. We’ll call the question. Councillor Van Holst closing the vote.

[1:34:37] The motion is passed 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. Mr. Hill, thank you very much on behalf of council for first year presentation in the response and comments with respect to the queries and comments established by staff sincerely appreciated, thank you. Colleagues, we have 10 items for direction, if we may. And the first under 4.1a deals with the planning and environment committee. So what I’m gonna do is I’m going to ask the clerk just to explain the process to us as we go through the four committees and other appointments that we’re going to be going through just so there’s clarity for that purpose.

[1:35:16] And it will be an e-scribe election process done per committee, but that’s as much as I’ll say, I’ll turn it over to the clerk for further clarification. Thank you through the chair. I believe you’ve covered off the high level overview. There are selection processes available in e-scribe as they may be required and we will introduce each one as we go along. And then following all of the selection processes for A, B, C and D, then we will have a motion that will be required to formalize those appointments.

[1:35:56] Thank you. So colleagues, my thought and I’m subject to any challenge or question or input, but you’ll note on page 276 the committee appointments, if we start with planning environment, we have six of our colleagues who have indicated as their first preference, that to be members of the planning environment committee, it’s my thought that we put all of those names on the floor and anyone who wishes either to add their name or to withdraw their name as the case may be, they’re certainly welcome to do that.

[1:36:38] And if there’s no objections, I see Councillor Hopkins, you have your hand up. Is there a comment or question you have? Yeah, just to follow up, I do have a question through you to clerks about the process. And I wanna make sure I’m really clear and understand how we vote. And the first committee, the planning committee, there’s one spot that is available. Usually the process is being that people get their first preference.

[1:37:13] And then there’s a spot, one spot available. So you vote for one name. I had a problem this time last year when it came to voting. And we’ll see this more in the other committees where there’s more spots available, so more votes. And what I think is really important that we be as fair and transparent as possible. And for me to be that way, I need to understand when we move forward with voting, if there’s two spots available on a committee, I know we’re talking about planning, there’s one spot, but do we vote for two names or do we vote for one name?

[1:37:56] And I think it’s really important that we understand and that we all vote the same way because there can be a discrepancy in the final results if we’re not all voting the same way. And I really would like if we don’t do it that way, that’s fine, but I just need to have that clarification. And I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding but we’re voting tonight, so I’ll get the clerk to respond, please. Thank you through the chair.

[1:38:30] And I’ll speak specifically to the planning and environment committee because that’s the one that we will do first. There are six names that have been submitted as a first choice. So the ballot, the selection ballot has been prepared with those six names, although more can be, actually they were prepared with all of the names and I’m taking them off as they need to be taken off. So when the selection process is opened, each member will be able to vote for, to be able, they will, excuse me, be able to choose up to five persons to put on the committee, each committee requires five members.

[1:39:19] I hope that helps clarify. It does, but I’m just going to come back to Councilor Hopkins. I’m just going to add a piece if I could, Councilor Hopkins, you’ve indicated clerk that people can vote for up to five. So presumably that means they could vote for one, two, three, four or five persons for the committee. I just want to clarify. So there’s no misunderstanding. Thank you. Yes, the way this is set up and the way that it has been rolled out previously, members have been able to vote for up to five people.

[1:39:54] It’s different than a motion vote. There has been members who have declined to use all five of their votes, which is different than abstaining because of a pecuniary interest. Is that helpful, Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, it is. And I find myself in, you know, contradicting our policy. I support our policy, but I don’t support it up to five.

[1:40:30] I think if there’s five spots available, five names should be put forward, not three names, not two names, and then we do another round of voting. And I worry about how fair this process is when it comes to us, all voting the same way, it’s that simple. If there’s five spots, I’m going to put in five names. Not everyone’s going to do that. And I think that is a concern for me because it may skew the numbers as we move forward.

[1:41:09] I really want to just make that comment because I had difficulty last time when we did this last year, that we weren’t all voting the same way in terms of five spots, five votes. I’m going to let, oh, sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I just really think it’s very important that we be as fair and transparent as possible. And for me, it is putting in five spots, five names. To be clear, and I’m going to let Councilor Cassidy comment on this, she’s indicated she’d like to.

[1:41:41] There will be at least five people whose names will go forward on the committee. In this case here, we have six who’ve indicated a preference. And when we open it up, there may be others as well. But ultimately, it will be five people who will be elected per committee as is required. And the mayor is an automatic on all committees. Councillor Cassidy, do you wish to add something? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to point out that the added agenda has changed a bit. So the lists where people have shown their preferences, there’s been some adjustments. So there were six first preference names now on the added agenda.

[1:42:16] So I wanted to point that out. But I do hear what Councillor Hopkins is saying. And there have been times in the past where, maybe that kind of thing had happened. I’m also hopeful that there are five spots on each committee that every member of this big committee will make five choices. I appreciate that. Again, I’m going to come back to what we’ve been advised by the clerk. We do have, by the way, if you don’t have the revised committee preference lists, you should just refresh or look to the added agenda.

[1:42:53] We do have six in the case of planning and environment. We’ve put their name forward. Again, in a moment, I will ask if there are any other individuals who wish to have their name indicated on what I will call the first preference list. But it is my intention to, unless you indicate otherwise, to have those names put for voting. There are six right now, five to be elected. And as per the clerk, we can vote one to five. Some council members have indicated their preference as to how they will vote in terms of five. I certainly understand that.

[1:43:28] My personal indication, I’ll be doing that as well, but it’s one to five will be the intention. Any other comments or questions about the voting process before we go forward? So I just want to be clear, we will have at least five members of council on each committee. And that’s what we’ll be voting on, unless it’s only five. So with that, I have colleagues for planning environment committee, then we have, Councillor Van Halst, do you have a question? Just a statement you asked for other comments. Yeah, please.

[1:44:01] So your worship, the election isn’t the actual choice, or isn’t the actual determination of the committee. It’s we take that recommendation. This is our way of finding out how to pick five people. But the choice is really, once we put that recommendation on the floor, that’s the decision. And that’s how it’s made. Well, ultimately it will be determined by council to support this committee’s recommendation. So today, if we want to call it that, that the five names as indicated as the preferred choice of committee today, that’s what we’re going to be determined today is to be confirmed by council.

[1:44:46] Have I missed that Deputy Mayor? I thought I explained that reasonably, but Clerk, do you have a comment on that? Thank you. Yes, you have explained that there will be a motion from this committee after that we have worked through the full selection process, correct? So that will, there will be a motion to support all of the committee choices tonight, which will ultimately go to council for final approval. I thought I said that, but the clerk said it much better. Councillor Van Halst.

[1:45:21] Yes, thank you, your worship. And just with respect to this particular committee, and as Councillor Cassidy pointed out, there were some changes in this, some additions. And in my case, the change I had in the past ranked this committee low and was going to do so again, I guess maybe by habit, but realizing that we are supposed to move from committee committee, from committee to committee. And this is one that I haven’t yet served on.

[1:45:56] Okay, but the council are going to stop you there. Respectfully, in the process, we haven’t had individual attestations on this. I understand exactly what you’ve said. And I got you to the point where you said you hadn’t been on this committee as yet, but we weren’t doing personal attestations with regard to that, Councillor Van Halst. Yes, well, I think that’s always a possibility. And in the past, we’ve done so people can can speak to it. But that’s, so I think that’s something that’s available to us. It is committee and we can make those comments.

[1:46:35] Certainly right, it is committee and we can. So with that, what I’d like to do is read the names off if there’s any confusion. Let me read the names off and then Councillor Hummer may I recognize you, is that all right? Just to at least keep this going. The six individuals thus far will put their names forward as first preference indications are Councillor Lewis, Councillor Hill here, Councillor Lehman, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Turner, Councillor Van Halst. Councillor Hummer, you had a comment? Thank you. I wanted to just weigh in on the issue of bullet voting or plumping.

[1:47:10] I mean, you can call it different things. Councillor Hummer, your audio is just kind of gotten garbled up because I’m going to stop you for a second and I don’t know if you can reset it. But you did talk about clump voting and then we kind of lost you. Okay, can you hear me? Okay, yeah, okay. So I’m thinking about how to handle this and all I’ve been able to come up with is anybody who bullet votes, I’m going to insist that we vote on those appointments separately when it gets to Council and I personally will vote against anybody who bullet votes at all.

[1:47:48] I think it’s incumbent on us to pick five Councillors among all of us to serve on these committees. We’re all capable of making a decision about which five people should go into the committees. Bullet voting is essentially saying, I’d rather have nobody than have a full committee. And that’s just not a good way to treat each other. And so my only way of dealing with that is to say, if you bullet vote, I’m going to insist we vote on each of those people separately. So I can vote against those people going out of the committees. If we don’t vote, then that won’t be necessary.

[1:48:22] So I don’t know how else to deal with it because it’s a tactical decision that people have made in the past. I really would like to disincentivize it and take it away as an option so people don’t do it. And it seems to me like this is the only real way to do that. Thank you very much. I know we’ve heard from a couple of counselors about the importance of voting for five. I’ve indicated my direction as well. And other comments colleagues before, I think that part’s been is clear. But is there any other comment or question before we look for any other nominations for planning environment of which there are six for five positions right now?

[1:49:01] Okay, I see no other comments. Does anyone wish to add their name to the six individuals who put their names forward now? I see none, so Clerk, I will direct you please to put the six names please on the ballot. Knowing that, again, I’ll come back to the clerk. You can vote up to five and some indications of preference have been expressed. Thank you. Let’s call the question. We’re just getting the names up colleagues. That ballot is now available.

[1:50:25] So through the selection process, the committee composition will be counselors, Lehman, Lewis, Hopkins, Turner, Hillier.

[1:51:27] So at the very end, we will vote on this as a group. But before then, colleagues, we need to select the chair. We’ve had two individuals that have indicated an interest in running for chair, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. Since the departure of Councillor Squire, Councillor Hopkins has been filling in as the interim chair. She’s done a wonderful job and I’m gonna withdraw my name for the chair and support her.

[1:52:02] And then perhaps at committee, I might seek the vice chair and learn a bit from her along the way. But I’m gonna withdraw my name at this time. We will leave your lobbying for vice chair to the committee. Thank you very much though, that’s helpful. But we do leave it open if any other member of committee who’s been elected, I’ll say that mindfully, as we have not yet done the final vote. But does anyone else wish to have their name put forward for chair of the other three? Seeing none, then I will declare subject to this vote and council vote that Councillor Hopkins is the chair of playing environment committee for this next year.

[1:52:49] Councillor Hopkins, please don’t re-answer. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to acknowledge Councillor Lewis. I appreciate your kind words. I was vice chair, acting chair for the past month with Councillor Squire going and feel honored to serve as chair for the next year. Thank you. Thank you very much. Colleagues, I’ll now turn your attention to Civic Works, of which we have three individuals, Councillor Palosa, Councillor Fyfe Miller, Councillor Van Mirbergen, who have indicated first preference for Civic Works, but it will require two more members of council if people wish to put their names forward.

[1:53:35] Councillor Lehman. With the results of the last vote, I will be asked that my name be removed for consideration for Civic Works. Yes, I know that you’ve indicated that as a second preference. So noted, but I think what we’ll do, we’ll see how this works. We’ll see if we can, through this process, get through to those who wish to be moved to first preference or for this committee. Councillor Van Holst?

[1:54:09] Thank you. So I would put my name in for this committee, University. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to have their name put forward for this committee? We will require at least one more name. Certainly one more for to compliment the committee. And then if any others wish to have their name forward. Councillor Hummer? I don’t see people banging on the door to get on to the committee. So I’m happy to do it if nobody else is. Thank you very much.

[1:54:44] It’s a great committee. So I will ask if there are any others who have a preference or would like to have their name considered for this committee. I see none. So I will duly close the nomination, which means that Councillors Palose of Fife Miller, Van Holst, Van Mirberg, and Helmer are the five committee members for Civic Works. I see that Councillor Palose has indicated her interest as chair. Does any one of the other four individuals who are part of this committee wish to have their name considered for chair?

[1:55:19] Councillor Van Holst? Thank you, Your Worship. I don’t believe that I’ve chaired a committee this term. And so I’m happy to have my name put forward chair of this committee. All right, thank you so, thank you very much. Any of the other of our colleagues wish to have their name put forward as chair. I see none, then we’ll direct the clerk to call the election, voting for one. That selection is open.

[1:57:17] Committee has selected Councillor Palose. Thank you very much. So colleagues, I will now turn your attention to the next committee. Committee on your protective services. We have four colleagues who have indicated as their first preference, Councillor Salih, Councillor Hamou, Councillor Helmer, and Councillor Cassidy, which leaves us with one vacancy, but as many as wish to be included. Councillor Hilliard. Yes, I’ll put my name forward as well. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:57:49] And does anyone else wish to have their name considered for the committee? We have five to be elected, five names are put forward. So I will deem that closed, but we are now looking for a chair. Councillor Cassidy is indicating interest to being chair and of the other colleagues. Does anyone else wish to consider the chair? See a vigorous non-response.

[1:58:23] Therefore, Councillor Cassidy, congratulations. And I apologize, I didn’t count. Congratulations, Councillor Palosa from the prior. Thank you very much. So colleagues, that leaves us now with the Corporate Services Committee, which requires five council members. We have Councillor Morgan, who has put his name forward. And I would invite colleagues to indicate if they have an interest in sitting in this committee, we require four more of our colleagues to support this. And I’ll look forward to any thoughts. Councillor Faiffmiller.

[1:58:57] Through you, your worship, I’ll let my name stand. Thank you. Thank you very much, any other volunteers? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, worship, I’ll move my name up from my third preference to my first preference on this one. Thank you very much. I’m looking for two more colleagues, Councillor Cassidy. What you’re name for? Thank you, I just didn’t hear that, but okay, that’s more than a nod. Thank you, I’m looking for at least one more of our colleagues to put their name forward.

[1:59:33] Councillor Humu, I have Councillor Humu. Any other of our colleagues, we now have five of our colleagues who have indicated their interest in putting their name forward. Do we have any other from the floor? I see none, so I will deem the five members, Councillors Morgan, or Deputy Mayor Morgan, Councillor Faiffmiller, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Cassidy, and Councillor Humu as the committee members for corporate services. Of that though, I’m looking for someone who will, of the five, who will indicate that they wish to consider serving as chair.

[2:00:15] Councillor Lewis, I need to hear it, please, sorry, your worship, I will let my name stand for chair. Thanks, you learned from Councillor Cassidy that head nodding is one approach, but thank you for letting us all formally know. Anyone else wishing you have their name considered as chair of the five, excuse me. I see none, so I will congratulate Councillor Lewis as chair of corporate services committee. So with that, colleagues, what I’ll look for is a motion under 4.1 to move these committee appointments and chair appointments as well.

[2:00:55] Do I have a mover, please? I have Councillor Cassidy, do I have a seconder, Councillor Turner? We’ll call the question. Councillor Turner.

