Open Council

17th Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee - CONTINUATION

Open Council

17th Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee - CONTINUATION

November 20, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:30 AM; it being noted that Councillors S. Stevenson, P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Confirmation of Appointment to the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-10-29 Resolet 4.5-16-SPPC

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Community and Protective Services Committee for the term December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025:

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor S. Trosow

it being noted that Councillor D. Ferreira was appointed as Chair and Councillor H. McAlister as Vice Chair by Mayoral Decision 2024-011;

it being further noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee will be comprised of four members of City Council, effective December 1, 2024 to November 30th, 2025 by Mayoral Decision 2024-012.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.2   Consideration of Appointment to the Court of Revision (Requires 1 New Member)

2024-11-19 Submission - (4.2) Application - M. Hertz-Court of Revision

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Madelyn Hertz BE APPOINTED to the Court of Revision for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.3   London Police Services Board Update - Budget Chair E. Peloza and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis

2024-11-19 Submission - (4.3) LPSB Update Motion

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the communication dated November 1, 2024 from Budget Chair E. Peloza and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis regarding the London Police Board Reserve Fund Balance BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.4   Police Vehicle and Equipment Requirements Motion - Budget Chair E. Peloza

2024-11-19 Submission - (4.4) Police Vehicle and Equipment Requirements-Peloza

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the London Police Services Board and the London Chief of Police BE REQUESTED to engage in a conversation to explore the process, legislation and any related matters pertaining to the possibility of a partial or full donation of a Light Armoured Vehicle for integration into the London Police fleet;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 1, 2024 from Budget Chair E. Peloza with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.5   Community Advisory Committee Motion - Councillor C. Rahman and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis

2024-11-19 Submission - (4.5) CAC Motion-Rahman and Lewis

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the following actions regarding the Community Advisory Committees (CACs):

a)     the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference BE AMENDED to align with the Accessibility, Inclusion, and Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression (ARAO) staff resources and Action Plans, specifically with the Accessibility and Inclusion Advisor;

b)     in consultation with the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Committee on Planning, the Terms of Reference for CACs BE AMENDED to specify a maximum of eleven (11) voting members and to require a youth representative as part of their membership;

c)     in response to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee’s (DIACAC) request, DIACAC’s operations BE PAUSED while a review of its Terms of Reference is undertaken by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression division and the Human Rights division, with a report on findings to be provided to the Manager of Labour Relations by Q3 2025;

d)     the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED effective April 2025, and update the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee’s terms of reference to include: responsibilities related to the welfare of animals in the community;

e)     the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED effective April 2025, and an Ecological Reference Group BE ESTABLISHED by Q2 2025 to provide technical advice on matters related to the City of London’s Official Plan, including the management of natural heritage systems, Environmentally Significant Areas, woodlands, and stream corridors;

f)     the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) BE DISSOLVED effective April 2025, and a Mobility and Transportation Working Group be established by Q3 2025 tasked with providing advice to the Civic Administration on the implementation of the Master Mobility Plan, with representation from residents, the London Transit Commission, and other transportation partners. The working group shall meet at least three times annually, with an annual progress report to be presented to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee (ICSC);

g)     a by-law BE FORWARDED to a future meeting of the Municipal Council to amend the General Policy for Community Advisory Committees to:

i)     align the Policy with the newly structured Council standing committees;

ii)    require that an annual workplan, aligned with the City’s Strategic Plan, be approved by the respective parent standing committee and that the workplan status be provided to the parent standing committee on a quarterly basis;

iii)   align the Policy with the updated Terms of Reference; and

iv)   reflect the removal of the requirement to process applications to CACs through the Striking Committee to align with recent amendments to the Council Procedure By-law;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following with respect to this matter:

  •    a communication dated November 6, 2024 from Councillor C. Rahman and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis;

  •    a communication dated November 15, 2024 from S. Levin, Chair, Ecological Community Advisory Committee;

  •    a communication dated November 18, 2024 from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the communication dated November 6, 2024 with respect to Community Advisory Committees from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor C. Rahman BE REFFERED to the next meeting of the Governance Work Group.

Motion Failed (2 to 12)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion be amended to change the direction to BE REVIEWED in part d), part e), and part f).

Motion Failed (2 to 11)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part d) of the motion be approved and read as follows:

d)     the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED effective April 2025, and update the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee’s terms of reference to include: responsibilities related to the welfare of animals in the community;

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part e) and part f) be approved and read as follows:

e)     the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE DISSOLVED effective April 2025, and an Ecological Reference Group BE ESTABLISHED by Q2 2025 to provide technical advice on matters related to the City of London’s Official Plan, including the management of natural heritage systems, Environmentally Significant Areas, woodlands, and stream corridors;

f)     the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) BE DISSOLVED effective April 2025, and a Mobility and Transportation Working Group be established by Q3 2025 tasked with providing advice to the Civic Administration on the implementation of the Master Mobility Plan, with representation from residents, the London Transit Commission, and other transportation partners. The working group shall meet at least three times annually, with an annual progress report to be presented to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee (ICSC);

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following it being noted part of the motion be approved:

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following with respect to this matter:

  •    a communication dated November 17, 2024 from A. Blosh.

Motion Passed (7 to 6)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the balance of the motion be approved.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the delegation request from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That pursuant to section 35.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee decision with respect to item 4.5 having to do with receiving a communication from M. Blosh BE RECONSIDERED to provide for another vote.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the following it being noted part of the motion be approved:

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following with respect to this matter:

  •    a communication dated November 17, 2024 from A. Blosh.

Motion Failed (4 to 9)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.6   Amendments to the Council Procedure By-law Motion - Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Budget Chair E. Peloza and Councillors S. Lehman and C. Rahman

2024-11-19 Submission - (4.6) Amendment to Council Procedure Motion

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend the Council Procedure By-law as follows:

i)     Communications and Petitions: Clarify that public communications and petitions included in the Agenda must relate to an item listed for that meeting, specifying submission requirements and conditions for inclusion or notation;

ii)     Relevance of Delegations: Ensure that public delegation requests align with items listed on that meeting Agenda, supporting focused and relevant participation;

iii)    Delegation Requests: Develop clear criteria for delegation requests for future standing committee meetings, allowing those submitted by other levels of government, agencies, boards, commissions, professional organizations and professional associations. Refer delegation requests that relate to specific agenda items to a Public Participation Meeting (PPM) where appropriate;

iv)    Standing Committee Service: Clarify that each Councillor shall serve on standing committees in addition to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, ensuring all standing committee positions are filled; and

v)     Efficient Meeting Management: Provide for the option to “Put the Question” at committees where all of Council constitutes the membership;

vi)     the approved 2025 meeting calendar BE AMENDED by rescheduling the November 11th, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to November 12th, and the November 12th, 2025 meeting of the Audit Committee to November 19th;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) receive a communication dated November 8, 2024 from Chair of SPPC, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Budget Chair E. Peloza, Councillors S. Lehman and C. Rahman with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute (LDI) dated November 14, 2024 with respect to requesting delegation.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion be amended to include a new part vi) to read as follows:

That the approved 2025 meeting calendar BE AMENDED by rescheduling the November 11th, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to November 12th, and the November 12th, 2025 meeting of the Audit Committee to November 19th;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part iv) of the motion be approved and read as follows:

iv)    Standing Committee Service: Clarify that each Councillor shall serve on standing committees in addition to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, ensuring all standing committee positions are filled; and

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part v) of the motion be approved and read as follows:

v)     Efficient Meeting Management: Provide for the option to “Put the Question” at committees where all of Council constitutes the membership;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) receive a communication dated November 8, 2024 from Chair of SPPC, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Budget Chair E. Peloza, Councillors S. Lehman and C. Rahman with respect to this matter;

Motion Passed (8 to 5)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part vi), as amended, be approved and read as follows:

vi) that the approved 2025 meeting calendar BE AMENDED by rescheduling the November 11th, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to November 12th, and the November 12th, 2025 meeting of the Audit Committee to November 19th;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the balance of the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 12:15 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 (2 hours, 54 minutes)

[11:58] Okay, good morning, colleagues. I’m going to call the SPPC meeting back to order from our recess. I wanna note that we have Councilor Stevenson, Palosa, and Hillier with us online. This morning, Councillor Lehman has messaged that he is on his way, and that is where we stand. All other members of council are in chambers. We do not have Councilor Ferrera or Councilor Van Nierbergen with us yet.

[12:37] So we are going to resume our agenda. I do want to, before we begin, take just a moment to ask colleagues to please, through the debate, choose your language carefully, and consider whether or not something is a point of privilege. I reviewed last yesterday’s first section of this meeting, and we spent 20 minutes in a two and a half hour debate on points of privilege, which might have been less if, and I’m sharing this from reviewing the video, if we had let a councilor complete a sentence.