[2:02:12] I apologize, these crabs being a little wonky, but it’s there. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues, and congratulations on the committee and in your capacity as chairs for those who have agreed to serve in those roles. That’s extremely important as we go forward. We see democracies a little bit messy, but we get through it all and congratulations to all of you. Our colleagues, we now at under 4.2 are looking for consideration of an appointment to the Common Garden Market Board of Directors, requiring one Councillor, Councillor Fife Miller has put his name forward.

[2:02:48] Does anyone else wish to have their name considered for this appointment? I see none, so I’ll look for a mover. Councillor Van Hulse, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Van Mirbergen, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[2:03:33] Questions, Councillor Fife Miller. Now under 4.3, we’re looking for an appointment of the London Middle Six community housing. I see Councillor Lewis’ name. Is there anyone else who wishes to put their name forward for consideration? You’ll see from the add-ins that Councillor Van Hulse’s name was withdrawn. Seeing none, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Van Hulse, seconded by Councillor Hamou, thank you, we’ll call the question. Excuse me, and as I’m always reminded by the clerk as well that what you’ll see there is information relating from Paul Chisholm, from London Middle Six, rehousing with regard to attendance, a vacancy that has become available on the board.

[2:04:38] And what I would like to do is we, I’ll check back with the mover and seconders to receive that communication and direct civic administration to initiate a process to fill the vacancy. So if the mover, Councillor Van Hulse, if you’re comfortable with that, we’ll do it all at once, thank you. And seconded, or Councillor, where are you comfortable with that, seconding, thank you. That’s what we will be voting on. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[2:05:26] Thank you, item 4.4, consideration appointment to the London Transit Commission. There are two names, they’re named four Councillors, five million Councillor Hopkins. Any comments, anyone wishing to put their name forward with regard to this? Seeing none, we will call the vote. So the first vote to be open will be the selection process.

[2:06:01] Members may choose one name. Councillor Lewis, thank you.

[2:06:41] Closing the vote and Councillor Hopkins is selected. Thank you, I look for a motion to point Councillor Hopkins to the LTC Board. Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Van Hulse, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[2:07:19] Thank you, you can go down now, turn your attention item 4.5, the appointment to the Middlesex, London Health Unit, Board of Directors of which we require one Councillor. We have two names who have two Councillors, Councillor Mathew and Councillor Van Hulse to vindicate an interest. Does anyone else wish to have their name considered? I see none, we’ll be voting for one, I’ll turn it back to the clerk. Selection is now available.

[2:08:10] Closing the vote and Councillor Hamou has been selected. Thank you, congratulations, item, oh, I’ll look for a motion to accept Councillor Hamou as the appointee, Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much, we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s carried, 15 to zero.

[2:08:52] Thank you very much, colleagues. Item 4.6 is the appointment to the Tourism, London Board of Directors. We have several names, but in addition to that, we have a letter from Tourism, London’s general manager in which they indicate a vacancy that is also there with Tourism, London. So firstly, I will indicate the individuals who have indicated they’re interested in sitting on the Tourism, London Board, Councillor Fife Miller, Councillor Hillier, Councillor Hamou, Councillor Van Hulse and Deputy Mayor Morgan. So with that, I’ll look for either any other names or any other considerations that colleagues have.

[2:09:32] Councillor Hamou. Can I withdraw my name? You can. Thank you, I’d like to withdraw. So noted. Any other comments from colleagues? Councillor Morgan. Yes, I’d like to withdraw my name as well. Noted, thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? That leaves three colleagues, Councillor Fife Miller, Councillor Hillier and Councillor Van Hulse to have put their names forward for the Tourism, London Board of Directors.

[2:10:06] And I will, and we have one to vote. I will put it to the clerk to bring it forward. Please for voting. Thank you, that selection is now open with three candidates and members made through the chair. None of the candidates achieved 50% plus one.

[2:11:17] So there will be a run-off ballot between Councillor Hillier and Councillor Van Hulse. Members will be able to choose one candidate on the run-off ballot. That selection is open. Closing the ballot and Councillor Hillier has been selected.

[2:12:10] Councillor Hillier, thank you. Colleagues, I’ll be looking for a mover and seconder to appoint Councillor Hillier to receive the communication from Tourism, London. Do I have a mover, please? Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Fife Miller, thank you. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s carried.

[2:12:51] 15 to zero. Page 280, you’ll see a communication from Western Fair. In addition, we’re looking to appoint one council member. Councillor Hillier has put his name forward. Does anyone else wish to have their name put forward? Seeing none, we’ll call the question. So with one pointy, we’ll be looking for a mover to appoint Councillor Hillier and to receive the communication from Western Fair.

[2:13:31] Moved by Councillor Depp, Deputy Mayor Morgan, seconded by Councillor Van Holst. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Deputy Mayor? Yes, before we vote, I just want to direct nice, as I sit on the board of the Western Fair, the correspondence from Mr. Redjash about the programming council being unlikely to meet over the course of the next year, given we don’t have a lot of programming. That being said, I do think it’s advantageous for us to keep the spots filled on the off chance that the board changes direction on that and decides to proceed with using the programming council. So I just want to do acknowledge Mr. Ash’s message, but I think it’s prudent to still proceed with an appointment.

[2:14:12] I appreciate it. I would have presumed and did that colleagues would have read that, but I appreciate the additional information you’ve provided. And you’re still seconding. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Councillor Hillier.

[2:14:47] I think Councillor Hillier should vote for this. I don’t know. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. We need appointment of committee of adjustment, which requires one member at large. You’ll see that what you have received in front of you were three background piece of information for Hadley McAllister and Tonya Santiago and Amanda Stratton. So with that, we’ll put those names on the floor for your consideration. One to vote. Closing the selection process, there is not a majority winner.

[2:16:04] So we will have a run off actually. So Hadley McAllister received four votes. And Tonya Santiago received seven and Amanda Stratton received four. So we will do the run off between Hadley McAllister and Amanda Stratton. And Tonya Santiago will be appointed. Oh, sorry, sorry.

[2:16:47] Well, there’s only one to be appointed. Let me, let me consult with the procedure with this one. Thank you. Just bear with us colleagues who will, we’re getting there.

[2:18:11] Thank you. I’ll turn it back to the clerk.

[2:19:58] Thank you, through the chair, the procedure that’s been adopted by council addresses the resolution of a tie when it is the resolution of a tie for the recommended candidate. So in the case of a tie for the recommended candidate, we have a run off. It does not address a tie for removing candidates to drop off. So what the procedure says is that after the first round of counting, if after the first round of counting, one candidate does not receive an absolute majority of the available votes, the candidates who received the least amount of votes and those with zero votes are removed from the slate and the vote is held again until one candidate can be recommended for appointment.

[2:20:44] So what that would mean is that both of the candidates that received four votes would drop off and we would have one left, even though it’s not an absolute majority. That means then based on what we’ve been advised by the clerk that we would put Mr. Santiago’s name up for consideration. Mr. Turner. Thanks Your Worship sounds like a fair solution. The alternative would just be to put it to ballot again. I’d be willing to move my vote to support to the candidate with the largest number right now and that would put him into Majora.

[2:21:21] I’m not sure the procedure is there to do that, but let’s just clarify with the clerk, but I appreciate that, thank you. That’s correct Your Worship. We would be looking now for a motion to appoint Mr. Santiago. So with that then, I’d look for a motion, Councillor Van Ribergen, are you moving the motion? I see Councillor Turner seconding. Thank you very much. We’ll call the question. Oh sorry, before we do it, unless there’s any questions about that because we always sometimes have different situations. I see none.

[2:21:55] We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to one. Thanks very much, colleagues.

[2:22:30] I’ll now turn your 4.9 to 4th and 5th reports of the governance working group. I’ll hand this now over to the Chair, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, colleagues, so I have the 4th and 5th reports of the governance working group. I anticipate that there will be discussion on these matters. If I, with colleagues indulgence, I just wanted to provide some context. As you may have noticed, the committee has reduced in membership by two, given the recent council vacancies.

[2:23:03] And so we’re down to a committee of four. And so we did work through the items that were passed through the committee and felt it was advantageous to move some stuff forward to the SPPC for consideration. And so you see a large part of our mandate coming forward tonight. I would suggest if anybody’s thought is to refer something back with direction, it would also be great to have a couple more committee members to work with as well. So I think at this point, I could present the reports separately. I believe there’ll likely be some items that colleagues will want to pull out.

[2:23:40] And so I’d seek some guidance from colleagues on the items and the reports that you’d like to deal with separately so that I can craft some motions that have us proceed with the rest of them. So this time I’d look if the mayor could pull to see which items from the governance working group reports colleagues would like to deal with separate. So the deputy mayor has put the governance working group report the fourth report on the floor. I’ll ask if colleagues have wished to have any items dealt with separately. Officer Turner?

[2:24:20] I get an item 3.2 in the fourth report, specifically with respect to, yeah, just item 3.2. Thank you. Any other items, colleagues? Officer Cassidy? 3.1, please. 3.1, anything else, colleagues? Councillor Hopkins?

[2:24:54] Yes, I’d like to have confirmation on what report we’re dealing with, is it the fourth? It is, yes, Councillor Hopkins, it’s the fourth report we’re dealing with. Okay. So, Councillor. Through the mayor, if I can provide some context. So on the fourth report, item 3.1 is the council members expense policy, colleagues would like that separate. 3.2 is the operation of municipal council, which includes the start times of council. So all that’s really left there is a saying that we discussed the meeting schedule and the disclosures. So I think we’ve, I’ve got the feedback on the fourth report I have to proceed with the motions.

[2:25:36] So I would like 3.1. Yeah, that’s been pulled to be dealt with separately. Councillor Turner, did you have anything else? I wasn’t sure if your hand was up. It was, I was just to say that 3.1 actually, it was a referral into the subsequent meeting. So it was really just a directed report back to the working group. And then in the subsequent meeting, that’s where they deal with the recommendations from that. So, but 3.2 is one that directs staff to make the changes. So, I don’t know if that’s helpful. I think that’s what Councillor Morgan was trying to say in his statement as well.

[2:26:13] Yes, so that’s what he was trying to clarify. Let me turn it back over to Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yeah, to move us through this. So let me try putting a motion on the floor. So I’d like to put everything from the fourth report on with the exception of 3.2, which includes the work on the expense account that we directed to the fifth report, which we’ll deal with next. And that’s pretty much it aside from the thing being pulled out, which is the operations of municipal council, which is a decision point. So I’d like to put everything with the exception of 3.2 from the fourth report on the floor, which involves no decision making.

[2:26:54] Do you have a seconder for that? Councillor Lewis, comments or questions? Councillor Homer. Just on item 3.1, I do want to point out that this is not how things are supposed to work. A working group, let alone a standing committee can’t be directing civic administration to take actions and come back a week later with, here’s changes to the policies. I understand why people want it to be quick so they can have it at the very next meeting and still meet the same SPPC deadline.

[2:27:33] But it is possible that SPPC, having considered the recommendation from the working group is saying no thanks. And then civic administration would have done all this work for no reason. We’re gonna be talking about this anyway in the next report. So it’s kind of either here or there, but you can imagine if this was on a much larger issue, how problematic that could be that any group of four people would be like, okay, we would like you to go away and do this work in a matter of like less than a week to come back and give us the changes.

[2:28:07] Because of the nature of it, it’s very small. I don’t want to dwell on it too much, but it is really inappropriate. It is also the privilege of members of this committee to reject this as they wish or deal with it in item our fifth report, but I appreciate your point, Councilor Halmer, thank you. Any other comments? So with that, we’ll call the question. Mr. Mayor?

[2:31:10] No. - Go ahead. So I’m looking at the motion and I’m confused. We just clarify then, please. I wanted to pull the Councilor expense account part separately. And in particular, I don’t agree with item A2. And how do I vote against that? That’s the clerk to just to clarify that as opposed to just side barring, please.

[2:31:44] Thank you through the chair. The plus 3.1 of the fourth report is directing civic administration to report back the November 15th governance working group meeting with respect to the matters that are outlined below. And that includes the part two that you have referenced. So it’s not approving it in this. It’s the referral to the next meeting. Councilor?

[2:32:16] Thank you for that clarification. And actually supports some of the comments that Councilor Halmer made. So thank you. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 12. Back over to the Deputy Mayor. I just want to encase there is any confusion. We did have four Council members present in the actual meeting. And then we had three and remote attendance as well.

[2:32:49] So I just want to bring that to the attention of colleagues in case there was some confusion based on comments previously. Deputy Mayor? Yes, there’s two parts to 3.2 called the operations of municipal council. The first part A is a direction to make necessary changes to facilitate council meetings starting at 1 p.m., beginning with the 2022 perm of council. And there’s a B, which is civic administration, B direction to report back to the governance working group with respect to recommendations related to the survey results that Councilors filled out and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councilor’s office specifically with respect to the themes of increased resources and more flexibility that were in the survey that members completed.

[2:33:37] So I might move those separately, ‘cause I’m not sure if there’s a difference of opinion, but I’ll put 3.2 A on the floor first, which is the meeting time for municipal council. All right, so do you have a secretary for that? That’s for five another, thank you. Comments or questions, colleagues, we’ll start this up. Sir Turner, please. Thanks, Your Worship. I recognize this is one of those ongoing things that Council loves to debate year after year.

[2:34:13] The meeting times of council, there’s a survey that was done. We didn’t have a clear result of what’s been put forward. He’s one that is rather unworkable for a number of people on council. Council is not designated as a full-time position. It’s not designated as a part-time position, it’s just designated as a position, and we’re Councilors. The challenge associated with daytime council meetings is that it becomes mutually exclusive for those who are working.

[2:34:54] We have about 20 to 24 council meetings a year, maybe a few or less, but that’s the equivalent of about four or five weeks of vacation time in order to accommodate for somebody who’s working in the community. So I think as we try to figure out in how to struggle through these options, I would ask Council to consider how we make it the most inclusive.

[2:35:27] If we want to make it a full-time job and do that, but I think that that’s something that we haven’t ever really been able to address yet, but that’s something that has to be rectified through Council Compensation Committee. Once compensation reflects a full-time wage for those to be able to leave their full-time work and move into this position, then yeah, perhaps we could start considering that, and that’s where you see things like Parliament and Provincial Parliament and Federal Parliament.

[2:36:05] But I’m really concerned about the continued push for this, and it’s kind of like by a thousand cuts to get to this position that we continue to advance the daytime meeting thing. I recognize some of the arguments. I recognize the arguments about staff time and about the ability to participate, one of the things that’s not been proposed here is changing public participation meeting times, which obviously seems to indicate that the people who are most able to be able to participate in public participation meetings is in the evenings because most people are working during the daytime, some Councillors.

[2:36:46] I was a little offended by a comment in the media by Councillor Lewis about treating Council like a side gig. I’d imagine he didn’t mean it the way it came across, but it seemed rather pejorative towards those who are working full time. I would argue that I can only speak for myself, but I can certainly say for those who are working full time on Council, I haven’t seen anybody treat this as a side gig. I’ve seen every member of Council treat this with their full heart and soul. So I urge you to reject this.

[2:37:20] I recognize it’s to come into effect for the next term. I think it’s weird that we would bind the next Council term to something. The Council, the next Council term, could choose to reject it. But nonetheless, it’s a weird recommendation into the future. And I think it’s offside. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’ll start by saying to Councilor Turner, certainly it wasn’t intended to be pejorative. And so I appreciate that you didn’t take it that way. As we all know, sometimes clips are taken with not the full explanation and that’s the nature of the beast.

[2:38:03] However, I am going to encourage colleagues to support this. And I am going to take a couple of the comments that Councilor Turner made and put the other lens on them. For somebody who perhaps a mom or dad, a parent who’s got children in school, is it better for them to have the opportunity to participate in Council during the day? Or after the kids are home from school when they need to make childcare arrangements to be here and fulfill their duties? I would argue that a daytime meeting is likely better for that individual.

[2:38:42] No matter when you set the meeting time, you’re excluding people. People who work shift work in a factory, in our manufacturing sector, are always going to be excluded from this job because their shift changes every two weeks. They can’t possibly adjust their other job to meet the schedules of this job. So there’s always going to be people who are going to say, I can’t do the job because the schedule doesn’t work for me. And that is a choice that they will have to make for themselves and their families. And it’s a choice that we’ve all made to prioritize being at Council in our schedules.

[2:39:19] But we also knew, before we put our names on a nomination paper, what the calendar was. And that’s why it’s important to make this decision now, so that people who may choose to put their name on the ballot come May of next year. We’ll know what the expectation of the schedule is. I would argue it would actually be really, really unfair if we were making this change to take effect January 1st. Because members of this Council have other obligations that they’ve juggled in their lives to meet based on the schedule that we knew we were signing up for when we put our names on a ballot.

[2:39:56] So one thing that is consistent though, is we know that daytime operations will be a bit more respectful of our staff time. They won’t have to be here until all hours of the night supporting us during a meeting, which is time that they do get in lieu later in most cases. But it’s not the same when they have to be away from their families until 8, 9, 10 o’clock at night. And it’s not just our senior leadership team. The clerks are here, the IT support staff are here. Security has to be here as well for when the galleries will eventually reopen and public participation can happen in person as well as remotely.

[2:40:39] This is a step. And I will share that the committee had a great deal of discussion. And there was some interest in suggesting all committees, all standing committees move to daytime too. But the consensus was that was too much too fast, but that this was a reasonable step because there is no public participation meetings at council. There are no delegations at council. This is a rather small change. And counselors already have daytime duties. Two of our four standing committees meet during the day. Boards agencies and commissions have meetings at all times, evenings, mornings, daytime.

[2:41:20] So you have to be flexible in your schedule really to take on this job in a way that job duties are gonna be shared as equally as they can be among all members of council. And I think that we would all, we’re all willing to step up and do our part when we’re asked. And we saw committee selections tonight that didn’t have enough people and other people put their hand up and said, “I’ll step forward and fill that role.” But we’re asked to be really. And councilor Turner said, “We’re not a full time. “We’re not a part time.” He’s right, the council compensation task force said we’re a unique position.

[2:41:55] I don’t wanna speak for the rest of you, but for me, there’s duties on the weekends. There’s duties in the evenings. There’s duties in the mornings. There’s duties Monday to Friday. And there’s duties. When I’d rather be doing something else with my family sometimes, but that’s what I signed up for. And I don’t regret doing that. 30 seconds, council. But I do think that it’s time for us to recognize that there are benefits to looking at this change and moving it forward for the next council. And certainly, to councilor Turner’s point, the next council may have this discussion again, but at least they’ll know what they’re coming into in the beginning of the next term.

[2:42:31] Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Adholst? Thank you, Your Worship. So I appreciate councilor Turner’s comments. And I don’t know if it’s so much by a thousand cuts or just finally we’re getting to a discussion about a daytime ‘cause it’s a discussion we haven’t had at any committee. So here it is. And of course, this is that incremental move that will make a difference to who decides to become a councilor.

[2:43:09] And it may mean that we have to look to the compensation task force to make some recommendations in addition to the one that they’ve been tasked with right now, which is just tell us what the latest median income is for working Londoners. And so that’s all they’re doing right now. But what I would ask is this question, is this a step forward for London City Council?

[2:43:46] And I think it is. I think there were as has been seen in some of the evaluations and reports on other other communities where we’re the only one of our size that that doesn’t meet during the day. And for all the reasons that Councilor Lewis brought up, it’s certainly a good idea for us to at the very least consider it. And so I think this is a move that takes us forward in the evolution of this council.

[2:44:24] And so I’ll be supporting this. And I hope that others too, realizing this is for the next term. However, it will give those candidates a very good sense of what direction City Council is moving. Thank you. Councillor Mereberg. Thank you, Mayor. I think if we go ahead with this, this is a real blow to citizen politicians.

[2:45:00] That’s a very healthy thing to have in a community, especially at the municipal level. When you have elected representatives who still have one foot in a non-governmental atmosphere, you can bring a far more realistic approach to well, frankly, to governing to what comes forward at council meetings because you’re in it every day. You’re in the reality of another workplace. And to me, that’s very powerful.

[2:45:32] And I think we have to be very careful when you throw something like that out because the fact of the matter is most Londoners work during the day. So right away when they see that there’s a one o’clock start time for council meetings, which can go, which can be very lengthy, there’s half a day gone. There’d be many employers who may not allow that. I just think for so many reasons. And that’s why the London model has persevered for so many years to stop it now as we perhaps slide towards a full-time non-citizen politician, a full-time politician, I think is not healthy.

[2:46:30] I don’t think that strengthens us. So I would be very careful about changing this system, which has proven to be a great strength for the London model. Thank you. Other comments or questions, colleagues? Pastor Omer. Thank you. I just wanted to ask and perhaps it came up at the working group discussion, asked to the mayor to miss Livingston about the specific timing that’s proposed and whether that works well for a civic administration.

[2:47:08] I know you have many things to do during the day. And I wonder about one o’clock, specifically, whether the idea of starting at two o’clock, for example, was discussed and might be better. Mr. Livingston. Mr. Yu, your worship, I do not believe there was a later time discussed other than the one, but I can be corrected about that. What I would have to offer is that there is an impact with either start time. So a start time during the day means that those of us that are attending meetings are not doing other things, other work that gets done currently during the day.

[2:47:43] And we’ll have to be done at other points in time. So there is an impact either way for staff, particularly for senior leaders and those staff that have to attend. Well, we’re speaking about council at this point, so it’s largely an impact for your senior leadership team. Pastor Omer. And just given that, I’m pretty mindful of the senior leadership team meetings occur. And I just want to make sure that if we were to go ahead with the one o’clock time, that that wouldn’t be too big of a barrier and we could work around that.

[2:48:16] Mr. Livingston. Thank you for the clarification. We are generally done our senior leadership meetings by that time, okay, usually by then. Thank you, Councilor Omer. Okay, thanks. I just want to say for the specific recommendation about switching to one o’clock instead of four o’clock, I’m willing to support that. I think many other cities have their council meeting start. First thing in the morning, Calgary, Montreal, Mississauga, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Brampton, Edmonton, Ottawa, they all meet in the morning and their meetings go on to sometimes for multiple days with a break in between and they get through all the business of the city.

[2:49:01] And I think they’ve got a good governance model and in those places and they’re doing great work. And I think it can be done having meetings for the council meeting specifically starting during the day. You know, we’re talking about moving one meeting, which we happen, maybe 17 or 18 in a year ahead by three hours. So I don’t want us to overstate the magnitude of the change. I don’t think it’s going to be overnight transformation in terms of the governance of the city one way or the other. But I do think moving it up a bit earlier in the day, I mean, especially in those situations where we have six or seven hour meetings and we’re not finishing them very late at night.

[2:49:38] And I’ve been involved in many of those meetings that have ended after 11 or midnight and that’s not a good model. And there’s lots of ways to avoid that. But one of them is starting earlier and taking more breaks as you’re working through the day instead of push, push, push and have a really long meeting that goes very late into the night. So I think moving it earlier is actually going to increase transparency. I think it’s better for the media who are trying to cover it and meet deadlines that they’re reporting on. So the more of the work of the council is done before the normal deadlines like the six o’clock news are finished.

[2:50:15] And so I can see some benefits from that too that people would be a bit better informed for meeting but earlier and we’re making our decisions a bit earlier in the day. And so those are the kind of marginal improvements I could see happening. I understand the concerns of people who have jobs that are keeping them otherwise occupied in the afternoons. And I think that is a big challenge. You’ve got committee meetings, then you’ve got the council meetings and you’re trying to fit that into scheduling how many people who are in that situation on council, they’re using up huge amounts of the vacation time that they’re supposed to be using for rest and taking a break to come and then participate in these meetings during the day.

[2:50:51] And that is I think very difficult situation to be in. Myself, I just gave up other work altogether because I couldn’t manage that. Couldn’t manage that. I have a lot of respect for people who are able to do two things well. I wasn’t able to do that. The one month I did try to do that and it just wasn’t working. And so I think shifting it forward, a couple of hours, I want to keep an eye on it to see is accomplishing what we thought it would is we’re getting actual benefits and we can’t be stuck with one meeting time and not be able to change it at all.

[2:51:28] So I think this one just moving the council meeting times is a quite a reasonable change. I’ll support it and I think making it effective far into the future is helpful because people can plan around that and they can make their decisions about whether that works for them or not. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Palauza. Thank you, Your Worship. I would start with asking how many daycare centers do you know that are open at 10 p.m. to pick up your children from?

[2:52:01] How many home daycares are open that late at night that they’re not busy with their own children to have a place for your child to have a spot at their dinner table and a spot to sleep? Does your home have two caregivers? Were you the primary caregiver? My kids have went from a stay at home mom to an absent T1. On some nights, I was the primary caregiver. Now I get texts or I hope to get texts of what they’re up to.

[2:52:38] I’ve had to get a home security system for I can see if they’ve actually made it home from school ‘cause traditionally that was my role. When I talk about other women and talk to them about joining politics, I have to ask them how big is your support network? How strong is it? How supportive is your partner to becoming the primary caregiver when you’re not around? So for me, I did have a career and gave it up to take care of my kids.

[2:53:11] So for me, joining politics, I didn’t have one foot in a non-governmental door. Usually it was one foot in the house door, the fridge door, the patio door. And it was hard to campaign. When people asked you, what do you do for a living? And you would run off the whole list of things you do in the community. But some still only saw the value that they assigned to you based on your paycheck. So for me, when I’m looking at this item before I was for consideration, I’m moving to afternoon meetings that may or may not done be done at four, five, and still might run into the evening.

[2:53:56] I do that with the full respect for my council colleagues that fill this chamber with me. Realizing me all have different lived experiences and talents that we bring to the table and different things in our lives that we balance. But for me, I’ll be supporting this change to a one o’clock start time for the 2020 term on council, hoping that it removes one more barrier to allowing more people to equally participate in municipal politics. ‘Cause it is hard when you look at all the things that we give up and so many of us around this chamber does give up things in order to serve our community.

[2:54:37] And sometimes if that impact with what we’re giving up with our families and our children, and those moments we’re missing with them, if they could be one less, and would allow someone else to have a seat around us, I will support it. Thank you, other comments. Councillor Hallelujah. I just wanted to thank Elizabeth for that, and I echo her comments, but I also wanted to mention that, you know, since Elizabeth is brave here and saying what she needs to say, that I personally don’t like to be out that late, like after 9 p.m., 10 p.m., 11 p.m., especially if I have to walk to my car, luckily we’re in turn, we have good parking a bit on my way home, right?

[2:55:29] So, yeah, I think it goes along with removing barriers for women, because most women, I’d say, have thought about not wanting to walk alone at night, and thinking about how to get home sometimes, without worrying about what could happen out there. So, yes, I would be supporting it as well, thank you. Thank you, other comments, colleagues. Councillor Hopkins, please.

[2:56:09] Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate all my colleagues’ comments, and this is a difficult decision for me to make, especially after Councillor Palose’s comments. I hear what she’s saying, I believe in what she’s saying, and the challenges of women in particular, I think that’s more the concern about having a council meetings at four, as opposed to one. But I would like to remind my colleagues here, that we all have different situations, been around a long time.

[2:56:54] Things tend to change, they tend to come and go, depending on how your family grows, how your own lifestyle, your own personal life evolves, and we’re all very different. And that’s how I view my job as a Councillor. I almost find it’s doing my own job to the best of my ability. And when I come in understanding what the rules, photo conduct, all those things play a part of me deciding to run, and then having the support, especially as a woman, regardless if we meet at one o’clock or at four o’clock, support to be able to do this job is paramount.

[2:57:50] And I want us to get back to council meetings at one o’clock, as opposed to four o’clock. And I will just start off where I was really open to being convinced that the survey that was done by us, was really no clear result. So now I’m finding this is more who’s going to have, who’s going to push it further.

[2:58:24] And I don’t think that’s the right way to make decisions for this city. I understand large cities, I’ll do the daytime, afternoon time, but I have a lot of questions here. And this conversation, I’ve done this for seven years, it’s been an ongoing conversation. There’s nothing new to this conversation that we’re having here. I have concerns as we make changes here. Do we know what these consequences will be? We have committees like corporate, civic works that make need in the afternoon.

[2:59:01] Mondays and Tuesdays tend to be full of committee and council meetings. How that is going to extend into the week. I’d like to know that because a big part of my other job is that I sit on board meetings or boards, commissions, the AMO board, the other opportunities that allow us to do more committee work, more work for this city may start to be where’s the day off or where’s the break? And I’ve got a lot of questions here and I’m still not convinced that doing the one o’clock is the best way forward.

[2:59:44] And I would just like to say I have done many meetings in the evening, especially if you are quite involved in the community, there’s a lot of evening work and in particular we’re speaking about council work, but I’ve always relied on my partner to be there. And I know if you’ve got a two-parent home, sometimes those become a little bit more challenging. So it really just depends and I’m just not convinced that going one o’clock is going to solve the problems.

[3:00:20] And I don’t think it’s a couple hours, we’re moving it up to one. It’s more than one or two hours that we’re moving it. Maybe if it was slightly one or two hours, it might be a different conversation for me, but right now I would prefer just keeping it the way it is. And someone said it out there that maybe the next council can come in and have this debate again. Thank you. Thank you. - You’re welcome. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, colleagues? Councillor Cassidy.

[3:00:57] Thank you, Your Worship. I’m in the same boat as Councillor Hopkins. I’ve been seven years that I’ve been working under this. I know it says specifically council meetings and those tend to be actually like not necessarily our longest meetings, it’s generally SPPC. So there’s no mention in the report that I can see of modifying the start time of SPPC, which is when we do our lots of our talking and lots of our debate, excuse me.

[3:01:39] I voted in the past in favor and spoken in favor of changing. And like Councillor Hopkins, I have the benefit of seven years on this. I was also a stay at home mom after years and years as a working mom. And I made the decision like Councillor Hopkins to put my career on hold and be a stay at home mom. When we first started in 2014 on this council, we did not have a multi-year budget.