[13:26] That may have helped, it may not have, there may still been points of privilege, but I’m just asking colleagues to consider their language in addressing debate. Certainly, we are free to disagree, but if we can choose our words with some consideration for other members of council, and consider whether or not an item is a point of personal privilege, and just pause a moment, it may make our discussions a little more time efficient, rather than adding extra time to our discussions.

[14:01] So with that, we are going to start where we left off. We are in items for direction. We are at item 4.1. This is confirmation of appointments to the Community and Protective Services Committee, as colleagues know, this was forwarded to council with an incomplete committee. Since then, we have had a strong mayor decision issued with respect to the size of the committee, that was shared with colleagues yesterday. So today, we need to ratify the appointments of councilor Pribble, and councilor Trusts out officially to that smaller committee number.

[14:41] So I’m looking to see if there’s a mover and a seconder to do that. Moved by councilor Cuddy, and seconded by councilor Frank. Any discussion before we open the vote? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Also votes yes, laymen votes yes. We set up a new meeting for the 20th, so you just have to make sure that you log into that meeting.

[15:44] Thank you for the valuable information, Pribble votes yes. Councilor Pribble, your microphone. Your microphone. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you colleagues, and as you’ll note from the vote count, Councilor Layman has now joined us in chambers and Councilor Van Mirbergen has joined us online. Our next item is 4.2.

[16:17] This is consideration of appointment to the court of revisions. This requires one new member. You did see in your application package that there was one application for that position. So I’m looking now to see if there’s a motion to appoint that individual or other direction. Councilor Cuddy, moving to appoint. Is there a seconder for that? Councilor Hopkins, thank you. Looking for any discussion. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

[16:48] Does this mean that I would step off this committee? ‘Cause I was filling a vacancy and I’m just wondering if now I leave. We will go to the clerk for that, but I believe that is accurate. It’s through the chair, yes. I believe that’s the case. So we’ll confirm that. Councilor Frank. In that case, I just wanna thank the other committee members. I think we did a great job at the one meeting I went to. And I’d like to thank Ms. Hertz for joining that committee. Thank you for any other discussion. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

[17:39] Council votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Two colleagues, we will move on now to item 4.3. This is the Police Services Board update submitted by Councilor Palosa and myself. And I will go to Councilor Palosa to put this on the floor and speak to it, Councilor. Thank you, happy to move this.

[18:13] I believe you are my seconder. Just briefly, this is for receipts as directed by Council Deputy Mayor Lewis. And I did appear and present before the London Police Services Board in regards to the Police Service Reserve Fund that come out of SWORG. They are receptive to the information, have taken it. They said they’re gonna go back and do their own review as a board. And they will follow up to Council with a formal correspondence when their decision has been made. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Palosa. So this is a motion to receive the communication. And we’ll look for any questions or comments now on that.

[18:48] Starting with Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And very supportive of receiving this communication and really appreciate the work that the Budget Chair has done to date with the Police Service Board. I do wanna just understand by receiving this communication, are we basically not going to be able to have that conversation through the budget process about the armored vehicle?

[19:20] Just wanna have a better understanding about process. Councilor Hopkins, this is not with respect to the armored vehicle. That is the next item on the agenda. This is 4.3. This is the update on the Police Services Reserve Fund. My apologies. Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I just wanna thank the Budget Chair and yourself for having that conversation. It was a motion that came out of SWORG.

[19:53] And I wanna thank the Mayor as well for his conversations with the Police Board and with our consultation around SWORG as well. I think there’s been some valuable contributions to our budget discussion because of those discussions there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Raman. Looking for any other comments, questions? And I see none. So I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[20:42] Okay, moving on item 4.4. This is the submission from Councilor Palosa with respect to the police vehicle and equipment requirements. And Councilor Palosa, I will again go to you to put this on the floor. Thank you. I’m happy to move it. I believe Councilor Layman is my seconder. Just gonna get that verified and then I’ll speak to it. Councilor Layman. Yeah, I’ll talk about Councilor Palosa. You have your seconder, go ahead. Thank you. This is requesting that City Council request the One Police Service Board to have a conversation that explores the potential donation for a light armored vehicle.

[21:25] Realizing that they are arm’s length and we don’t direct them, we can request also that this, it was questioned why it can’t be in the budget discussion because this is requesting them to do something. So we can’t say if there will or will not be budget impacts, which will come back after they have a conversation. I will note that I had reached out to the London Police Board Chair and the Chief of Police. They do know what’s coming. And I will note that in the past, there was a donation to the London Police for a vehicle. And that predates the current police chief and all current police board members.

[22:02] So they would need time themselves to look into if things were done and if their donation procurement policies even allow for this, I will also note that through budget conversations, anything can’t be item specific. So this is strictly direct them to look to see if there could be a partial or full donation from a supplier, recognizing there are multiple suppliers of vehicles, just not our local company. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Palosa. And I did actually yesterday, and sorry, this is the restart of a meeting. So I will go to Councilors in a moment, but I did want to go to Ms. Barbone as well, just to give us a quick comment with respect to the city’s procurement policies and how that impacts or does not impact boards agencies and commissions.

[22:47] Ms. Barbone. Thank you, through the chairs. So just to reiterate, the procurement of goods and services policy is approved by Council and governs all of the procurement done by the City of London. It does not cover the boards and commissions. So if there’s a procurement or some sort of a purchase, that would follow. Each board and commission has their own board policies that are approved. The other thing I would add is that the city has a donation policy also, which would govern donations that were granted to the city in which, over a certain threshold, the Council would need to approve those.

[23:20] So those would be specific to City of London proper, and again, would not be for the other boards and commissions. They would have their own policies that they would need to follow. Thank you, Ms. Barbone. So I will go now to look for questions and comments. Councillor Hopkins, I don’t know if Councillor Palose answered your question or not, but you had started on this, so I’ll go to you first. Thank you again for recognizing me, and I appreciate the chair’s comments as well. Maybe I’ll rephrase the question, then will we be receiving information from the police board? When can we expect that information coming back to us, just because we are going through budget proceedings at the moment and just curious to know when this will be coming back to us?

[24:09] So I will go to Councillor Palose. I don’t think staff can answer that, but I know Councillor Palose has had some discussions with the chief and the board chair. So Councillor Palose, can you offer any insight onto timelines for us? Yeah, I will note that anything through Council, that committee still has to go through our Council for our final approval, and then onto their board, and then onto their agenda for the next meeting. So if you’re looking for timelines, I would say it’s outside budget deliberations. So anything that person want to discuss in regards to immediate changes to the London Police Services budget is in order for Thursday and not contingent upon this, as it will be a while before they have that conversation, and they decide if any action they want, I even have that conversation.

[24:53] If that helps, that this is separate from budget on Thursday. Councillor Hopkins. It does, thank you. Looking for any other questions or comments. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, and I’m speaking now as a Councillor, ‘cause you know, as we all know, we wear different hats on the board as well. I want to thank, first of all, I want to thank Budget Chair Palosa for bringing this forward, and I’m going to be advocating for this at the Police Board, because I believe, and I can’t speak, well, let me do speak for the Police Board members.

[25:38] We’re not immune to the concerns of the community, we will continue to support 100%. The four-year strategy plan for the Chief to make this city safe, and is not getting into his operational issues, ‘cause that’s the purview of the Chief. That being said, we as a board, and myself personally, is job one is to, within that parameters of making this city safe, will be very vigilant in looking for efficiencies, as I hope the other boards and commissions are as well.

[26:17] So for me, this falls under that frame. I hope other boards and commissions will also look outside the box for other ideas that might come forward from Council to look for efficiencies in their operations as well. In regards to the budget concern, that Councillor Hopkins raised, I’d like to remind the Council that the Police is taking other reserve fund, 850,000, to put in their contribution for the upcoming year.

[26:58] And that’s coming other reserve fund, because I think that shows the confidence that we are taking actions internally, again, to find efficiencies of which this vehicle is part of that. It’s not gonna be one big, huge thing, it’s a number of small things that we do within the city, as well, with our staff constantly looking for efficiencies to do things that are with more value to the taxpayer. Well, one final thing, there was a comment made last night that somehow there’s no transparency regarding the budget and reserve funds.

[27:35] And I’d just like to remind Councillors that the budget and reserve fund information is public knowledge. So at any time, that information is available. So for those reasons, I’m seconding the motion. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I may or Morgan next. Yeah, so I’ll add to some of the comments that others have made. First off, I’m supportive of this motion, and I think there’s a couple of ways to pursue this at the board level.