[3:02:17] We did a full budget every single year. And we started on council pretty much right into budget. I still have a video on my phone of the first night and that first term of council during the budget process that I was home before my youngest daughter’s bedtime. And I have a video of her. I came into the house with my phone on video and her jumping up and down. She was so excited to see me home. It had been many days that I’d been working later. But having said all that, I would not say that right now, excuse me, that what we have is exclusively nighttime meetings or evening meetings as Councillor Lewis pointed out, two of our standing committees meet during the day.

[3:03:09] When we do budget, we have daytime meetings. Many agencies, boards and commissions meet during the day. And the benefit with that, what I would call this hybrid model is for agencies, boards and commissions for standing committees. Councillors can choose which one’s, which schedule works best for them. I agree with Councillor Van Meerberg and others that have said it is beneficial to have people on this council with very different day-to-day experiences.

[3:03:48] We come to this council with diverse life experiences, diverse backgrounds and that helps our decision making. I don’t think that takes away from our decision making or makes our debate less important. I think it makes it more valuable and more important. One of the things that always made me think that all daytime meetings would be better was the idea of staff time.

[3:04:20] Was the idea that staff are working into the evening or late at night to stay with us at these meetings to advise us and having heard from Ms. Livingston that that’s not going to change. If we have a daytime meeting, we require staff to be at the meeting, then they will have to find another time during the day to get their work done. They’re not going to be working any fewer hours. The work has to get done and we give a lot of work to our staff. We have high expectations from our staff. I, as I said, I kind of see what we have right now as a hybrid model and I think right now this works for us.

[3:05:03] I am very sensitive to the arguments that Councillor Palosa made because I started out my youngest was seven years old when I was first elected to council. I think also it may be a little bit of putting the cart before the horse. We are a growing city. There will be a time when, like Toronto, like Ottawa, like Edmonton, all cities that are a million or more people, there will be a time when London will need to adjust the way we do our governance to be more like those larger cities of million or more people.

[3:05:49] 30 seconds, Councillor. - Thank you. But I don’t, I think we will be excluding some people who absolutely cannot give up their second job to serve on city council. I agree with Councillor Lewis. At some point, people are going to be excluded from serving here. I think for now, I’m going to vote in favor of keeping things the way they are right now. Thank you. Is there anyone that we haven’t heard from for the first time wishes to speak? Councillor Lewis. - Councillor Lewis, please.

[3:06:30] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to cycle back. And specifically, I heard Councillor Hopkins mention how this would affect, you know, other standing committee meetings and the calendar. And that didn’t actually get directed through to the clerk. So through you, to our staff, and I suspect that this is the clerk’s to answer. Because we don’t typically have standing committee meetings on council days to begin with, would this have any impact on the standing committee schedules?

[3:07:06] Let’s ask the clerk. Thank you, through the chair. When we bring forward the next meeting calendar for consideration, if this is approved, we will have the council meetings start at 1 p.m. But any other change would not be affected by that, unless we have additional direction from council. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think maybe I just need to clarify that a little further. The 1 p.m. council start time, even if we were looking at today’s calendar, does not conflict with any other standing committee meetings, correct, clerk?

[3:07:42] Through the chair, that is correct. Councillor Lewis. Thank you. And the other thing that I wanted to circle back on, that came up through the discussion here, was something that we had a little bit of discussion on at governance working group as well. So through you to Ms. Livingston, could you envision an opportunity for some efficiencies when we, at some point, get back to in-person council meetings, where senior leadership, rather than having to be in the room for the entire meeting, by having a daytime meeting, could come down from, and I’m not gonna pick on anyone here, I’m just gonna use this as an example to just help clarify my point.

[3:08:33] So would there be an efficiency in having Ms. Cher, for example, be able to come down from the 10th floor to be here for civic works, and perhaps planning, but then her being able to return to her other daytime duties during community and protective services, where there might not be anything on the agenda that she needs to be available to answer questions for? Ms. Livingston. Mr. Chair, there are always opportunities for efficiencies. There’s also the flow of council meetings when sometimes questions affect many members of the senior leadership team.

[3:09:14] So I can commit that we would look for efficiencies in the work that we do, regardless of the start time of the meeting, but I don’t think I can commit to what those might look like based on the start time. Professor Lewis. That’s very fair, I understand I was asking you to speculate a little bit there, Ms. Livingston, and if you’re not comfortable doing that, I completely understand why. That’s it, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask those to follow up questions. Thank you, Councilor Turner, next, please.

[3:09:48] Thanks, Your Worship, just a quick question. So anybody asks staff, we’ve made a lot of suppositions about what they may or may not like, or may not be beneficial to them, but the survey that went out was to Councillors. Do we have a sense from the civic administration about their preferences and have we done a similar inquiry? Not sure what they’ll comment, but Ms. Livingston. Mr. Chair, I’m unaware of a survey or a question going to staff about preference of, or impacts perhaps is a better way to discuss it of a start time of meetings.

[3:10:28] What I would like to emphasize is we will implement what council decides and work to support that as effectively as we can. Councillor Turner. Thank you, and that’s a fair response from Ms. Livingston, it’s ultimately the direction of council ends up being what staff have to execute, but it’s not necessarily what’s best for them, and or not necessarily what’s best for the city. So I think it’s important that if decisions like this are being made, that we ask all the stakeholders, and we haven’t done that.

[3:11:02] So I think there’s a big piece missing here. I really also just kind of reiterate, this has been done in a very piecemeal fashion. If the intent is to try and do what is being spoken to here, is to try and make sure that staff have more time to be able to do what they need to do, that council members can support the activities that they may have in the evenings, then we need to do this in a more holistic approach, something that looks at all the factors, rather than just the singular start time of one meeting.

[3:11:42] We just don’t do this well, and we continue to make these same mistakes. If council’s going to be a full-time thing, I think that’s fine, but we need to do all the things that a full-time council is, not just move one meeting time. And we tried this, we fall on our face, we don’t listen to the advice that are given to us by external committees. We always trip over each other as we go through this. Nobody ends up being happy.

[3:12:15] I think we really need to think about how we structure this rather than just one piece. And also, I think there’s a fallacy that starting earlier means ending earlier. We start our four o’clock meetings, and sometimes we go until we fizzle out, and sometimes we find ourselves pushed up against that 11 o’clock deadline. And when we see that, sometimes we accelerate. But if we don’t have that constraint on the termination time of a meeting, I could see us still going just as late as we do on a council meeting that starts at four, even though we started at one.

[3:12:55] Thank you, I have Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank City Clerk’s for responding to Councillor Lewis’ questions, following my questions around standing committees through the day and conflicts. And it’s good to hear of that there won’t be any conflicts, but my concerns are more about the Monday, Tuesday that are designed for committee works, not extend over to Wednesday. And added to that, and following Councillor Turner’s comments about further engagement with stakeholders, I sit on a board and committee that meets 9.30, and that meets at one o’clock and how we cram all these meetings as a Councillor, I guess it comes to, I don’t know how we’re making it better somehow.

[3:13:52] And are we cramming in more committee meetings just to move up to one o’clock? I’m still not convinced. And I would suggest that we would have heard the consultation with stakeholders as well. Thank you, I have Councillor and host next. Thank you, Your Worship. And I appreciate the conversation from colleagues. And I’m just thrilled that we’re starting to have a conversation about this because it seemed like, as I said before, an issue that needed to be addressed.

[3:14:27] I did want to respond to something that Councillor Turner said, whereas you don’t want to guess late, we accelerate and I would suggest that maybe that acceleration is not a good thing. Do just rush things to get them over with. And I believe that for the most part, if we start earlier, we will end earlier. I think that’s been the experience, certainly with SPPC meetings.

[3:15:00] So when we hold the budget meeting during the day, then we’re usually finished much earlier than when we start at 4 p.m. So I do acknowledge that this is kind of a challenge. This is an incremental change instead of just a switch to an entirely daytime council, which would take a little more discussion and to figure out how to do it.

[3:15:39] And so Councillor Hopkins brought up some of those issues. What about the other boards and commissions? I would point out that these are organizations that we own. And so if there was a need to switch those meetings that could happen, many of those are creatures of our municipality. So there’s definitely the possibility to have further discussions.

[3:16:11] If this change has gone forward with, then there’s the possibility to look at some other things as Councillor CASSIDY suggested that SPPC meetings might be likely candidates for an earlier start time as well. But there’s another discussion to have. I do appreciate Councillor Lewis in making this motion at the governance working group because it allows us to focus on just one thing that is a sensible change in any way.

[3:16:57] And there’s a chance for us to see what the appetite is for that. I do think that there will be efficiencies. I do feel bad sometimes for staff when we have late meetings. And it seems that those have been very few and far between in this term, but the previous term, it was not the case. But staff members waiting for hours and hours and hours to get to the point where they will be answering the question that we need.

[3:17:38] And as Councillor Lewis suggested, it’s not be much, I think, more efficient for them to have a sense of where the meeting is and come in when that’s necessary. And there’s been times when we’ve needed the advice of a staff member who wasn’t at a meeting and usually it’s not long for us to be able to get a response from them. So it being during the day, that kind of thing could happen easily.

[3:18:14] We’re to be at night where we were looking for the advice of someone who’s not here, that’s much more challenging. So here we are looking at this decision. I’m gonna vote for it and kind of move things in this direction, but I’ve been pushing it that way for a long time. However, I respect other people’s positions as well. And I am grateful that we’re having the conversation and certainly welcome anyone who hasn’t had or taken the opportunity yet.

[3:18:48] 30 seconds, Councillor. Provide their input to please do so. Thank you. I’ve learned that politics is the art of the never ending story, but we’ve had nine Councillors who have spoken once and I always want to give priority to those who haven’t spoken already, but I have Councillor Cassidy on my list. Thank you. I’m sorry, Councillor Cassidy, it’s my intention for colleagues to know that when 32A is dealt with, we will, I will be looking to you to take a 15 minute break. I think it’s fair for all of us to take a biobrake at that time, or do you Councillor Cassidy please?

[3:19:28] I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to point out that one thing that we should be considering because we talked about whether this will affect other standing committees. I will note that it is not uncommon that we have a special corporate services committee meeting before council for last minute items such as debenture issuance and things like that. So there are things that come up last minute that have to be dealt with at corporate services and often it has taken place immediately before council because then decision has to go to council and it is a decision that has to be made within a certain timeline so it can’t wait until the next council meeting.

[3:20:09] So I will point that out, there could be an effect there and getting five people or at least three for quorum to have their schedules match up so that they can have this special meeting, having a council meeting earlier in the day may affect when those kinds of things take place. I just want to point that out. Thanks very much. Any other comments from colleagues? Yeah, pretty mayor. - Thank you and thank you for all the colleagues who’ve weighed in. I think you can see why the governance working group made a recommendation and sent it back to SPPC when you look at the survey results.

[3:20:45] There’s some real divided opinion on this and I would say even myself personally and I know this is for the next term of council but like councilor Palosa, you kind of layer your own experiences onto the conditions and try to make the best judgments you can and for me, it has gone both ways. In my first term, I remember using up all my vacation, like all of it for council business because I sat on during the day standing committees and that’s what I used my vacation for. But I also, you know, over the course of the years I’ve apparently I had a lot more kids and my wife was who’s listening in with the kids at home said like, hey, don’t forget to mention that there are four kids here who want to know if you’re going to make it home in time to say good night and so for me, no matter which way we decide, there’s consequences.

[3:21:39] Whether it’s the amount of vacation I used during the day or whether it’s maybe the opportunity on with a one o’clock start to see the kids before that maybe not if the meeting goes past that. But this is a very tough decision. Many municipalities do it different ways because what is right, there is no right answer. No matter how much we ask, no matter how much we consult, there are consequences to matter when we place the meetings. I think what the committee, in reflecting on the discussion that we had there, what the committee tried to do was say, public participation is really important.

[3:22:14] Let’s not be disruptive to the formal public participation meetings and the ability of those to engage in standing committees as they are currently constituted. Council, the public can watch but that’s not a point where we allow for public engagement at the meeting. And so given now, even since my first term on council at the very start now, everything is recorded. You can watch it a couple of hours later. You can review all of the public discussions. Council moving up a little bit, seem like a reasonable step to make to see how it goes.

[3:22:54] Again, there will be certainly consequences to that, but I think what the committee tried to do is put something before colleagues for consideration to have the debate tonight that we’re having, which is this is not a decision a four member committee is gonna be capable of making given the diversity of opinion and viewpoints around the table. And it certainly requires all of council to weigh in on it as does a number of the other items on the governance agenda. So I think I’m inclined to support this three hour shift of council meetings for the next term of council. And that next term of council will decide whether we made a good decision or not.

[3:23:30] And we may not actually know all of the consequences of it until it’s implemented. So certainly a tough decision, but I really appreciate everybody’s thoughts tonight. It’s been a valuable, provided a lot of valuable insight into the way everybody perceives this. Thank you. Councillor Hillier. Thank you. Well, this conversation’s been going on. I appreciate it. And I really appreciate Council for moving Elizabeth’s input on being a parent in this situation and Josh Morgan as well. It’s difficult. Sorry, I missed Councilor Cassidy as well, my fault. I’m looking at this and I went back, I sounds unusual.

[3:24:06] I’m thinking back to the last council. And when I was running for office and I was at every single council meeting in the up in their afters, filming live. And I’m looking at the end dates of those meetings. We’re talking after 11. We finished after 12 one night. I remember if Councilor Squire literally wanting to leave, it was that late. And how is that effective? I personally feel this move to one o’clock will be a very positive change for everybody. Thank you very much. I still see your hand up, Councilor Hill, are you still commenting?

[3:24:41] Okay, thank you. Any other comments, colleagues, before we go to the vote? Just to be clear, we are voting on three to a, relating to the starting time of council meetings. So with that, we’ll call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 11 to four.

[3:25:28] So colleagues, I know we still have three to b of operations of municipal council item of the fourth report of the governance working group. But I think we’ve in that same spirit of talking about being a little late and a little long. We normally around 6.30, take a break. So I’d like to propose a 15 minute break, which means that we would presume to return at 7.35. So with that, that’s a couple of minutes to the good. So with that, I’ll look for a motion to postpone or to take a break.

[3:26:01] Thank you, Councilor Oppen, seconded by Councilor Vanholst and Councilor Ploza. So with that, let’s do a show of hands if we can, all those in favor. That motion’s passed. See it’s at 7.35, thanks. Please, can I get screens on, please, if you’re on Zoom?

[3:45:43] Councilor Slee, can I get a verbal, please? Present. Councilor Ploza. Thank you. I’ll return now back to the deputy mayor. So the next item under 3.2 is 3.2B, which is a direction to civic administration to report back to the governance working group with respect to the related survey results and other feedback related to the staff support model in the Councilor’s office in terms of the themes of increased resources and more flexibility and support duties.

[3:46:32] I’m happy to put that on the floor and I can provide some context from the committee discussion. Thank you. Put that on the floor, do you have a seconder? I see, Councilor Feiffer Miller, thank you. Comments, questions, colleagues? Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I’ll just provide some context. If you read the survey results, you’ll see that this was something that was seen as something we need to dig further into through a discussion of the committee as well as with civic administration.

[3:47:05] It was thought that we could have civic administration pull the themes and comments out of the survey and then report back to the governance working group with a consolidation of those thoughts as well as some proposed possible changes to the support models for the working group’s consideration. So that’s what we’ve, that’s what we’re suggesting be done as the process. So it’s in the hands of SPPC now. Comments, questions, colleagues? I see none.

[3:47:46] Call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[3:48:23] Deputy Mayor. Of governance working group, there’s two items that I will deal with separately given what colleagues have discussed already. I’m gonna do item 3.1 and item 4.1 separately and I’ll kinda catch all of the other clauses that were just parts of the meeting after that. So item 3.1 and willing to put on the floor, that is the advisory committee review, final report with a series of directions coming out of the committee that you can see in ABC and D. So I’m happy to move that and I’ll let the discussion start.

[3:49:00] Thank you for 3.1, A through D, comments or questions? Thank you, I’m not sure if this is a question for Deputy Mayor Morgan or prof for staff, but I wonder if we can get an overview of the changes that are happening if we were to go ahead with the recommendation of which the advisory committees would cease to exist, which ones are gonna combine into new committees. So we can just get a sense of what’s going on because the way the report is written, you’ve got a long list of mandates.

[3:49:41] It may not be easy to see what’s no longer happening. Thank you all. I’ll just look to either the Deputy Mayor or the clerk to respond to the question in just a moment. I think I’m gonna start with the Deputy Mayor and then perhaps if need be, give it to the clerk for any additional clarification or back to you Councillor Hummer if there are other comments or questions, go ahead please.

[3:50:17] Yes, so I’m sorry, I was just leading over to the clerk to seeing which parts I would do and which parts she would want to weigh into ‘cause obviously there was a lot of background work through the process that involved both drafts as well as engagements and feedback from the committee members as well as other outside groups and agencies like the Urban League, LDI, they all participated in some of the discussions through their feedback. What we have before us is a series of directions that would essentially approve for enactment, the new terms of reference for the advisory committees that are listed in attached to the report if those were enacted.

[3:51:03] My understanding of the next steps which the clerk can confirm is that then they would move forward with populating those committees for the end of the current terms which end at the end of December this year and so those new committees with the new terms of reference would be constituted for the 2022 year. There was also a direction within that to cause the implementation of several committees, the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, the Environmental Stewardship and Action Advisory Committee and the Integrated Transportation Committee, Advisory Committee because of other directions that were given by other committees of council to form a similar, if not potentially overlapping, committees related to the Mobility Master Plan and the Climate Emergency Action Plan Task Force.

[3:51:58] This is where I’m gonna rely on the clerk on the next steps because it would be through their recommendation but those committees would be paused until such time as the mandates for those parallel committees could be developed sorting out the overlap and then either activating the terms of reference and populating the committees if there wasn’t overlap or allowing the other committees to do work. This is the point at which setting it to SBPC allows for colleagues to provide a little more direction on whether you wanna go with this report. This was something that was recommended by the clerks. The members of the governance working group thought that we were willing to forward that to this body for discussion and I think Ms. Westlake Power could comment further on what this would look like, the process that it would look like to determine the overlap of the committees.

[3:52:48] So maybe I could turn it over to her to add some context on that. Let’s go to the clerk and see if there’s additional comments that are helpful. Thank you through the chair. The chair of the governance working group has articulated that fairly well. I would suggest I don’t have a great deal to add except to indicate that were it to be realized potentially by the civic administration that there was a gap that needed to be addressed and those committees needed to be populated with prior to the completion of those separate task forces that we would act on that.

[3:53:31] Councilor Hummer. Thanks, I’ll just be a little bit more specific in my question, I appreciate the answers. So it appears to me from reading the report that the environment and the trees and forest committee are being combined into the environmental stewardship and action advisory committee, the cycling and transportation committees are being combined into integrated transportation, agriculture and heritage are being combined into the planning advisory committee.

[3:54:11] Safety and crime prevention is no longer gonna exist and housing is no longer going to exist. The rest are gonna continue on with some minor changes. Is that accurate? I just wanna understand exactly what’s happening here ‘cause it’s a pretty dramatic reduction in the number of advisory committees. I’ll take that back to the clerk. Actually, I can answer that one. That’s exactly what it is, but I was sorry. I guess it’s a deputy mayor. Yes. - Let me go ahead. Yes, Councilor Hummer’s articulation of the committee combinations is accurate. Councilor Hummer.

[3:54:48] Okay, so I think that’s it for me for questions and I know that this has been a very long process and so I, what I’m gonna say is certainly coming from that. I wanna recognize that first of all and I appreciate the works that the clerks in particular have been carrying us out for many, many years. I’m sure they would have liked to see the back end of this project a while ago, but I was just reflecting on what Mr. Hill said earlier today in our meeting and I have some concerns about the changes that we’re proposing to make to the advisory committees.

[3:55:31] I know that in the past the governance working group had suggested we took the sort of draft initial stuff that the clerks had brought forward and I think very wisely circulated that to the advisory committee members and sales to get their take and their feedback on it. I think that surfaced a lot of good feedback. I think that having one more discussion on these changes before we actually decide what to do would be wise. And what I would suggest is instead of having the clerks consulting people and then reporting on that consultation given the work that’s been done, the consultation that’s already happened that perhaps will be more helpful is inviting the members of the advisory committees, either the chairs of the committees or just an open invitation to everybody to come to a governance working group meeting to hash out and to hear from people directly what they think about these proposed changes.

[3:56:30] I guess my hope in the initial work on the advisory committees was not that we would just result in combining some things and renaming them and having essentially very similar kind of advisory committees but with slightly broader mandates and a little bit more flexible appointment things. I think some of those things are improvements but we haven’t I think really dealt with some of the issues that the advisory committee members themselves have identified as barriers to being really effective, finding really great meaningful work in what they’re doing as volunteers.

[3:57:10] And I think that we still, we haven’t quite landed it. And so we might combine them and simplify them and cut down the number of meetings and have fewer committees. And I guess if efficiency I was the overriding objective that I could see that that would be very appealing. I’m concerned that we’re frankly overloading some of these committees with a mandate that’s too big and that we’re reducing the number of opportunities for people to serve on as advisory committees quite substantially. And I know that there’s a lot of cross appointments and those kind of things.

[3:57:42] So it’s not as well, it’s all unique people but I’m not totally sold on these changes. I think based on what I heard from Mr. Hill today about really listening to what people are saying and taking the time that is required that having some kind of discussion in person discussion or zoom facility of discussion would be very smart. So I’m gonna move a referral of all these recommendations to a governance working group meeting which I certainly will resolve to attend. I’ve stopped attending them and I think I’m gonna have to make an exception for this one and see about inviting the members of the advisory committees to come and to talk about some of their concerns and we can try and land if we end up in the same place so be it.

[3:58:26] But if we end up in a different place I think we can make some improvements. I’ll see if there’s any kind of support for that to save my comments for my specific concerns I think if the referral doesn’t go through. Thank you. Do you have a seconder for that? I see Councillor Turner. For the benefit of all, a referral takes precedence over the motion originally proposed. So we’ll start a speakers list on the referral. I have Councillor Lewis. Thank you Your Worship. And through you to our staff, I think on the referral this question has to be asked and the answer on the floor to take into consideration a referral through you could our clerks indicate how long this review process has been underway in this current iteration and how many rounds of consultation with the advisory committees have happened during that time.

[3:59:22] Clerk, do you wanna take a stab at that? Thank you through the chair. There in this term of council, this predates this term of council but I would suggest to you that this review started in earnest in 2018. Councillor Lewis. Thank you.

[3:59:53] And how many consultations with the existing advisory committees have been or how many rounds of consultation? I guess I’ll ask rather than individual advisory committees. How many rounds of consultation have we had? I’ll take that back to the clerk. Thank you through the chair. Prior to the current term, there was some more extensive external consultation where we held a few workshops and invited the public to get feedback about advisory committees in general and what barriers may exist to prevent people from participating and so on.

[4:00:42] And I think we’ve been back with two fulsome rounds with the current advisory committees with proposals for their input. Councillor Lewis. Thank you. So with that answer, I’m gonna say, I’m not supportive of referring this back yet again. This started before this term of council. We’ve heard that there was a large external and then two fulsome internal discussions with advisory committees and consultations.

[4:01:19] There’s actually pages and pages of input from the advisory committees both on this current agenda in one of the appendixes as well as on previous governance working groups agendas. And I say this with all due respect, the advisory committees themselves don’t agree on what the structure and format should look like. There is a wide range of opinions even amongst them. And I’ve said this before and I’m gonna say it again, this has been outstanding for so long.

[4:01:54] And one thing that I think there is a consensus on is that what we have isn’t working. And we heard that from Mr. Hill tonight too. So this is a step forward. The current terms are expiring at the end of December. Yes, we can extend them, but it makes much more sense to get a new structure in place for those that are ready to go in time for the new year and to let people move forward. This won’t be the end of the discussion either. And certainly I heard what Mr. Hill was saying tonight as well about some of the formalities and structure of the system. This doesn’t preclude further alterations in the future, but what it does do I think is move forward in a positive way in terms of keeping like with like and having those mandates.

[4:02:40] So I don’t want to support the referral. I’d like to get onto the debate about what these committees are going to look like and start making some decisions after what’s been now three plus years of this council and the council before. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I will be supporting this referral and for a number of reasons. In fact, I would have supported it going to the committee of the whole, not to the governance working group, but I’m okay if it’s going back there.

[4:03:15] I’ll have to make sure I’m there. I’m hoping it will be live streamed as well. I think it is important that we as a council here wrong the advisory groups, their concerns. One thing that I got that my biggest takeaway from Mr. Hill’s very thoughtful comments was that we need to be trusted. We need to be trusted.

[4:03:48] And the more we can consult and communicate, and I think it has been challenging through this pandemic, we need to have a better understanding when we make these changes, because I’ve got a couple of questions. The two big advisory groups that are on pause are transportation and the environment. I’m not even sure where that’s going to go. I heard here tonight that advisory groups will terminate at the end of this year.

[4:04:24] What happens next year? There’s a number of questions that still remain to me, but the biggest thing is that we need to be trusted. And this is one step forward. So I will be supporting the referral. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Your Worship. I don’t think the referral is necessarily a bad idea. I’m disappointed with the timing of it in this conversation, ‘cause we did, as a committee, send this to SPPC, or as a working group, we sent it here so that we could have some discussion.

[4:05:05] And by jumping right to referral, we don’t have the benefit of the input of even the council. So council members, so I’m going to say why I might think the referral is an okay idea and why it might not be based and present some of my opinions there. Certainly, I think there’s a couple of things that might need to be looked at, the idea of combining heritage and agriculture.

[4:05:45] There was the concern that, for instance, the agriculture, it might be harder to get people involved if they’re going to be talking about things that are far outside their area of expertise or even interest. And so there’s something I thought we need to discuss. So perhaps that’s a reason to push this back. One thing I did like was that we were going to put some committees on hold in order to have the committees that are actually doing work move ahead.

[4:06:23] And I think that’s really important because the most fulfilling job, I think, for an advisory committee is to actually be working on something that we need information on. So those things are going to be very relevant and they’re tied in with what would be happening anyway. So that’s a great idea. That’s a reason to just say, hey, let’s move forward with this and not vote for the referral. So again, I hope that perhaps some other colleagues would provide some input among those lines because that’s what would help the committee.

[4:07:08] I would also say that really, it’s almost an experiment, what we’re doing. It’s always in, government’s always, almost always an experiment. We just do our best and I think it’s better that we move forward than talk and talk and talk more about what’s the best approach because as was pointed out, it’s hard to come to that agreement. And I see this as an evolutionary process.

[4:07:42] We can try something, if it doesn’t work, we can always change it. But having tried something we actually learn by talking, we don’t necessarily learn much at all. So I’m happy moving forward, but I do think there’s some considerations that need to be made and some changes possibly to the plan. There’s my comments, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Chair.

[4:08:18] I won’t speak to the main motion at this point, but I will speak to the referral. Has been clearly pointed out. This process has been going on for a number of years and the most recent task taken on by the governance group has been very thorough, in my opinion. And with plenty of input from all parties, I don’t see what more I’m going to learn by having a delay and asking for more input, ‘cause I think it’ll be the same thing that I’ve heard to this point now.

[4:08:59] So I will not be supporting this referral. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll support, I seconded the referral because they support it, but also because I have some general concerns. I think we heard Mr. Hill earlier today talk about how our institutions are constructed and how engagement occurs, the ability to have, and we did this at the beginning of the term when we tried rather unsuccessfully to see if we could just have a conversation about rapid transit.

[4:09:39] Us moving into Robert’s rules on everything doesn’t allow us to propose structures to build alternatives. What they do is they just pit us in an adversarial way. This is right, or this is wrong, let’s vote on it. And we don’t build anything and say, okay, you know what, I like these elements here. What if we keep these ones? But what if we modify this one? And what if we do this over here? So we instead put forward a construct that tries to capture some of the things that people hear, and then either you like that or you don’t.

[4:10:18] And that’s not constructive. It’s probably the worst way of building something. The idea that Councillor Halmer is putting forward, bring this back to governance work and group, I’d say if you did that, put people in a room, suspend Robert’s rules for a little bit, and have a roll up your sleeves session and talk about what works, what’s good in here, and what’s not, what’s not workable. There are some good elements and what’s being proposed. And there are some bad ones too. And there are things that make it rather unworkable and unsupportable.

[4:10:52] And if all that’s being put forward is this construct, I’m against it, and I have to vote no, rather than capturing the elements of it that are good. So I really, I know that there has been consultation, but not in the way that’s constructive, not to get everybody in a room and say, you know, what are your concerns about the way this is being proposed here? What can we do as an alternative? And that’s a constructive process. This is not, this is divisive. And I think at the end of the day, my big concern is that it’s less input, right?

[4:11:30] These are ways for people to be able to be engaged in the issues of the day that are involved with council, but consolidating and providing fewer people on those presents less input to us. And don’t know, that’s how we come to better decisions. So I urge you to support the referral. Any other comments from colleagues? I recognize Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[4:12:02] I will also support the referral. You know, it’s interesting to hear council members talk about how long this has been going on. We did set this in motion on the last term of council. And there were multiple reasons why there was identified there was some overlap. And it feels like perhaps that might have been the only thing addressed in this, in what we have before us now, the idea of the overlap. And, but there were other issues that came out throughout that last term of council.

[4:12:35] And some of the issues were articulated tonight by Mr. Hill. And there was this sense that advisory committees felt, members of advisory committees, many of them had served on their advisory committee for decades. And really believed in the work they were doing. Community safety and crime prevention was one committee. They’d been, many of those members had been there for 20 years. And they did some really good work. And they worked with London Police.

[4:13:07] They worked with the school boards. And they did some really good things for our community, some different awards for kids to make posters and things like that around bike helmets and bike safety. Some really good work was done by that committee. But there was a common theme that came out during our previous term of council. And it was the idea that advisory committees felt like they weren’t being listened to. And that is not to say that they thought that councils should do every single thing that each advisory committee told us to do.