[28:09] One is to seek the possibility of donations, and I think that’s something that many organizations are interested in, and where they’re possible. It has been possible in the past. I’m not sure about whether it be possible now, but I think it’s worthwhile to investigate. But I think this is also echoes, and I’ll speak, I’m speaking as the mayor and a sitting member of council. This also echoes our desire to send signals to all boards and commissions that we’re looking for them to be creative and finding efficiencies across the way that they’re executing their operations.

[28:43] I don’t think we expect anybody to not achieve their operational goals, but we each and every day expect everyone to try to find better, more efficient ways of doing it. So with respect to the police, they’ve done a couple of things recently in the police board. One is provide an allocation back to council of 850,000, which basically takes the reserve fund down to an unallocated balance of about $9,000, when it has an expected target in the five to $8 million range. And the reason why the board has done that is because there is also a direction to our staff to continue to work on finding efficiencies within the organization to make a commitment to participate in the city’s offered service review, training process, of which the police, let them police services will be a participant and a partner in.

[29:36] And my expectation is that all boards and commissions do the same. The other commitment that this council is aware of is that we have on the joint training center, which is both a fire and police center, we’ve made approaches to the province about being a partner within that capital facility for emergency services for the region. This has the potential to service not only the needs of London Fire and London Police Services, but depending on how the facility is ultimately built out, there are other entities within the region and other organizations like the London Airport who could utilize fire training facilities or police training facilities in a way that may warrant a provincial contribution to that, as well as others.

[30:22] And so in partnership with the London Police Services Board and the City of London and this council, our advocacy and engagement with the province also includes the province taking on its share of investment and protective services as well. We’ve seen the province commit in its budget a willingness to fund capital projects, whether it’s helicopters or other things in other cities. There’s no reason why we can’t continue to have a productive conversation with the province on these items as well. And so that includes not just the training center, but I see us as potentially including capital projects like this in those provincial discussions potentially as well, not just so it’s not just donation that we could pursue.

[31:02] It’s also, let’s talk to the province about where they want to partner on assisting the board and meeting its obligation to provide adequate and effective policing and protection within the City of London, of which the province has a key interest and is a partner as well. So I think this is a good motion. I think this aligns with many of the other actions that are being taken by both this council and the board. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, looking for other speakers. Seeing none, I will ask Councilor Rotman to take the chair.

[31:41] I’m just gonna offer a couple of brief comments. Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. Through you, I’m supportive of this motion. I think that there’s always value in looking at other ways to do things with respect to particularly when a board or commission can get something that quite honestly through the city’s procurement and donation policies would be difficult to obtain. I think that this is a good step forward. I’ll just add that this is pretty consistent with the conversation that Budget Chair Plows and I had at the board with respect to their reserve funds.

[32:23] And I will say that I think all boards and commissions are doing this. I know that the Mayor mentioned the service review. I know that LMCH is how to discuss and about participating in that as well. Certainly the information we heard from Mr. Dickens yesterday with respect to the extreme clean program has opened up conversation between life stabilization and LMCH about how that might apply to tenants in LMCH buildings as well. So this sort of ask of the boards to look at different ways to do things I’m happy to do of course should a donation come in with this.

[33:00] I would hope that the board just as they have done with the contingency fund or the reserve fund this year returning it to us. I hope that they would do the same thing in that regard. But I will just add that this and the previous item very positive steps but certainly to echo Councillor Layman has not changed and nothing that I heard last night has changed my support in regard to the chief’s four year plan to operationalize and modernize our police services.

[33:35] So happy to support this. I hope that this is something that other boards and commissions are looking at in terms of their opportunity to bring things in through a different door than asking council for money as well. Sorry returning the chair to you. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, appreciate that. Looking for any other speakers before we call the vote. I see none.

[34:09] So I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Even some votes yes. Bozing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you colleagues. Moving on, our next item is 4.5. This is the motion from Councillor ramen and myself with respect to community advisory committees.

[34:46] We did have a request for delegation status. Delegate is not online. And is not here in chambers. So we will, with respect to that, simply move to receive his communication as part of where we land on this item. So I know Councillor ramen had indicated, ‘cause we also have a communication from Mr. Levin.

[35:19] And in response to that, there was a slight change in a couple pieces of language to what was circulated. So I’ll go to Councillor ramen to put the motion on the floor that she communicated. Thank you and through you. So the motion would be an ascribe for us with some current, some small tweaks to the language. One, with respect to the maximum number of voting members for a community advisory committee to work with those groups to amend that number in the terms of reference.

[35:59] It’s just included as well. And then with respect to the ecological community advisory committee to change the date from Q3 2025 to Q2 2025 as outlined in Mr. Levin’s letter. Thank you for outlining those changes. So those are in ascribe. Sorry, they’re not. The clerk is just gonna make those changes. It’s bear with us for just a moment. Okay, sorry.

[36:37] The clerk says they are now. So that would be a change in B and E, just so that colleagues are aware. So there’s a slight change from what was circulated on the agenda. So that’s been moved by Councillor ramen and seconded by myself. And so we can now look for speakers to the motion. And Councillor ramen, if you’d like to start, go ahead. Thank you. So first I wanted to address volunteers serving on our advisory committees.

[37:11] I wanted to thank those that have served for your commitment to our city. And I just wanted to share a little bit of background on the letter that was provided today. So the letter before each day is from Deputy Mayor Lewis myself. And in the process of preparing this letter, I invited all chairs of advisory committees individually to connect over their terms of reference. I heard from some and what’s in front of you who is based on some of those conversations. As you may know, we were discussing this matter at GWG as well, but it had been referred a number of times with respect to updating our terms of reference.

[37:51] We simply are just up against a clock now with these recommendations. And in order to also provide for delegations, that was part of the reason for this to come to SPPC. So this is just, again, one of the many communications that we’ve received, and it’s related to the report that we received on the terms of reference, which we’ve seen many of these reports come forward about advisory committees, their roles, and their responsibilities. The reason this is before us today, again, is just in terms of timing, looking at the fact that we need to fill advisory committees by April 2025.

[38:33] And as we all know, it takes some time to be able to fill those committees and to get people to take those roles on. So ensuring that the clerk has ample time to advertise and get that underway. Some of the changes that are before us may seem a big departure from what we’ve done in the past. But I also want to point to the fact that we have had multiple advisory committees come to us, DIAC included, and ITAC as well, come to us and ask us for significant changes to their terms of reference, to align with some of the work that is being done, but more specifically to align to the strategic plan.

[39:18] I think what I heard quite clearly from advisory committees I communicated with was that there’s a desire for them to feel included in a process where their advice to us is taken into consideration in a meaningful way and is reflected back in the work we’re doing. And I don’t think that we have landed in a spot where that is happening. In fact, what I see happening is that we’re getting advice on things that, frankly, we didn’t ask for as a council. And so that advice comes to us.

[39:53] And in often times, it’s not something that we’re dealing with. And as you’ll see, there’s further communication here around amendments to our council procedure following this. And it looks at making things more interconnected, the delegations we receive more interconnected to the topics on our agenda. I think this is how we become more focused. I think it’s how we become more in line with some of the other work we’re doing around the strategic plan.

[40:27] I also think that our advisory committee structure, there were almost two versions. There were citizen committees that were very much made up by representation of the community and somewhat of an expert lens committee as well. And so you’ll see some of those more expert lens committees or those that have more maybe knowledge in certain areas coming in as working groups or coming in as advisories in a different way to staff versus coming to council with that advice.

[41:05] And lastly, I just wanted to say that we have a motion at GWG as well around new ways to engage, using strategies like bang the table, looking at best practices derived in places like Winnipeg to strengthen citizen feedback. So when we have advisory committees and we’re not completely utilizing all that knowledge at the table, sometimes it feels like we’re ticking a box, like we’ve got the advice that we need. But I actually want us to broaden and really look at opportunities for more meaningful engagement from the community.

[41:39] And I think that there are ways to do that, but it means that we need to look at new strategies. So I hope this opens up a conversation for us today and I ask for your support. Thank you, Councillor ramen, looking for other speakers. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I know I want to thank you and Councillor ramen for the work that you’ve done having this communication come to us at SBPC.

[42:14] I agree with a lot of what Councillor ramen has just said about that we haven’t landed in the right spot. And I just want to take us back a couple years ago where we addressed the need to change our advisory groups. And we did that. I don’t think the advisory groups themselves are happy where we have landed and we can do a better job. And it was on a working planet, governance working group. I do have a quick question through you, Mr. Chair, just to clerks, because I did hear from Councillor ramen that we are under a clock here to get things done.

[42:56] And I know in the past we need to get our vacancies filled. In the past we have also extended terms for our members. So through you just wanting to ask clerks if that is still a possibility. Let’s go to Ms. Corman on the timelines that the clerks need to meet in order to meet the end of term. In November, 2023, the term was extended to April 1st, 2024. So in order to get the recruitment started, we are going to advertise the first week of January.