[4:13:45] So we want you to make this change and council. Go ahead and make that change. That was not where they were coming from. And so all of that sort of melded together into this review process. And I think when we talk about the feedback that’s been gained, it is being that sort of one way sort of dry feedback in a survey or a written word. And the idea that Councillor Helmer has put forward here is more along the lines of a PPM.

[4:14:23] And I like that idea of hearing from the people that do the work of these advisory committees the way Mr. Hill tonight told us what he’s looking for, what he needs from us. And I think it would be very wrong after that submission for us to just go ahead and accept this and move forward with this. I do think that there is value in an added step here. And that’s why we’ll support the referral.

[4:14:57] Thank you. Any other comments with respect to the referral? Mr. Lewis, thank you, Your Worship. I just want to circle back once more on this. Because I don’t think there are two different conversations going on here again. And so I know I’m going to have to— I want to focus on the referral. But we’ve had colleagues really engaging in debate on the main motion already and talking about reduced input and people’s ability to participate and folks being on a committee for 20 years, which actually, I think, is a sign of an unhealthy system, not a healthy one.

[4:15:41] Because it doesn’t allow for new opportunities and new voices to participate in these committees. But these are not the end, I’ll be all of public engagement through our Get Involved forms, through our own interactions. In fact, I would argue for all 15 members of this horseshoe and not just the counselors, but the mayor as well. The most important community engagement that happens is through us, with our constituents on a regular basis. But there is nothing in terms of what I’ve heard from Councilor Cassidy and Councilor Helmer in terms of more of a PPM about structural changes, in terms of not having Robert’s Rules necessarily in place, none of that is precluded by going ahead tonight on making a decision about whether these are the advisory committees we want to constitute next year.

[4:16:33] That is certainly something that could be dealt with as a separate motion to governance working group or even to committee of the whole for a PPM out of future SPPC, where people may want to raise concerns about the formalities and the structure and the barriers to participating in these particular committees. We actually had some very good feedback about the desire from people on the accessibility advisory committee to want to continue to be able to participate virtually, which was a barrier that they had identified. That conversation can continue.

[4:17:08] It’s not dismissing what we heard earlier tonight that the system is set up a certain way. If we refer this back, I mean, what we are essentially doing is saying advisory committees are going to continue as the status quo for an indetermined length of time. Because it won’t be one consultation. It will then be, oh, now we need to look at, are we going to change the terms of reference so that we’re not going to use Robert’s rules? We’re going to use a different system of engagement. There will be many more steps involved for our staff to come back with another recommendation if we start pulling those things apart.

[4:17:43] That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t perhaps be open to pulling those things apart, but not tying the process of what advisory committees are going to be existing next year and doing work that needs to be done while that conversation happens. So I think we should constitute the advisory committees. I think we should defeat the referral, constitute the advisory committees as recommended. But certainly, I’d be open to a future PPM or some other form of engagement where we discuss not which advisory committees exist, but how they function in terms of their engagement.

[4:18:17] But I do want to come back to one last point that I’m going to make is that, well, and this is where I will disagree with Councilor Cassidy, I think that many times when the advisory committees say you’re not listening to us, what they’re really saying is you didn’t do what we wanted. And I respectfully, that that’s the role of Council, we’re the elected officials at the end of the day, and we do have to make those decisions. And sometimes we’re going to support what the advisory committees say and sometimes we’re not. And we face the same thing when we lobby the province or the feds and say we really would like you to do this.

[4:18:54] And sometimes they listen to us and sometimes they don’t. I think there’s room for both making a change day as well as having a future conversation, but I don’t think the referral’s that way. I think the referral is actually just going to push this issue off to the next term of Council before any decisions are made. Thank you. I’ll recognize Councillor Vendallish. Thank you, Worship, and I agree with Councillor Lewis here. So although I said there was reasons to refer and not refer, I think in this case, really the concerns presented by Mr. Hill are how the committee runs, not which committees are there.

[4:19:39] And that’s certainly our decision. And it was a good recommendation from the committee. So I think we can move forward with that step and then work on that engagement on how the committees work at a later point. But we’ll actually have made some progress today by doing that. And there’s nothing to say that in the future that will change. But I think these are good recommendations.

[4:20:12] We’re not having people involved in an advisory committee where we don’t anticipate needing their advice, which is it’s not preventing input, it’s just wasting people’s time. So I think we’ve done a good job by doing a little cutting, a little combining, and then also making sure that we’ve got the people with certain expertise actually working on the things that we need to move forward.

[4:20:44] And that’s gonna give them an experience that’s fulfilling. And it’s, I hope, gonna have them show up because that was a big problem with our committees in the past recall is that we would get a report that said there was no quorum and there wasn’t that interest. So what we’re doing now is trying to solve that by adjusting the number and composition to the committees. So I’ll vote against the referral and for moving forward with this.

[4:21:24] And of course, after the referral debate, we may have some more debate on the actual ideas. I look forward to that too. Thank you. Thank you. Again, colleagues, I’ll just remind you as chair, sometimes it gets a little bit challenging to determine whether we’re talking to the referral or the main motion, but I’m going to remind us that, again, we’re gonna talk to the referral of Colin, Councilor Feffner, please. Sorry, Councilor Hummer, did you have a comment on that? I thought I was doing okay.

[4:21:56] Just getting on the list. Thank you, Councilor Feffner. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, and maybe this is a question for the chair or for staff. When I read this report, one of the things, and again, recognizing that I have been here for a little over a month, I read through the terms of reference of these a few times, and I actually liked the terms of reference that I read. When I listen to the conversation tonight, there’s two things I’m taking from the conversation tonight.

[4:22:35] I hear one side basically saying there hasn’t been enough engagement, and I hear one group saying there has been a great deal of engagement, and I think I’m trying to narrow down which it is at the end of the day. In fairness, I know there’s Councilors who have been around for two terms, there’s Councilors who have been around for one, so I don’t know if that’s an unfair question to the chair, but I’d like to know in your opinion, has there been adequate engagement with the committees to get us to the point that we are at today?

[4:23:15] Well, the good news is he’s talking to the governance working group chair, not to the chair of the SPPC. Go ahead, please, Deputy Mayor. To the Councilor through the chair, I’m not going to suggest something is an adequate level of engagement or not, because I think that there can be differences of opinion on that. What I can tell you is the process that we have followed is there have been multiple points at which the committee has paused the process to go back to the advisory committees for thoughts and input.

[4:23:53] At one point, we decided it would be best to produce a draft to go back and get thoughts and input on. And we are at a point in the process where a number of those things have happened, and what I hear today is some colleagues suggesting another round of engagement and input, and some colleagues saying, let’s make a decision on what we have before us and continue the input on kind of the next phases. And I don’t know if it would be helpful, although I, but the chair can articulate, there are some components to this that are not complete yet related to the population and the term of the advisory committees that is not before this group tonight, but there are other components of the advisory committee review that are still outstanding, and I know our clerk could outline those probably more clearly than I can because they haven’t come before us yet for decision, but this is a step in the process.

[4:24:52] If I could ask the chair, if the clerk can make some comments on the next steps, I think that would be helpful too. Let’s see if the clerk would like to. Thank you, through the chair, I will provide the information that I can. So this, one of the things that we tried to undertake with this review early on, and I’m looking at the report was titled Interim Report Number Three, which went in November of 2020.

[4:25:27] What we were trying to establish based on the council direction is, where were the areas where council wanted to have input from the community? We have, we’ve been through a few iterations, which addressed perhaps expert panels and engagement tables, and we’ve put together a few different options for consideration, and where we’ve landed with the council direction that we’ve been working under is basically what we affectionately referred to as modified status quo.

[4:26:08] So it was trying to accomplish what our direction was to find efficiencies and eliminate overlap and increase opportunities for engagement, and there wasn’t any firm direction to change gears on specific areas of engagement, and so this is how it has evolved. So I hope that’s helpful. Councilor Feiffelner, thank you, I find that helpful. Thank you, Councilor Alvar. Thank you, I just wanted to try one more time and convince people to do something that we haven’t done so far, which is invite members of the advisory committee to come talk about the changes that are being proposed to the advisory committees at the working group itself.

[4:27:01] And certainly there has been a lot of consultation, and I’m not really sure that there’s anybody who wants this advisory committee review to be done more than I do. I has been ongoing for a very long time, and I am very reluctant with this particular file to delay things, however, I was listening very carefully to what Mr. Hill said tonight, and a couple of things that he said, I’m not sure that they fully resonated with everybody, they certainly resonated with. One was we really need to build trust, and for me, that means we have to take our time and make sure we’re bringing people along with the changes that we’re making.

[4:27:44] So, I mean, if you’re really dead set, then combining the committees this way and making these changes is what needs to happen, and that it’s so urgent that we can’t have another discussion about it, I guess, don’t support the referral, and just say, I’d like to cut the number of advisory committees, I’d like to reduce the number of people who are on the advisory committees by half, and I don’t need to hear from anybody else, and certainly not talk about it with anybody who’s on the advisory committees in a governance working group setting.

[4:28:17] If that’s the case, I guess don’t support the referral, that’s what I’ve heard from some people. But if you are convinced that this is a good thing to do, there might still be value in just talking it out with people a bit longer, and I’m not suggesting, I would never suggest that it’s something that we push into the next term of council, that is the straw man argument designed to undermine support for referral, to steal within your next meeting. We had two meetings in the span of a week that governance working group, the chair, and the members seem to be very nimble in terms of mobilizing themselves to have meetings, and I’m sure we can have a meeting in short order when the advisory committee members can be invited to come, and if they come, and there’s productive discussion that comes up with some better ideas, we can improve what’s in front of us.

[4:29:03] If there’s no changes, there still might be a productive discussion that’s helpful for the other parts of the review, the general policy around the advisory committee, the general terms of reference. A lot of the issues that Mr. Hill was talking about were identified, they’re really things that affect all the advisory committees, and not just the one. But I will say, in terms of why should we talk about a bit more, on page seven of the report that went to the governance working group, there are a number of points raised by consultation with advisory committee members, which are not resolved in what’s in front of us.

[4:29:39] So there’s feedback from certain administration, since we should combine committees, there’ll be some efficiencies. That’s definitely being done in the recommendation. Term limits are required and need to be adhered to to make sure new people can participate. So that could be also dealt with in the general policy. Then there’s a whole bunch of very specific feedback from the advisory committees, which are not being acted on. It’s something to say we consulted people, but then we’re not doing anything about those things that are raising with this particular rounds of changes. So I just think that the talking part is what is needed, not the have administration go and mediate between.

[4:30:20] I think what we need to have now is a discussion with counselors and advisory committee members in the same room, virtual room, to really hash it out. And I think there’s some positive that come out of that. I guess if you’re not convinced by any of that, what do you really have to, what’s the harm in waiting a little bit longer? You could do the same thing a month and a half now. And it’s a really big loss. Thank you. Councillor van Holst, I know I’m being very respectful colleagues because this is on the referral.

[4:30:52] We’re not debating the main motion. Councillor van Holst, and several other colleagues have spoken twice. So if this is new or, and I’m not gonna limit debate, I just wanna either hear new voices or I’ll refer it back to you, Councillor van Holst. But again, please on the referral only. Okay, thank you. This is a question through you, perhaps to our staff. And that’s in terms of this meeting, the suggested meeting where we’re having a dialogue. Is that something that the government’s working group can ask for itself?

[4:31:26] Or is it something that has to be done through the SPPC? Because although I do agree it’s, having a discussion is a good idea. I don’t think this discussion, the discussion about these particular recommendations would be that fruitful. So I wanna know how we can get to a discussion where it’s not this one. And so perhaps you can provide direction. Let’s see if we get some direction and I’ll take this back to the clerk or to the chair of governance working group.

[4:32:06] Perhaps you might provide some insight. So I think that the chair may have some additional comments, but procedurally it could be accomplished either way. The governance working group could undertake that as they choose to, or it could be the direction of the SPPC for them to undertake that. Councillor van Holst. Okay, well, thank you, Your Worship.

[4:32:39] And so for that reason now, I think I’ll vote against the referral. And then at our next governance working group, discuss how we can have direct engagement with the committee advisory members. Thank you, Councillor Hillier. Thank you. Yes, just a few comments, the biggest one being, I’ve heard many members of council tonight. He was Mr. Hill as an example for supporting this.

[4:33:13] And he was here very passionately for the diversity, inclusion and anti-oppression advisory committee. I do not see this listed as something that’s being cut. And we’re using his words to, is he supporting the integrated transportation community advisory? I don’t believe so. And I would appreciate if council would not use the Stellman’s words the way they are. It’s not appropriate. He did not influence anything else. He’s talking about one committee that I feel is frustration. I’m very upset about this. You have no idea. Please, choose your words more carefully. Well, if I may, Councillor Hillier, thank you.

[4:33:46] But I think we’re talking about the sense of direction for input and feeling not part of the process. I think that’s how I interpreted the information that was relayed by council members regarding Mr. Hill’s comments. Did you wish to clarify as well, Councillor Halmer? Absolutely. And I’m not gonna be spoken to like that by Councillor Hillier for one second. Mr. Hill said, “The policies and practices at advisory committee was talking about diversity, inclusion at advisory committee, are oppressive.

[4:34:22] In the report on this issue that went to the governor’s working group, there’s feedback from the advisory committee that says strict policies and procedures are oppressive. Policies are barriers. He is reinforcing feedback provided on this exact issue in person at our committee meeting tonight. That’s what I’m talking about. So don’t tell me he didn’t say what he said. Yes, he’s here talking about the diet committee. That’s the one he’s a member of. Yes, there are probably some specific issues that are very specific to that committee that we can deal with.

[4:34:57] But what I’m saying is he said, take your time. Listen to what we’re saying. I’m talking about having a referral for that exact reason. That’s why I’m mentioning what he said. I thought about it from when he said that hours ago, until now, what should we do with that? How am I gonna act on what he said? Who sit there and lecture me about what I can talk about, what he said or not in a meeting? All right, thank you very much, okay, colleagues. This really has to calm down now, all of us, all right? We’re talking to the referral.

[4:35:30] We’re gonna thoughtful respect and dialogue amongst each other. So is there anything else on the referral that we have not heard that would be of use to this discussion, otherwise we will vote? I see none on the referral we vote. Go ahead, Clerk, do you wanna clarify what it is we’re voting on? Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. I’d just like to read this before we open the vote. And the referral reads as follows, that consideration of clause 3.1 of the fifth report of the Governance Working Group, related to the advisory committee review final report, be referred to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group in order to invite members of the current advisory committees to have a discussion with the GWG with respect to this matter.

[4:36:19] Thank you, so with that, unless there’s any question about what it is we are voting on, the referral, I’ll call the question. Councilor Hill here is this on the motion itself, the referral, what is the question, please? We’re just, this is just having a, sorry, a discussion of governance work with the advisory groups. Is this all the advisory groups or just the ones listed in part four? Take that back to the clerk. The interpretation of the members instruction was that it would be an invitation to all members of the advisory committee, all of the current members.

[4:37:05] Councilor Hill, are you good? All right, thank you. Any other questions about the referral motion? Then we’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, eight to seven.

[4:38:03] All right, I just gotta go back to my page now since we were referring to other. Okay, the next item is 4.1, which is the draft members expense account policy revisions. The motion is that the attached revised, so the committee basically directed this to be forwarded to this committee for approval. And so it’s up for discussion debate by the members of SPPC.

[4:38:40] Colleagues, any comments, sir? So are you putting this on the floor? Yes, I am. The seconder, sir, Fife Miller, thank you. Comments or questions? Councillor Helmer. Thank you. Again, I’m not sure if it’s a question for the chair or not, might be better for staff, but in terms of the annual board mail-out, which are being proposed to be covered through the general council office budget rather than individual councilor budgets, what do we think the cost for that would be?

[4:39:19] I mean, there’s something like 180,000 households in the city that we’ve sent one mailing to them. I could see that being fairly costly and never, depending what kind of mailing it was. I don’t just wonder if it was a good estimate on that specific part or what’s been proven. So I’m going to ask colleagues if they have specific questions about any part of this. Can they just make the reference to the paragraph or page reference so just so that there’s no question at all as to what it is that we are doing with the councilor? Or maybe I can bring that back to you so that we can take that forward to the clerk for a response.

[4:39:52] Age, it’s page 39 of the report that went to Darn’s Working Group, part XII13, one annual award one mail-out, including printing and distribution of Canada. So colleagues, that’s four to a 13. XII, I. Thank you through the chair. We have done some preliminary investigation as to that cost and the estimate is approximately $44,000. That’s right.

[4:40:28] Okay, that’s helpful. So I was feeling it would be something like that. So I actually, I’m fine with the idea of a mail-out that is, you know, size to the size of the ward, the number of households that are in the wards, I think that makes a lot of sense. The issue that I have with this particular change is that it be covered by the general councilor office budget instead of showing up as an expense that counselors are incurring as part of their work. So I just don’t see why this one would be in the sort of general category instead of listed along with any other things that counselors are spending their expense budget on.

[4:41:07] I think it’s easily to justify why you would wanna spend money to communicate with constituents by sending a mail. You know, I just think it should be included in that level. Not too many counselors are hitting the maximum on the expense account. I know I came within just pennies or dollars one year, but not very people approach that limit. So it feels to me like there’s actually room to just add it in there for each individual counselor if you wanna do that work. If you wanna incur that expense, you could do it and record it out. So I wonder if there’s some explanation of why how it has a part of the general office budget rather than something that’s easily identifiable, transparent to people and what the money is being spent on.

[4:41:51] Let’s take this back to the clerk. I think that’s your worship. I think that’s more appropriate maybe for me to take a stab at since it was a committee discussion. So within the survey, there was a number of counselors who wanted to have more flexibility with their budget. We didn’t wanna increase the budget. And so one of the things we could do was pull a number of items out of it.

[4:42:26] One of the discussion points that came up with the mailouts is the size differential between wards creates large differentials and costs associated with those mailouts. And so it would impact one counselor’s budget in a very different way than another counselor’s budget to do the exact same thing. So the centralization was a way to balance what is a cost that can be very different between a very large ward and a very small ward. One with not a number of large Canada post points and one with a large number.

[4:43:00] We were trying to balance that discrepancy by putting it into the central budget, thus not having it hit different expense accounts in a different way. So certainly not the only way to do it, but that was some of the logic behind it. I know there are other committee members who could also articulate their viewpoints on that, but that was my understanding of a part of the rationale for that. I still believe there’s probably a transparent way to show that everybody can do that and the clerk can comment on that. Good clerk.

[4:43:32] Thank you through the chair. I’d just like to add that if this is enacted, we would undertake to report this out in a similar way that we report out the travel expense that is covered under the office budget as opposed to the individual counselor’s budget. So we do report out some other expenditures that are incurred in the interest of transparency. Councillor Elmer. Thank you, that’s helpful, especially the last part. So this would show up on a report, for example, on council remuneration expenses, that kind of summary report, which captures a lot of different things, including those things that are in the $15,000 expense budget.

[4:44:18] Clerk, just confirm. That is correct and as is our current practice. Councillor. Okay, well, I think that resolved it for me. I mean, I think it’s important that we are clear about what’s being spent where and that people have an easy way of seeing that. I think it’s one of the things that’s good about our fence policy and practice right now is it’s pretty clear what people are spending their money on. And I do think, you know, the quarterly reports are a little bit more accessible than them once a year in a roll-up, but at least it’s available, I think that’s very helpful.

[4:44:57] I think I’ll leave it there. That was my major concern in what was being suggested. I guess my general comment would be, if we want to increase the budget amount, we should probably just increase the budget amount because the costs have to be covered somehow. And if it’s going to be for Councillors doing their work, I think we should consider doing it to increase it from $15,000 to a higher amount, rather than essentially pulling out things and putting them in a different part of the overall budget. It seems like not the simplest and most straightforward way of dealing with this issue.

[4:45:32] I would be happier if we were just increasing the amount and being clear about people. If we need $18,000 in the expense budget to do the job at the maximum, then increase it to $18,000 and make the arguments for why that’s a good idea. Thank you, Councillor Hocht. Thank you, Worship. For this particular item, I think the big issue was that some writings are bigger, some warrants are bigger than others. And so the cost for a particular Councillor might be much more for a mailing and that this would be a way to equalize that.

[4:46:12] I think mailings are, by their nature, extremely transparent because people get it in the mail and they know that they’ve got it. So there’s money being spent there. But what’s avoided is that one Councillor has less to spend on other things because he had a big writing or she had a big writing and had to spend that money to get it out to the whole ward. And of course, or the other way to look at it is when the expenses are reported out, it looks like one Councillor spent more than another and that there might be questions about that ‘cause there’s often some media related to those expenses.

[4:47:05] So that was the concern and that seemed to be an approach. But as would said, I guess it’s still reported out. Thank you. Any other comments or questions colleagues? Councillor Cassidy. So I’m wondering if we’re able to like pull pieces out of this and vote separately. And the item that I wanna vote separately on is item seven. It’s page 312 of the main agenda. And so it would be D.

[4:47:45] Is this the expenses related to ward matters, et cetera? Yeah, so it’s difficult with all the sub numbers but it’s the part about excluding home internet costs. We’ve talked about this many times and there are Councillors on either side of this particular debate. I know one of the arguments for excluding this as an eligible expense is that it’s expected that most homes would have home internet. I would submit that COVID has proven how absolutely reliant we are on technology to do our jobs.

[4:48:27] And as we go forward with almost a permanent hybrid style of meeting that will allow this electronic type of meeting and people meeting from their homes rather than coming in person, adequate home internet is extremely important. We talk about council as if this is the only thing that we meet for. We all have outside boards and commissions that we meet that we participate in as part of our council duties.

[4:49:05] And most of those boards and commissions have a different meeting software that they use. And I would say in my own personal experience, I’m on the London Police Service Board that uses WebEx and I’m on the Board of Health that uses Microsoft Teams. There are very different experiences using those meeting software programs compared to, and I see you’re shaking your head, Mr. Mayor, WebEx in particular has its challenges. At the Board of Health, internet is so important and Microsoft Teams when meeting with a large group of people is much more challenging than using Zoom.

[4:49:48] Our members on the board that sit in the county have to leave their homes and go into their county offices or their municipal offices because their Wi-Fi won’t handle a Teams meeting. And in my personal experience, I have had to upgrade my Wi-Fi because of COVID-19 and trying to hold these meetings, trying to chair the meetings for the Board of Health with the challenges of multiple people in the neighborhood, in the city, streaming at the same time that the meetings are.

[4:50:28] Because meetings are in the evening, that is when internet activity goes up. And we talked earlier about daytime meetings versus nighttime meetings and how whether or not one kind of meeting is a barrier to participation. I would submit that making somebody choose who’s coming from a different economic sector than perhaps some of us on council are in, making somebody choose between being able to fully do their job as counselor.

[4:51:09] And that means participating on these other boards and commissions and having an adequate level of internet without having to go into your own personal expenses to upgrade that internet. These are some of the barriers and challenges that we could be putting in place for members, or people that are considering joining City Council. I just say that this is, it has always been an eligible expense to have a home office. And nowadays, home offices mean something completely different thanks to COVID-19.

[4:51:46] And I really think, I feel very strongly that we should not be excluding these home internet costs. Every member of this council has decisions to make on what expenses they put forward. There have been members of past councils who have made it a policy of their own personally to never submit an expense for their council work. The end of the day, we answer to our constituents, our expenses are reported out very publicly.

[4:52:22] And my constituents can look at those expenses and decide whether or not they want to support me in the next election if I choose to run again. So if we— 30 seconds, councilor. If we could vote on that item separately, I would really appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. So I pulled that out, but I’m not gonna entertain, I’m gonna pull a little rank here if I could, colleagues. I’m not going to get into the debate of that particular item unless until we get to that point. And I’m gonna take a big risk here.

[4:52:55] I’m going to say if colleagues having looked at this want to have something pulled for a separate vote with the fear that I have that all things will be pulled and 11 o’clock will look very, very early. So with that, if there are some items, and then I’m gonna recognize Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Lewis in terms of the speakers list. Councillor Deputy Mayor Morgan, can you help me with this a bit? Yes, Your Worship, and I understand what you just said, but I wanted to let you know that the committee structured the report in a way with the boxes around the changes we made because we figured that committee members may want to make changes to those.

[4:53:32] And so if I might suggest that for Councillor Cassidy to want to achieve what she’s doing, she could make an amendment to that section to exclude some of the language at the end of it that excludes home internet costs, thus allowing it to be eligible. And it’s probably easiest if we make amendments to the policy, that’s the way that we intended it to be structured so that SPPC could certainly do that if they didn’t agree, we had to divide our votes on some of these matters at committee. So I wanted to share that context for you about how the committee structured it so that you can run the amendments the way you’d like. Perfect, and perhaps it would be Councillor Cassidy’s intention to make an amendment.

[4:54:12] Can I direct that to you, Councillor Cassidy, please? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would move to amend item seven under whatever sub item it comes under to strike that last part of the line starting with but excluding home internet costs, services or equipment. Do you have a seconder for that? I see Councillor Hopkins, any additional comment on that that would be helpful, failing that we will vote on this.

[4:54:46] Councillor Hopkins, go ahead, please. Councillor Hopkins, you’re on mute, please. Famous three words. You think I get it by now. So on the amendment, I’m happy to second it. I really would like to hear from one of the committee members on the reasons why we are excluding it. But for now, I am very supportive of having internet charges come out of an expense account for a number of reasons.

[4:55:26] First of all, I think each and every one of us as a Councillor has a different ward. And within that ward, we have different ways of working. And we should acknowledge that. And if there is reasons to change, I would want to understand why we’re doing and the reasons and the needs for these changes. And I haven’t heard anything, but the reason I think it’s very important that this be allowed is, first of all, Councillor Cassidy talked about the upgrades.

[4:56:02] I said on AMO, 60 to 70 people. I’m usually on video half the time to save my bandwidth. And regardless if I’m at City Hall or if I’m at home, I think I still would have those challenges. And upgrades are really important for each and every one of us to do our work efficiently and not have that dreaded feeling that you’re going to be kicked out of the meeting. And then added to that, we have boosters and other things that help us be able to do our job on the internet.

[4:56:41] It is very, very valuable. Second reason I am very supportive of this is I was a business owner for about 25, 30 years. And as a business owner, I was able to claim office expenses. I’m not able to do that as a elected official. It, when it comes to internet expenses, I think we all have different situations, different family situations. I know when I came in as a Councillor, I didn’t claim internet expenses.

[4:57:17] And one of the reasons I didn’t do that was because my husband had claimed it himself through sales. So there was no reason for me to do that. And then unfortunately, life happens. And then all of a sudden you lose your income. You go on a pension, you’re forced to do more work at home and you adapt. And it’s a small amount. We just spoke about 44,000 going to mailouts.

[4:57:55] And here we’re speaking up to a small amount that I know most of us don’t even reach the 15,000. And I would like to know from whoever is supporting this, the reasons why we must do this. ‘Cause I’m open to getting it wrong and being okay with if this is the way we wanna move forward as a council. But I would like to hear good reasons why this change is necessary taking into account that each and every one of us has a different situation.

[4:58:32] And we should be respectful and mindful of those situations. Thank you. It’s not incumbent on. I don’t think on anyone to respond if they don’t choose to, but I am going to follow the speakers list that I have. And I have a counselor, Turner next, please. Thanks, Your Worship. That’s a weird one. I don’t know why this would be a targeted for a specific exclusion. If we have vehicle mileage allowances or a flat rate for vehicles, which like this isn’t one I claim, the vehicles isn’t one I claim, but if this clause here would allow me to have a constituency office at a significant higher cost or I could work from home and charge a marginal amount on internet cost by comparison.

[4:59:26] And I’d imagine the constituency office with the internet costs at the office would be covered because it just says excluding home internet costs here. So I think as Councillor Cassidy said, we’re all accountable for our expenses. This isn’t an extravagant expense, changing your tires and things like that. Yeah, that’s one thing. This is a cost that’s directly associated with our ability, especially over the past year and a half to deliver supports to the constituency and to participate in democracy.

[5:00:05] So I’m happy to support the amendment here. Thank you, on the amendment, Councillor Lewis. Yes, on the amendment, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I’m listening, but so far I’m not inclined to support the amendment and for a couple of reasons. First, there actually is an opportunity because we’ve had to do work from home to make a claim for portions of your home utilities. Federally, it’s a complicated formula.

[5:00:40] I will grant you and I see Councillor Hopkins shaking her head and she’s entitled to do that, but home office expenses— So colleagues, I’m gonna ask if I call that out. I’ll call that out. Because what we don’t typically do is presume our response is based on various movements. Now, I will use parliamentary Roberts rules of orders that say we don’t call out a calling for something like that. So Councillor Lewis, carry out please. Well, then I’ll withdraw that, leave it at that. However, I’m also mindful of a debate and Councillor Halmer raised this actually just a few minutes ago.

[5:01:21] If we just need to raise our expense accounts, then raise our expense accounts. If we need to raise our councilor compensation salaries because home internet is a financial burden, then we should just do that and not have a debate every year about whether or not we take the cost of living increase that our council policy says we should be receiving each year too. I don’t claim the home internet cost either. I certainly have claimed and it’s still within the realm of the councilor expense account, however, to purchase infrastructure upgrades for my home internet.

[5:02:04] You can only get so fast a service in many areas and Councilor Hopkins would actually know ‘cause hers is one of the areas of the city that has lower internet speed service and does need some investment by the senior levels of government to increase. And I know that we certainly hear that from colleagues on boards, agencies and commissions who represent rural constituencies as well. There are limits to the bandwidth that can come into your home. There are pieces of hardware that you can buy that can improve your home signals. And those would still be eligible under the council expense.

[5:02:39] This is the monthly internet bill that you would get. And so I think that it’s not unreasonable to think that this is not something that we would be claiming as an expense specifically for our work. We had our home internet before we got here. Certainly make your upgrades if you need to make them to your hardware. But to me, this one’s one that just, I don’t know too many places where people get to claim it. And I would not be supportive of excluding this one.