[43:39] So we need direction prior to that date. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that. So we have to make a decision before January 1st. Is there a possibility that we can extend the terms of committee members right now? Given that the changes in this communication is April. I can go to the clerk. As she indicated, they’ve been extended once already.

[44:16] Clerk Corman. Yes, through the chair. That would be at the direction of council. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that information. So I think that’s important to know that we do have the ability to extend members on these committees. I have spoken and I really want to apply, Councillor ramen, because there was a lot of work that went into this communication. And I too have followed up with some of the chairs. And I get a sense that we may not be including them, as we did in the past, when we make our changes.

[45:02] And there is an opportunity to do that. So I would like to put an amendment on the floor that the communication dated November the 6th, with respect to the community advisory committees from Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor ramen. Be referred to the next meeting of the governance working group. I understand we just did cancel next week’s governance working group. But I’ll leave it open to that amendment. And I think it’s really important.

[45:38] So Councillor, before you start to speak to rationale, we need a seconder for the referral. Councillor Truss, I was seconded. So now if you’d like to continue. I would also suggest that if this referral is supported, that we do send a notice to the advisory groups as to when this will take place. And I think it sends a strong message that their voices do matter. I don’t have all the information right here.

[46:16] I had a number of questions about how reference groups will be set up. And who’s going to do those terms of references? There’s so many questions that I have here. And I think we do need a wholesome conversation. Our governance working group, that’s where it started. And I think we can have that. And that’s not to say that this will not go forward. But I’d like to have a better understanding as we dissolve advisory groups and blend them into other advisory groups, how that is going to work.

[46:56] We are reducing the members from 15 to 11. So there’s a lot of moving parts here. And it is important that we have more of a full conversation at the governance working group with the information coming back to us from the advisory groups as well. So that is my referral. It’s on the floor. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, looking for speakers to the referral. Councillor Trussau. Before I speak to the merits of the referral, which I’ll be supporting, I want to note that Mr. Samuels is in the room.

[47:41] And he did request a delegation status. And I think it would be appropriate to hear from him at this time. Well, Councillor Trussau, I’m going to rule that out of order because there is now a motion on the floor moved by a member of council. And the motion has to be dealt with before we entertain other directions. Well, the problem I have with that, Mr. Chair, is that his delegation speaks specifically to the motion. And I’m sorry he was delayed in getting here, but I don’t think it should prejudice him to the point of losing his ability to make his request to delegation before this committee.

[48:18] So I would like to ask this committee to indulge Mr. Samuels and allow him to make his presentation because it is germane to what’s on the floor. So Councillor Trussau, there’s a referral on the floor, which takes precedence over everything. Then there is a motion on the floor. I’ve given you my ruling on that. I will add that, well, I appreciate that circumstances may have been out of his control. Mr. Samuels was with us yesterday.

[48:56] He was aware that we were going to resume at 9.30 this morning. And we have a council motion on the floor that has to be dealt with. So that’s my ruling on that, anything that would be any additional actions Council wants to take with the motion that’s on the floor, should the referral fail, would need to be done after the motion on the floor has been dealt with. That would be my ruling as chair. But referral takes absolute precedent over everything else. And that’s what’s on the floor right now.

[49:28] In which case, I’ll use some time to speak in favor of the referral. Historically, these matters concerning the terms of reference and anything else that has to do with advisory committees, since we’ve instituted the governance working group, has gone to governance working group first. And I think the reason why we’re told we can’t go to governance working group is because of a time issue. And I think that’s already been responded to it as well within the ability of this council.

[50:04] If we so choose to extend the terms. So I’m going to speak in favor of the referral, because I think asking that committees be dissolved and folded into other committees is something that needs to be discussed not only at the governance working group, but the individual advisory committees should be given the opportunity to comment on it. And it might be that we get very different responses from different advisory committees on this.

[50:40] And from looking at the added communications, we can see that that is indeed the case. Even though Mr. Samuels is not going to address this before we vote on this, we have received his comments and it’s the same thing. So in light of the fact that this council does have the ability to extend the terms of committee members, I see no reason, no reason why this could not be referred to the governance working group. And I know that there is a desire to make change, but I think that we’re making a big mistake, a big mistake.

[51:22] If we do not include all of the advisory committees in this discussion, we’d be sending a signal that despite the fact that we say we really appreciate volunteers, we’d be sending out quite a contrary signal. We appreciate your service, but without even talking to you, we’re going to dissolve your committee. There are very serious questions that have been raised about whether or not it would make sense from a policy point of view and an efficiency point of view to fold, for example, the animal welfare advisory committee into another committee because of the very, very specific nature of what they deliberate on.

[52:20] And it does not appear as if they have been consulted on this. So I feel very strongly that we should refer this to the governance working group. There is no prejudice whatsoever to any legitimate interest if we do that. And I’ll save the rest of my time, but I’ll defer to my other colleagues to comment on this. Councilor Cuddy, I had seen your hand up. Did you want to speak next? Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’ll be voting against the referral.

[52:55] Councillor ramen made it very clear, very concise, why we need to dissolve these committees, and I’ll be supporting that motion. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on the referral, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. So I understand that not all advisory committees responded to my request, but I did attempt to have a conversation with every single advisory committee. And then when the letter was drafted incorporating the discussions that were had, I did circulate that with the advisory committees in order on the SPPC agenda when it became public so that they knew that this item was coming in an effort to be able to have this conversation here as well.

[53:48] So I understand that this may feel as though there is a need to move quickly on this, but I will say that this was with us, I think, since June or July of 2024, that we received the updates on the terms of reference. And at GWG, we moved to not deal with it and to move it forward to future agendas. And so in the meantime, we’ve also left staff in a position where they’ve provided a report that we have not provided constructive feedback and comment on.

[54:37] And so again, this is from a desire to be able to move some of this work forward. I really do feel like as we were making changes to our standing committees, to be more efficient and to make sure that we were maximizing utilizing time well, that this is just simply a follow-up to that to make our committees more efficient. And two years in, I think we have a pretty good handle on how we’re interacting with the reports we’re receiving from advisory committees.

[55:14] And so that’s something that I reflected on, I hope others will as well. But I also think that the communication that’s provided here, give from advisory committee chairs, gives us an indication of their thoughts on the matter. I personally think that moving this to GWG really won’t change the way that we move forward. And for that reason, I won’t support the referral. Thank you, Councillor ramen, looking for other speakers on the referral. Seeing none, I’m going to go to Councillor Layman to take the chair as its Councillor ramen’s motion on the floor. I have the chair and I’ll recognize the deputy mayor.

[56:00] Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. So through you, I likewise will not be supporting the referral, and I urge colleagues to defeat it. I’m going to speak from a little bit longer experience with this. In terms of reference and restructuring of advisory committees has been on the governance working group agenda for the entire six years that I have been a member of Council. It has actually been the subject of 11 reports from our staff over the last 10 years. Councillor ramen referenced the referral back in June or July of this year, but that in fact was not the first referral back to staff of this term of governance working group. Staff had brought forward amendments and we sent those back as well.

[56:57] I think that the realignment of our standing committees is the time to deal with this. I’m not interested in extending terms again for advisory committees, some of whom have served multiple terms on the advisory committees, notwithstanding the terms of reference that speak to a two-term period of service. So I’m not interested in extending them again. I’m interested in moving forward and making some changes here. It’s very apparent to me personally in my view that governance working group is not able to move this forward. It is what I’m going to say deadlocked in terms of differences of opinion. And so I think it’s today is the day for all of Council to weigh in on this and make some decisions.

[57:48] I do want to thank Councillor ramen who offered and did take the lead on reaching out to the advisory committees. We had some conversations. I know I heard from Mr. Levin. I responded to him. I heard from Mr. Metier on the planning committee responded to him. That was appreciated as well. But for me today is the time to start having this discussion. I’m not interested in putting this off any longer, particularly should we defeat the referral. I’ll speak more on the main motion. But particularly considering the resources that are being consumed here, which are not aligned with providing Council advice, but instead advancing other items that individuals want to bring forward that way when nothing prevents any member of the public from approaching a Council aren’t suggesting that they bring forward an item. We don’t need the advisory committee tools to do that. And like Councillor ramen, I’m more interested in exploring other options like bang the table than I am about spending more time at governance working group.

[58:54] What I’m going to call without the prejudice towards anyone, a deadlocked discussion where the committee is essentially divided in half. And so I think deciding this together as a group today, all 15 of us is the time to do that. Thank you. And I’ll return the chair to you with Councillor Trussell next on the speaker’s list. Thank you. Can you just advise me on my time on that so I can record it in my list? Yes. Three of you is three minutes and 13 seconds.

[59:38] Thank you. And I will go back to Councillor Trussell and I’ll let you know that you’ve used three minutes and 23 seconds on the referral. Well, a representation has been made that members of the advisory committees have been contacted. I’d like to know was the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee or the committee that Brendan Samuels chairs contacted and did you speak with them? I think Councillor ramen has already answered that question. Not directly. Councillor ramen, do you want to respond? Thank you and through you. Yes, we’ll take that cross examination. So yes, I worked with the clerk to contact all chairs of advisory committees, the clerk for advisory committees to contact all advisory committees and let them know that I was working on the terms of reference for advisory committees and would they be willing to engage in a conversation? That was October 25th. I met with four of six. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:00:45] With respect to the chair, with respect to the contention that the governance working group cannot reach a decision on this. I’ve been following the governance working group very carefully and correct me if I’m wrong and this is, I guess, is to the clerk. Has there ever been a motion directly put before the governance working group to dissolve the committees that are mentioned in the letter? Because if it hasn’t been, I don’t see how we can make the claim that we’re deadlocked on this because we haven’t dealt with it. Councillor Trussell, the clerk is asking for clarification on your question with respect to are you asking if a discussion has been had at governance working group or if you’re only interested in the specifics of whether a motion has been put forward?

[1:02:09] Well, I’d like to start with the question of whether or not a motion has been put forward because I don’t see how we can say there’s a deadlock if we haven’t had a motion dealing with what we’re presumably deadlocked on. So yes, has there been a motion to the governance working group in the last year regarding suspending, dissolving, removing any of the advisory committees? Thank you. Through the chair, the last major direction was as Ms. Quarman indicated there was a report that came in, I believe, March. That was deferred several times. I’m not aware of a specific motion relating to the specific wording in the letter before you regarding dissolution of the named committees. Thank you. That’s very helpful. I will reserve my other comments for the discussion on the merits of this. Should the referral fail? Thank you, Councillor Trussell, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I had originally thought I’d support the referral because I want more debate of this, but to be honest, I appreciate the work that Councillor ramen has done in meeting with advisory committee chairs. I don’t know if any of us have the perfect solution to how to deal with this, which is why it stuck around for so long. So I appreciate the work between meetings and having those discussions. I don’t know if this is the perfect solution, but I think given how much time we’ve spent on advisory committees, I’m willing to move forward with these recommendations. And I would love to see some more tweaks as people come up with ideas of, you know, maybe this didn’t work. Maybe we need to bring it back. Maybe that was a terrible idea.

[1:03:57] But I think right now we are doing really anything. And it’s clearly frustrating. Some of members of council is clearly frustrating for members of the advisory committees. So I’d rather try something new and see how it goes. So I’m okay to move forward at this point, although I originally, like I said, thought I’d want to refer it for more debate, but I don’t know what else I would add because I don’t have any brilliant ideas. So I’m at this point not going to support the referral to Councillor Frank looking for other speakers, Councillor Hopkins. Do I have any time left? I just want to wrap it up.

[1:04:36] So you have 55 seconds. I think I can do that in 55 seconds. So I am looking to each and every one of you to support this referral, it will send a strong message to anyone wanting to volunteer on our advisory groups that their voices matter. That’s not to say we can’t improve terms of references. We can’t do a better job, but it will send a strong message to the public that their voices do matter. It’s that simple. Thank you, Councillor. I have no one else on the speakers list.

[1:05:22] So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the referral. Using the vote, the motion fails to 12. Okay, colleagues, we are back to the main motion that is on the floor. I’m going to go to Councillor Frank and then I have Councillor Hopkins.

[1:05:58] Thank you, yes. Not to re-echo the things I just said, but again, I appreciate the work that has been done to move some things along. I don’t think everyone is happy as we can clearly see from some of the communication we’ve received. But again, I’m willing to try something new, you know, change things into task force, put some of the committees together. Again, I think it moves us in a direction where we’re trying to make change and trying to see how different iterations can be done. One thing I did here very clearly last night at the PPM was that people, you know, in general are not necessarily happy with how we engage the general public and public communications and engagements. People feel like they’re unaware of what’s going on here. And I do know that we have a community engagement policy and with the help of some of the clerks, I was able to wrestle up some of the minutes from 2012 about what that looked like and the task force that was struck to deal with that. I know it’s not on the floor right now, but I think having heard what we heard last night at the budget PPM, having read the letters that are attached to this motion from the community, I do think we need to revisit how we’re doing engagement and do a better job of it. So, all to say, I’m going to be working on some sort of motion, I guess, to come test PPC or governance working group regarding our community engagement policy. I know it was reviewed in 2021 last, but I do think that we still are not clearly meeting the needs on how we’re engaging the community. So, again, I don’t think this makes everyone happy, but I think that it moves us forward. And I’m interested. I guess the only question I had through the chair was to staff actually with the DIAC request. I’m wondering if there’s any negative impacts and if that’s one of the advisory committees that is mandatory or if that’s just an optional one. So, I would love to hear staff’s perspective on on pausing that one and the recommendation if possible. So, first, I’m going to go to the clerk on what advisory committees are mandated legislatively, Mr. Schofas. Thank you through the chair. DIACAC is not one of the mandated advisory committees. However, the accessibility advisory committee is pursuant to AODA along with planning. Every municipality is required to have an advisory committee with a planning component. The Heritage aspect under the Heritage Act, that advisory committee, if a municipality has a heritage advisory committee, they’re required to consult with them, but if they do not have one, then that obligation is not there. Those are the mandated committees.

[1:08:45] DIACAC is not one of them. I hope that answers the question through the chair. And with respect to its impact, Ms. Datorsbier, ARAO reports through you. So, whether you or a member of your team want to respond. Through the chair, we are comfortable with the resolution as it’s put forward there. We’ll be working with the clerk to support that. I’m happy to provide any additional information if you require it. Councillor Frank. No further information at this point, if that is staff’s opinion.

[1:09:22] Thank you. Councillor Palose, I just want to let you know that I saw your hand up online, so I’ve got you on the list. And I have Councillor Hopkins first, and then I will come to you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And now that the the main motion is on the floor, I would like to put forward a request to have the delegation request be heard. So, Councillor Hopkins, as I indicated earlier, I’m ruling that out of order because there’s a motion already on the floor. A motion for delegate status typically be dealt with before we put motions on the floor, just as we do at our other standing committees. So, while Mr. Samuel’s can certainly communicate to us in writing ahead of Council, my ruling on, as I indicated, Councillor Truss out earlier, is that the delegate request would be out of order while there’s a motion on the floor. You could move it after this is dealt with, and that would be in order, but that’s the direction as chair that I would provide in terms of a ruling, and I’ll return to you. Thank you for that clarification, because we did have a referral, and you spoke that it would be out of order. I wanted to make sure that we could not do it when the motion now is on the floor, and I will be seeking a request to have the delegation heard after this motion is dealt with.

[1:10:55] Okay, thank you for that. Councillor Palosa, we have you next, and then we have Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question on this one. In regards to some advisory committees being dissolved, and a reference group, the ecological reference group being struck, and the mobility and transportation working group. So a reference group and a working group just looking through you to see what would be the number of members on this, this motion references that community advisory committees have a maximum of 11 voting members looking to see what the composition of membership would be on a reference group and the working group. Certainly, so we can go to, we’re going to have to go to two staff on that, because Mr. Mathers would be the reference table, and then Ms. Chair, similarly with regard to the master mobility plan, working group, similar to the former BRT working group, I think that would fall under, think that would fall under her. So I’m going to go to Mr. Mathers first, and then we’ll see what Ms. Chair has to add to that, Mr. Mathers. Through the Chair, for our various reference groups, it very much depends on the needs of the group at the time and what they’re evaluating, so it may increase or decrease. Some of the groups are actually open to participation from anyone that’s interested, and some are very much defined based on the feedback that we need at the time, so there is some flexibility as far as the sizing of the group. I mean, we would really base that on what is being reviewed by the committee at that point. And Ms. Chair, with respect to a working group on transportation on the master mobility plan. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. We have not actually engaged a working group model previously with respect to the master mobility plan. Generally speaking, we’re looking to connect with a broad range of Londoners, where those can be from institutional industry groups, as well as everybody who is interested in having a conversation about how we move people and goods around our city. We would have to look at the terms of reference would be for that working group, as it’s just drafted. I haven’t had any further conversations to elaborate what that could be. Thank you for that. And Councillor ramen, did you want to comment on that as well as the mover? Thank you, and through you, I think there’s opportunity with staff to come back with recommendations for those numbers, specifically for F.