[5:03:16] But I’m continuing to listen to what people have to say because I think that there have been a couple of very valid points made. So I’ll leave it at that for now and hear what others have to say. Okay, I’ve got two speakers on the list who have already spoken. So I would at least initially hear from anyone else who wishes to comment on this amendment that has not yet, if they feel there’s contribution they can make to the debate. How’s Hopkins? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for allowing me second time around.

[5:03:52] And I do wanna follow up with Councillor Lewis’ comments about being able to get deductions for your home office. And from what I understand, it’s not every year that this has happened. I think last year was because of the pandemic and there was eligibility there. But again, I would like to remind my colleagues that we’re not all in the same situation and some of us aren’t able to do that. I think it’s really important that we look at our expense accounts like we would run our own business. I’m not even near $15,000.

[5:04:27] That amount, if we wanna raise our expense account, let’s have that conversation. But this monthly expense that I have doesn’t even reach the 15,000 that’s allotted to each and every one of us. So I think I would just like to remind colleagues about just being mindful that we’re not all in the same situation. We all have a different family dynamic of how much income we have and what we need to do our jobs.

[5:05:04] And we should have those opportunities available and Councillor Cassidy was bang on which he said, I’m accountable to my constituents. If they see these expenses, that’s up to them to make that judgment and hold me accountable. So thank you, Mr. Mayor for allowing me to speak again. Thanks very much. I have Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question to the chair who might be able to answer this. What does equipment mean in this sentence?

[5:05:40] Let’s go to the chair and get some input for that, please. Go ahead, Chair. Chair can answer with the microphone. So often when you get like an internet package, it not only includes the data, but also the rental of a modem and the components needed to access the internet. So it’s meant to capture those pieces, which are often contained on your internet service provider bill.

[5:06:17] Councillor Cassidy. So does it include a router or not? Councillor, I don’t want to get into interpreting like the expense policy because that’s more of the clerks, but I would say I am aware that multiple service providers have now have built in routers with the equipment. And so pretty much all of the major ones have like Bell Rogers, those sorts of providers, have a combination router and wireless access point. Not everybody does, but some do.

[5:06:50] I don’t know if it would include a router or not, but that would be an interpretation of the expense policy. If it doesn’t, we could be specific about it. Councillor Cassidy. So I’m just hearing from Councillor Lewis that upgrades to hardware would be covered in the expense policy. It doesn’t really make any sense to me why that— Sorry, I apologize, Councillor Cassidy. That would be not hearsay, but if Councillor Lewis really wants to make a contribution to that, he’ll have to raise his hand because it’s not as helpful. No, put your hand down, Councillor Lewis, please. Go ahead, Councillor Cassidy. Okay, it’s just that equipment to me means a router.

[5:07:25] If you use start.ca, which is a London-based company, a router is an extra expense. And I would dispute a couple of comments that people have made that nobody else covers the cost of home internet. That is simply not true. I know of multiple people who work from home and their home internet is covered. Thank you very much. I have Councillor Palosa. I believe you had your hand up. I see it down now, or did you wish to comment? Thank you, Your Worship.

[5:07:57] Was trying to avoid speaking to this as it’s come to committee several times over. The premise was always that Council were provided with an office. We have mobile internet already on our phone. If you’ve taken the tablet, it’s there too. You can hotspot it. That was the premise for this discussion. People saying they had to upgrade ‘cause more people at home are on it. It was the question of should the taxpayers be paying for that as well. Other companies, a lot of other companies don’t allow it.

[5:08:30] If it’s the thing that we financially can’t afford it as Councillors, I think that’s a larger discussion to have in Councillor compensation and pay, which I hope that arm’s length task force will take into consideration that if we’re doing this, recognizing some absolutely do this as a full-time job of either Council and all our agency board and commission work, but if it’s that tight financially to be of service to Londoners, that’s a broader discussion. And that’s the basis of conversation really hasn’t changed. And that’s where it originated from as this motion, I think was actually drafted in the beginning of 2019.

[5:09:07] So it has been a long time coming. And if everyone already has their mindset up, I would encourage everyone just to call the vote and we can move on with certainty. Thank you. Trying to get their Councillor, but let’s hear from Councillor Lewis first. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna just through you address Councillor Cassie’s question. And I will say this was my interpretation at governance working group. And certainly if that’s not how it was interpreted in the policy, I’m open to hearing that. But my interpretation is that, and I have to be very clear here, when I talk about hardware, I’m not talking about something you rent from your ISP every month, that you pay a monthly rental fee on.

[5:09:51] I’m talking about things like mesh towers that you plug into your wall so that your Wi-Fi signal gets repeated through your home. Wi-Fi repeaters, those kind of things that can strengthen or expand your Wi-Fi signal in your home so that you have an adequate signal in your home office or wherever you’re joining a meeting from. That’s quite different from, and I know I’m getting into ITS language now, but that’s quite different from a router that you’re renting or leasing from your ISP. So that was my interpretation, and that’s why I referenced hardware upgrades because there are one-time costs to your expense account.

[5:10:27] They’re not part of a lease or service providing agreement. As we have no other speakers, may we call the vote on the amendment. Let’s do it, Kurt. Closing the vote, the motion is passed, 12 to three.

[5:11:07] Colleagues, any other issues on this item that you wish to deal with, potentially as a amendment? Councillor Hoppe. Yeah, thank you. I’d like to go back to A, we Councillor Halmer has some valid questions and it was good to hear the response that this would be all transparent using the expenses for mail out. So sorry, Councillor Hopkins, I apologize. You’re talking about XII then. So this is on the award-wide mailout per year.

[5:11:46] That’s exactly where it is. Thank you, Paige, through you. Yeah, I’m looking at it. Never motion here, but. Yeah, go ahead, thank you. So I was glad to hear that that amount would be transparent. I think it’s really important, whatever we do spend on behalf of the city that we account for it. And on a quarterly basis is even better. I would like to know through you to maybe the chair, what’s there a conversation about increasing the expense account from 15,000 at the working group?

[5:12:18] Let’s ask the chair. Last the deputy mayor on this. Oh, sorry, I was conferring with the clerk on the other item that Councillor Hopkins was talking about, but I did hear the question. We did not have any sort of extensive debate on expanding the expense account beyond $15,000. We do recognize that a number of the decisions we made take some expenses out of the expense account, which is in effect a slight expansion of it if you used those expenses, but we didn’t have a discussion about expanding the global amount.

[5:12:58] I did want to say on the transparency piece, I conferred with the clerk on, ‘cause we had a discussion about it after the meeting on how this would show up. And much like if you’ve seen the way my FCM expenses are counted for because they’re paid by the central budget, they do show up, they are transparent, everybody can see what I cost the municipality for that, but it doesn’t come from my expense account per se. And this sort of expense would be transparent in the same sort of way. I presume the AMO expenses Councillor Hopkins would be similar, but go ahead, please.

[5:13:31] I was gonna say, yes, all AMO expenses are a second expense account that is open for the public to see. And I would assume that that would apply it to the AMO, well, I guess maybe when we get to that next item, that that would also be accounted for if Councillors use conference fees to go to AMO or FCM, that would be also noted as a separate expense account. I do want to just say, if I may, just so you won’t have to go back to me, I do have a question regarding the permissive wording for community and/or ward events.

[5:14:16] Could you just give us the reference number, please? So I’m looking at 3.1, which is C, and maybe I’ll go back to the other one. I just have a different document in front of me. This is regarding the additional costs of 1,200 to include some potential examples for sponsorship and prizes and rentals. And just wanted to have a better understanding what that all meant.

[5:14:49] Sure, colleagues, just for your reference, it is 4-2-C- 2-C-V-I-I-I. 4-V-I, sorry, V-I. Yes, thank you. So again, please just reconfirm the question and then we’ll make a statement, please. I guess I just want to better understanding what, hold on, the amendment I’m speaking to is 4.2-C-I-I-I. That’s right.

[5:15:21] Which is to add additional permissive wording for community and/or award events, including but not limited to prizes, rental or other sponsorships while maintaining the annual 1,200 maximum value and include some potential examples of these uses. I wonder if I can have a better understanding what expenses would be allowed, especially as it relates to prizes. I know we already do rentals and understanding what sponsorship meant.

[5:15:54] Perhaps I could look to the chair. Yes, so happy to clarify here. So we did not change the global amount, but to your correct counselor, we expanded the permissibility of this section. If for colleagues who recall, there have been a number of colleagues who’ve come before the Corporate Services Committee to ask to support community organizations in different ways. I think if I say the word showmobile, everybody will kind of be triggered by remembering discussions like that. So this was meant to be more permissive to allow for contributions to organizations and events in your award that fall under that sort of banner.

[5:16:34] So it is very much intended to be more permissive. That was in part due to the feedback that we got from the various survey results from colleagues. So I hope that answers your question. Councillor Hockens, back to you. Yeah, is there a conflict? When it comes to prizes, I’m trying to get an understanding what kind of prizes, and is there a conflict with a code of conduct there? I’m just not exactly sure what we’re doing here. So let me add one piece. Let me get the chair to respond. So the Ip being noted that monetary donations and funding is excluded as per another section of the report.

[5:17:16] So this is not intended to be like cash donations or anything like that. It is intended to support organizations who require like a prize or a donation to support their fundraising event in some way or to help make their event more successful. I think that it is fairly permissive. So there’s a variety of options. I’d have to let the clerk respond to any sort of conflict of interest components, but none concerns came up when we discussed at committee. Clerk, can you help with that? I don’t think so.

[5:17:50] There have been examples where counselors have provided to an organization, for example, water bottles, I believe is one of the examples that has been used, not unlike the provision of city of London pins. So it’s that type of contribution to a community group or organization that we’re trying to clarify to be more permissive with without it being a direct donation, which is already covered by municipal granting programs.

[5:18:30] Councillor Hopkins. And these would be city of London items as well. I just wanna make sure I understand that ‘cause I think we already do that, but it’s a bit more permissive from what I’m hearing. Clerk. The intent is to be more permissive and not be restricted solely to city of London items. Councillor. Yeah, and if I may, just make the last comment around 4.2A, which I’m supportive of registration for FCM and AMO as an expense. I think it’s really important education to us.

[5:19:12] And if counselors don’t wanna use that expense account going to another expense account, but I think it’s extremely important, just like my AMO expenses and Deputy Mayor Morgan’s expenses are all transparent for the public to see. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any other comments, excuse me colleagues, any other comments on this before we vote? Then we’ll call the question. The chair, I will just point out that the revised, the motion will, it’s late, the report will have the revision to the draft expense account go forward to council with the amendment that was already passed.

[5:20:09] So we are now talking about the motion as amended. Thank you, more or less, thank you. Does anyone need any extra clarification around? Seeing none, we’ll call that question. Your worship, Councillor Closely will vote, yes, verbally. Thank you. Opposing the vote and the motion is passed, 12 to two.

[5:20:49] Thank you, and I’ll take it back to the Deputy Mayor, please. Yes, and I can put the balance of the report on the floor, which is basically the disclosures and other clauses that don’t have any decision-making associated with them. Could I also add to that as well, Chair, the letter from the president of the Urban League, just to be clear? Yes, of course. Thank you, and do you have a seconder for that, Councillor Van Halst, comments, questions? Let’s call the question. Councillor Closely will vote, yes.

[5:21:31] Thank you, Councillor. Opposing the vote and the motion is passed, 14 to zero.

[5:22:05] Deputy Mayor, what’s the clerk wants to correct me? The governance working group reports, no more corrections. Thank you very much, colleagues, I’ll turn your attention to 4.10, which is the vacancy on the London Public Library due to Councillor Hamou’s election to City Council and no longer eligible to serve on the library board from citizen capacity. And we have received communication from the CEO with respect to this, the vacancy that is there.

[5:22:41] So what I’m looking for is a motion to accept the communication from the library and direct civic administration to initiate a process to fill the vacancy. I see Councillor Fyfe Miller, I see seconded by Councillor Van Halst, comments or questions? And I see none, so with that, please, let’s call the question. Close the vote, yes. Thank you, Councillor.

[5:23:26] Councillor van Merebergen, Councillor van Merebergen. No, yes. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed. 14 with one recuse. No deferred matters nor additional business, just prior to adjourn.

[5:24:03] I know this has been a long meeting. We’ve had a lot that had to be covered off, but before we do, apparently the deputy mayor would like to make a comment. Yes, actually, this is a comment under additional business, Your Worship. Tonight, I presented the governance working group reports and I had indicated that the membership of the governing working group had shrunk due to the vacancies. We’re now down to four. This is a group that is permitted to be whatever size council would like, given the interest in the group, and I wanted to ask the clerk, at what point would it be appropriate if colleagues are interested in serving on the governance working group, and perhaps bolstering our number of four a little bit?

[5:24:47] Would it be appropriate to solicit interest and could you outline the process in case colleagues are interested? Let’s ask the clerk. Thank you, through the chair. Ideally, we would expect that this would come through a committee process, but as the chair of the governance working group has duly noted, this was discussed earlier. So if there were members who were interested in expressing their willingness to sit on the committee now, the committee could make a recommendation to council for enactment. Just bear with me, colleagues, we’re just clarifying just a point of clarification on an item here.

[5:26:58] So sorry, colleagues, there was by virtue of the additional business brought forward by the deputy mayor, I just consulted with the clerk because as you know, or maybe aware, the governance working group can be comprised of as many individuals who would choose to participate. So the question is when does that expression of interest come forward? And that was the point of clarification that I had with the clerk because it is important that for all colleagues and some of them may not be on the call, but all colleagues, if they have an interest that we will solicit an expression of interest and I think make that official as the next council meeting but I will let the clerk explain the process, please.

[5:27:52] Thank you through the chair. I’m just working on drafting a motion that would invite members who may be interested in an appointment to the governance working group to submit a communication for the next council meeting and it could be considered at the time that this strategic priorities and policy committee report is presented. If you can put all that in a motion then we’ll look for a mover in a second and just bear with us, please.

[5:29:35] We’re almost there colleagues. Thank you through the chair. The motion that I have drafted breeds as follows, that members who may be interested in an appointment to the governance working group be invited to submit a communication for the December 7th, 2021 council meeting for consideration, along with the 18th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. Thank you. So with that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Deputy Mayor Morgan, seconded by Councillor Cassidy.

[5:30:08] Thank you. Any discussion? I see none. Call the question. Councillor Palose votes yes. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero.

[5:30:44] Before we adjourn, I think what struck me most about tonight’s committee aside from its depth and length, all important. Were the comments that all of you made with regard to items under the consent agenda and I’m going to come back to the resident satisfaction survey and the progress report and how this comes back to staff and the work that our staff do. I think that’s essential. And I want to say on behalf of council to all of our staff through you, Ms. Livingston, when we look at the satisfaction survey, that doesn’t happen by accident.

[5:31:21] That happens by commitment. And again, from us to all of our staff, our deepest and sincere thanks. And with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. I see Councillor Omou, seconded by Councillor Fife Miller. We thought we would take the two most recent council members to take this meeting out. Let’s do a show of hands, please. Screen is on, all in favor. Councillor Palose, I’m guessing. Yes, that motion’s passed. Thank you, meeting adjourned.