[1:13:38] Again, it’s something that we’re contemplating as we move into the master mobility plan process. What we heard from ITCAC was that they thought that their group even needed to constitute more community partners, more of those involved in transportation at large. And so there were some recommendations in terms of who they thought should also be at the table. And this was a way to kind of allow for broader voices to be part of a conversation around how we move. So I’ll look to staff to bring that forward as the terms of reference take shape. Councillor Palosa. Thank you. Generally okay with those. So I know the rapid transit implementation working group is just strictly Councillors, during the first term of council as I was vice chair of that, and it dissolved as being moved into other things. Generally supportive of all the attached, just my only concerns would be as with the terms and reference comes back. I just want to make sure that it violates ideally what the membership numbers would be on it, just where we know. And highlighting that the working group with my mobility and transportation working group that I see that notes would be an annual progress report presented to the appropriate standing committee. And just always wanted to make sure that there’s something in the term that they’re always welcome to present and come forward as that is a project that’s wonderful it’s going to help shape the city and would like it to be as well rounded as possible. And just thank you to the deputy mayor and Councillor Roman for your work on this as this has always been an involving conversation to council since 2018 of working groups and how best to have them aligned membership composition where the report to and their terms are referenced. So this is really an organic evolving conversation that we’d always go back and revisit and shape and mold based on the needs of the community and council. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Palosa looking for additional speakers. Oh sorry I had Mayor Morgan next on the list. Mayor Morgan. Thanks. I’ll make a few comments. So one first I’m generally supportive of the recommendations that have been brought forward. But I want to I want to comment on a couple of things because I’ve I think Councillor Hopkins and I are the two I mean aside from the Council by Mayor Vergan who’s been in council before us the two current longest serving continuous Councillors on Council. So we’ve seen this discussion a few times and we’ve also had the broader discussion a couple of times about public engagement in general.

[1:16:19] I think one of my thoughts from sitting through the PPM last night which is one of the forms that we receive feedback from the public is that the level and and I know probably other Councillors sat here thinking what I thought there are many things that I wanted to correct from the comments or made. There were pieces of information that just weren’t factually correct. There was information that just through a little bit of dialogue and provision I think could have answered some questions that people had and there’s a number of assumptions that were that were jumped to with the advisory committees. You know this is another form of public engagement where we rely on those who have the time to actually come and serve on a committee in this way and devote their time and not everybody has the ability to do that that as well. At the end of the day I think modern cities the size of London are struggling with how do we effectively engage with the broad public at a grassroots level in a way that they want to be engaged particularly youth in our communities across the country.

[1:17:20] People are now getting their information from social media. They’re getting their news from their friends. My daughter gets her information from friends on Snapchat and this is not the way that we’re going to inspire you know the next generation to engage and become civically minded in the community by just doing things the way that we’ve always done. So I and I appreciate that Mr. Samuels who my engagement with him are always pleasant and I appreciate his articulate and well thought out and respectful letter that he’s written. I appreciate that he points to the fact that you know when we think about engagement as a whole are we doing this effectively right.

[1:17:58] We’ve got a number of ways that we do it. I think we’ve made some improvements in the past. I think you know I remember the evolution into the get involved.lennon.ca website where we can actually have a portal where people can go to but how do we inspire people to actually want to be driven there because I appreciate the advice from the reference groups and small groups of people who have interest or expertise but I am very interested in the broad-based you know city-wide engagement of people who are just you know living their everyday lives and are utilizing civic services. And when I speak to classrooms of students which I do often you know many of them don’t even realize that they’re engaging with dozens of municipal services each and every day and many of them don’t feel necessarily inspired to give feedback on those services that they’re engaged in every day.

[1:18:47] So as we tweak around with some of our historical structures which again I’m happy to take another step at an attempt at that. I don’t think we can lose our mindsets that we have to find a way. We have to find a way to engage with youth across this city and members of this community who are just you know living their everyday lives engaging with municipal services. How do we get them to give us feedback on their experiences with city services as well. There are other cities who are trying different things in this space. There are cities who are trying to be innovative.

[1:19:22] There are cities who are trying things and they’re not working others are gaining traction in different ways but we have to continue to think about how to be at the forefront of engaging with the public in a world that is dramatically different than even when I gone on council for the first time in the way that we consume and share information. So I’m happy to support this recommendation but I think like Councillor Frank said and like others have said we got to think about public engagement from what a much wider perspective that maybe historically we have through PPM’s advisory committees online portals like how are we going to actually engage on mass and inspire people to be civically minded and share their feedback on really critical government services that they interact with each and every day every time they walk out their front door. So I’ll support the recommendation I look forward to the continued conversation about how we how we do this in a much wider way across the community. Thank you Mayor Morgan looking for other speakers. Councillor Truss out and then Councillor Pribble. So what I think I’m hearing through the chair is we need to improve the work that we do in engaging the public. I fully agree with that because one of the main complaints that I persistently hear and we’re we’re more than halfway through our council term now and we started out with a commitment to being more open right in our strategic plan but to think that the way we’re going to improve civic engagement by abolishing or dissolve whatever word you want to use or folding into other committees are hard working and yes I’ll be at controversial advisory committees is an abomination and I don’t think members of the public are going to appreciate this. Yes let’s improve the get involved site. Yes let’s improve our tables let’s improve a lot of different ways for getting involved and I’m speaking as a former chair of an advisory committee an advisory committee that at the time was very controversial and an advisory committee which was subsequently abolished. I think it’s a mistake I think it’s a mistake to take away one of the historical avenues that people have to engage with the city come down to City Hall or go online and talk to people who while they’re not counselors they’re members of advisory committees we look at the history of people who have served on advisory committees it’s a very proud history many of the people who have served on advisory committees have gone on to serve on council including at least two people sitting at this table right now maybe more I might be missing somebody but this is a historic mistake and I don’t think the public is going to appreciate having this taken away from them. I don’t think people who are concerned about their yards about the environment about wildlife about companion pets are going to appreciate this because when you look at the history of what some of these advisory committees have done and I’m speaking about the two I’m speaking about two who are being dissolved or folded into something else these committees have been very effective in terms of effectuating public policy over the over the years and time and again although some of their ideas have been controversial I’ve been successful in moving forward a better way of dealing with yards a better way of dealing with companion animals a better way of dealing with protecting birds a better way of dealing with a variety of different issues there are a lot of people who have yards who appreciate the work that mr. Samuels committee has done and there are a lot of people who have companion animals and I really I really hope that this council reconsiders this I can see where the vote is going I think this is a mistake of historic proportions and it is not a small issue and I’ll leave it at that answer purple thank you during this term which is as I just as I just found out it’s just over two years I’ve been attending various advisory committees and I have to say the people attending and putting their input their feedback at the committee meetings very valuable I learned a lot from them and I thank them for spending the time during the two years and I really honestly can’t say that any more many of them have not been effective and I’m going to tell you the reason why is we we receive their minutes there from the from their advisory committees and it states we discuss point a but it doesn’t even tell us if they were supporting point a or if they were not so actually the information we were receiving it really wasn’t I can see how it was valuable and I was actually very disappointed because I was at that meeting and there were some really good points and I always say it made me help me see the other side of the coin so my frustration was that I didn’t see these committees they work hard they had very valuable feedbacks but I’m not going to say all the time and there were frequently that I did not it’s not that I always agreed with them but the effectiveness and efficiency efficiency I don’t believe it was there why because it didn’t make it to the horseshoe either standing committee or the council what I see in front of us I see it as a strategic change and I believe that again it’s not that I don’t want to send out a signal that the voice don’t matter no we are looking for something which is going to be more practical less theoretical and let’s receive the input based on this strategy and I think this doesn’t have to be coming out that their voices don’t matter no not at all we are actually we have been listening to them and two fellow councillors they came up with this strategy which I believe will be more proactive and let’s get everyone behind it let’s get the people who were involved in these committees and yes we did listen to you we made the changes we actually want your voices to be heard at the standing committees and at the council and I believe this will give us the opportunity if we take the strategy and if you make the implementation plan correct thank you thank you Councillor Pribble Councillor Hopkins you did have your hand up Councillor Frank has indicated she’d like to speak as well she also has to excuse herself at 11am for an FCM meeting so if you’re okay with letting Councillor Frank go first Councillor Frank thanks yes I don’t have anything else to the debate I just want to let everyone know I have to go chair an FCM meeting so good luck with the rest of the meeting thank you Councillor Frank Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you and I just want to speak to the main motion and you know advisory groups ever since I’ve been on council have been a conversation we’ve never got it right I think the advisory groups have understood that we could always improve but there was a process that was in place to have the conversations the merit sort of reminded me of where we’re being and how we’ve gone through the changes and you know at one time we used to have a youth advisory group even somehow these things have changed and and and we’ve evolved to what we have which is not perfect I agree some of these changes may be for the better but as we speak about advisory groups and the importance and the need to do better when we look at public engagement and how we communicate we are not setting the the example we’re not listening to them it doesn’t matter it’s it’s that simple it’s we undertake just receiving this communication and making these decisions we are sending I think a message out there that is going to create a little bit of a concern in the in the community so I won’t be supporting it I just feel very strongly that we need to do a better job when it comes to communicating public engagement feedback that really does matter and we haven’t got it right and we need to continue that conversation and allow these community groups to be part of that thank you thank you counselor Hopkins before I look for any other speakers communication has come up which is not necessarily directly tied to advisory committees but it has been mentioned a number of times by colleagues around the horseshoe this morning and I did want to go to miss daters beer to be able to provide us some context around our current communications thank you mr chair through you to members of council and so council is considering how it wants to receive advice on its activities and I guess in the support of its governance role and I certainly appreciate the discussion you’re having about your advisory piece I guess from the city’s perspective communication is our responsibility as a city communication piece I’ve heard a lot of feedback this morning about ways to improve it things that we need to do differently we also recognize that each of you as council members the mayor as well have your own communication methods you have your own social media posting you have your own social or feedback in different ways and in communication directly with your your community members as well I did want to share that we do have a significant communications work a piece of work that we do here at the city we have many ways that we use to engage with stakeholders in this community over the next period of time under the direction of our director of communications we are looking at revised engagement policies looking at how we use get involved in other and other activities like that and developing a communication strategic plan as well I share that only for the purpose of you understanding the work that we’re doing on the administrative side to support communications and we’ll be engaging with you and others to get some feedback about it I’m hearing a lot today we want to hear more as well I just wanted to share that as you consider your community advisory discussion thank you miss daters beer council you have one minute left okay I’ll make this really quick I’d like to make a motion to amend this to remove the words dissolve the effective April 25th and replaced with be reviewed to items D E and F remove be dissolved effective April 25th in D E and F and replace with review and I’m looking for a second the clerk is working on getting that in e-scribe we’ll see if there’s a seconder for that answer Hopkins answer trust out did you want to speak further to your motion yes I think that there are a lot of questions that have not been resolved and I think that there is no prejudice to the efficient operation of what the advisory committees are going to look like for this council or the undertaking of civic administration by reviewing by reviewing this so I think that we need to slow this down a little bit and think about it and I think that this I think that this amendment would help us do that so I’d be looking for support for changing this to review look for any speakers see none so I will ask the clerk to been the vote on that oh Councillor Hopkins uh yeah I do have a question uh through you mr chair um are we able to amend a communication this is a communication it’s not a communication it is a motion the communication was the intent to bring forward the motion the motion is on the floor okay so I am happy to um um at least receive this information and or review it I think um we need to do a little bit more uh do diligence here and understand the consequences throughout sometimes some of our decisions so I am seconding this motion. Councillor Truss out the clerk is asking if you can refresh e-scribe and confirm uh if she’s accurately captured the parts I think uh for grammatical purposes it would say effective April 25th would probably be what’s being changed as well would it although does the clerk think keeping April 25th 2025 in there is consistent with uh the language of of my motion or should that also come out the clerk says that depends on what you want Councillor yeah well it can it can stay it can stay in because I think the review can begin before then you use your mic please Councillor B is amended no so it’s not B it’s um D uses the word dissolved E uses the word dissolved and F uses the word dissolved thank you okay so it’s now been changed to say part D E and F Councillor ramen thank you and through you uh so I just want to point colleagues back to item A in this uh in this item here 4.5 um which is a letter from Mr Levin um and in it he states support for moving to a reference group of which he suggested um so if we’re looking to now not dissolve we would be going against the support of the chair of the advisor committee excuse me so I just wanted to point that out I also want to point out that we have a strategic plan and in that strategic plan we outlined um exactly the language in part D which says that we want uh our advice to come in on items related to responsibilities related to the welfare of animals in the community so that was a direct line from our strategic plan on how we’d like advice or how we’d like to uh to incorporate information regarding the animal regarding animal welfare which I think is important because that’s the guiding document that’s supposed to be supporting the work that we’re doing um and again the dissolve is really to incorporate into another advisory committee uh and last the integrated transportation is again this is an opportunity for us to take the advice that the advisory committee provided to GWG and incorporate that advice into strengthening what would be a working group towards the master mobility plan so I’m going to again ask my colleagues to consider what’s in front of us consider the conversations with those groups and uh you know I was asked on the at the outset of what consultation I did I have to ask now what consultation has been done with these committees um with respect to this amendment thank you counselor I’ll ask uh I will give counselor trussow as the mover the chance to respond if he wishes to in terms of what consultation he’s done with the committees on this amendment I certainly have not was not aware that there would be such strong language as dissolve until I read this in the packet okay and I did talk to members of these committees that are just being being dissolved but it’s not my motion it’s not my motion and my sense is this is still up in the air which is why um I am changing the words uh dissolve to review and I stand by that thank you looking for any other speakers I will ask counselor layman to take the chair I will go to the deputy mayor thank you mr presiding officer so uh I’m going to ask colleagues for their support in defeating this amendment I think this is not quite a referral but it’s very close um we’ve already said no to that and I think that when we talk about um be reviewed this is a this is a direction right now to civic administration to undertake the following actions on community advisory committees and then we have a number of these I’m not sure what we’d be asking civic administration to actually review this is a decision matter for council um civic administered not for civic administration and so I I actually think it’s not fair to ask them to review something um that council has to decide whether or not it continues to want um I also echo counselor ramen’s uh concerns I think it was very clear with the ecological community advisory group um mr levin did express his support he asked for a change in the q3 to q2 and and that’s been made in counselor ramen’s motion I don’t see anything else we have to review I’m ready to make a decision uh on this today thank you and I’ll return the chair to you looking for other speakers counselor hopkins yeah I second this motion I do not see it as being the same thing as a referral or next to a referral I think uh when you review something and we you have doubts about uh where these where the direction is going we we do have to do our due diligence part of our job to review things understand what we’re doing so I’m hoping uh we could get support here at this committee to change the word from dissolve to review any other speakers I’ve none so I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote just get clarity this is on the amendment correct yes this is just on the amendment counselor not on the main motion seeing the vote motion fails two to eleven okay colleagues we return to the main motion now and I’m looking for any other speakers so I have none uh so I will once again ask counselor layman’s counselor trust out I will I’m just trying to be thorough here so I’m sorry if I just keep uh doing this but I would like to make a motion to to remove from this um item d because it’s very clear that that committee has not been consulted and I’m sorry that we haven’t heard from uh mr. Samuels but uh I don’t believe his committee was consulted either but I would like to make an amendment to remove item d so counselor the appropriate way to deal with item d uh if you want it removed is to ask for to be called separately and voted on separately and then colleagues can defeat it um trying to amend it to remove is actually not an efficient meeting policy procedure it’s to ask to be for to be called on separately uh in which in which case I would like to ask that items um d yes I will I will do that ask ask item d to be moved uh voted on separately okay I’m going to ask colleagues if they want any other clauses voted on separately since we’ve we’ve started that discussion does anyone want anything other than d voted on separately not seeing any indication for that so I’ll just ask clerk to separate out d counselor hopkins you have a question yeah no since we’re pulling things apart if you could pull e and f ask if we can if we can lump these or if you can e and f be voted on together counselor or do you want each they okay the clerk can prepare that that way we’ll get that ready for us um I have not spoken to the main motion yet so I’m going to ask counselor layman to take the chair and I recognize uh deputy mayor thank you mr presiding officer so I think I’ve said a couple of these points already I’m ready to make a change today on this um I did want to take the opportunity to share um aside from the structure piece um and I have expressed this concern before and I’ll express it again today um I am concerned about the amount of resources uh that are going into these community advisory committees which I think actually would be better spent in other ways of engagement and communication um and I’m going to speak to to one in particular um but I this is because I’ve had an opportunity to get some information from mr mathers in his department on this one uh and so uh I think it’s worth noting with respect to the animal welfare advisory committee that those committees uh have uh the animal welfare coordinator attending all meetings as well as uh either the manager uh mr jeffries or the director of mr katolik attending in 2024 23 hours were spent by just municipal compliant staff attending these meetings it does not include staff time from other departments such as parks waste management the clerks or the time uh devoted by security staff and IT staff in order to manage those meetings um depending on the items on the agenda uh the animal welfare coordinator may have to be preparing metrics and the animal welfare coordinator is also our veterinarian the time spent attending those meetings and preparing those metrics is actually uh an opportunity cost of staff not assisting with surgical procedures um to me that is a concern and particularly when uh when I followed up on these stats um I was told that in 2024 none of the items uh that were dealt with on the agenda were directed by counsel to the advisory committee for advice and so I just want to uh give mr mathers an opportunity to confirm that those statistics uh that I just read out um are correct and provided by his uh department oh go to mr mathers through the presiding officer um yes I can confirm that um there’s also the staff time just in preparing for those meetings because of course we do operations as well so but those those values are correct deputy mayor thank you so that that’s stats on just one committee so multiply that over six more um and let’s start asking ourselves are we actually getting the value of engagement that we are seeking uh from the public at large as we’ve heard uh in some other discussions today through doing that I also need to take a moment because I did hear from London animal care and control um and I want to share this into the public record um this was an email received from them yesterday um and it reads and I’m quoting from the email the comments uh regarding the license revenue uh and they’re speaking with regards to communication on our agenda are not true LACC never retained 100% of the licensing revenue in 1982 the city agreed to a 50 50 revenue split with LACC with LACC guaranteeing a revenue stream to the city of 90 thousand dollars after the 50 50 split by year three of the agreement it goes on to read and and I’m just moving to the next paragraph uh that uh by 1984 the city was receiving its guaranteed 90 thousand dollars and by 2005 the year that the city and LACC agreed that 100% of the revenue would go to the city LACC had grown the licensing program revenue to 705 dollars providing the city with 352 thousand dollars in revenue 30 seconds so I just want to share that LACC is uh disputing some of the comments that were communicated uh in a public letter uh on the agenda uh and so for that reason I’m going to ask uh that the clerk also pull the communication receipt uh from Miss Bloch because I want to vote against receiving that um based on the communication I’ve received from LACC thank you and I’ll return the chair to the deputy mayor thank you counselor layman counselor trussow well this um through the chair this issue of um staff time or the um record of LACC are all things that um are subject to discussion but we’re not part of the motion that came forward and it just it just seems to me that the deeper we get into this discussion the more grounds there are to say like counselor hopkins and I have been saying um we need to uh look at this in some greater detail and the fact that it the fact that one party disputes something that’s in another party’s letter that is grounds to excise the letter now well we’d be doing a lot of excising of a lot of letters if this is the standard that we’re using so I really I really think that is a very dangerous very dangerous um move that will have since serious implications so um the the deeper we get into this the more I’m convinced that this is a very bad way to go and that we need to be giving this more consideration but we can keep going but it’s just going to illustrate it’s just going to illustrate how contentious this entire situation is with respect to these advisory committees thank you counselor and you are at your time I have no other speakers I’m going to ask the clerk to open the votes we will deal with d then we will deal with e and f then we will deal with the communication receipt and then we will deal with the balance of the motion so I’ll ask the clerk first to open the motion uh on clause d which is the dissolution of the animal welfare advisory committee seeing the vote motion carries 11 to 2 now I’ll ask the clerk to open the motion on e and f and this is the dissolution of the ecological community advisory committee and the integrated transportation advisory committee into the uh reference table and working group losing the vote motion carries 11 to 2 now I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the motion with respect to the receipt of the communication dated november 17th from miss blash it’s not a separate motion counselor it is a vote on a clause that was separated out losing the vote motion carries 7 to 6 and the final vote is that the balance of the motion be approved and I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that now so purple counselor truss out losing the vote motion carries 12 to 1 okay counselor hopkins you had indicated you wanted wanted to move a motion uh to hear a delegation so I’m going to go to you now for that yes I would like to move delegation uh the delegation request from brand and samuels and do we have a seconder for that answer ramen so we’ll get the clerk to open the vote on that answer truss out the delegation request closing the vote motion carries 12 to 1 mr samuels welcome uh I know you’ve done this before so I know you know how it goes uh you have five minutes when you’re ready to begin counselor truss out yeah it says nay truss truss out and I think I voted yes on uh mr samuels delegation says nay’s s truss up on my screen you’re looking at the previous vote counselor uh you everyone voted yes on mr samuels delegation except for one that was not you okay and I want I’m sorry as long as I’m the correctest on the seven to six vote I believe I voted in favor of uh receiving this blushes letter yeah I my intention was to vote in favor of it it doesn’t change the um um the outcome but I certainly would have voted in favor of receiving that letter so if you can just change that without doing another vote I’d appreciate it take time if you want that change counselor we do have to do a reconsideration so um can we can we deal with the delegation first and then we can still come back to a reconsideration on that mr samuels for sure I always have to stoop with this microphone it’s a bit awkward up here um thank you for hearing my delegation I apologize for being a few minutes late this morning I had an appointment that could not be moved I had cleared my schedule yesterday anticipating I’d be able to speak but alas it was a different kind of meeting um I’m not going to duplicate what was in my submission I appreciate it was received and acknowledged um I want to just recognize that really we are all on the same side here um we’re all trying to make our city better that’s the motivation I bring to my role as chair of an advisory committee um that’s the attitude that I try to cultivate among my committee membership I want to just speak briefly to the experience of what it’s like to serve on an advisory committee nowadays and what it’s like to actually be up here in the gallery I’m looking at members that are on their phones while I’m talking um it is uncomfortable to sit up here I don’t know if you tried these seats recently I don’t know when the cushions were last filled I deal a lot with um community members on our advisory committees as well as from the general public who show up in one of no things they do not feel represented at the horseshoe in fact they don’t feel comfortable to come and sit here and speak like I’m speaking now they do not feel heard they do not understand enough about what’s going on in their city to be able to contribute meaningfully to a conversation and so when we talk about what consultation is for it has to start from a place of mutual understanding and that understanding only comes for listening and I’m here today because I wanted to be heard I wanted you to listen I listened to what happens at city hall all the time it’s bookmarked on my youtube it’s actually quoted depressing part of my week um you know I’ve dedicated a lot of hours to serving on advisory committees um I really appreciate when we have people like counselor Pribble, counselor Troso, counselor Hopkins, counselor Frank actually come to our meetings and listen to us because we have advice to share we serve counsel at the start of my term as chair I came to civic works committee and I said please use us as a resource as a standing committee but also as individual members of council when you want advice on something in your ward when you want to know more about an issue if you want community perspective please reach out and I appreciate when counselors take that initiative to hear from us I have some concerns about what you just passed as chair of the advisory committee for environmental stewardship in action I’m worried that merging the animal welfare committee with my own is going to lead to exacerbating the issues we’re already experiencing to do with quorum to do with the breadth of our mandate to do with having 11 volunteer members of the community tasked with dealing with these enormous service areas of the city and we will continue to try our best but if the ultimate goal of this exercise is to improve the quality of information that council receives I think this is actually going to set you back um and I don’t mean to discredit the work that counselors ramen and the deputy mayor put into that motion there are in fact many good things in there that I agree with like creating work plans um our committee heard this previously we submitted an annual work plan for the calendar year um I want to also clarify that council ramen did reach out to me and did reach out to other chairs of the advisory committees I cannot speak on behalf of my committee unless we vote that’s been iterated to me by the chair of this committee multiple times I’ve been shut down and told I do not speak on behalf of the committee unless there’s a committee recommendation so to say that the committee was consulted when this did not appear on our agenda when it did not have an opportunity to consult with membership and frankly I’m not even allowed to really contact members of my committee I don’t even have their emails the city clerk has to administer the back and forth between the chairs and the members for me to be able to ask them the basic question like how do you feel about what council ramen is asking um I just want to express that I feel like we have things to share and contribute to making this whole process better and I heard it said before that you know there’s this attitude that advisory committees are setting out to write our own terms of reference absolutely not we serve at the discretion of council we are here to provide advice to council that being said there are sometimes things that come from the community it was said earlier by councilor paloza that these committees serve the needs of council and the community there are things that community brings forward that might not be on your radar yet but are very much linked to your strategic priorities my advisory committee is dedicated in part to the climate emergency action plan that started as an idea from an advisory committee okay um there have been things that my committee has worked on in response to complaints and concerns from committee from community that we brought forward we help them to package into something translatable into policy into emotion and that you guys consider through your process so when I think about the advisory committees and we might disagree you know we do serve at the direction of council but this is part of engagement and that means it’s a relationship it’s a relationship between you between the chairs between the community who shows up at our meetings and I feel like that relationship is not heading in a good direction what I ask you to consider when this comes to council is how what you propose to change here is going to account for the input we have to share there are some ideas I’ve listed in my agenda in my submission there’s about 20 others I have from members of my committee that would make our work in the community easier and those are things that can only be changed through your looking at the council policy and conversations with staff if you want to connect with me offline after this meeting I’d be happy to speak to any of you I won’t be able to speak again at council but you have information for me I want to thank you again for taking the time to listen thank you mr. Samuels I did give you a few extra seconds there because I can tell you we’re wrapping up at the end offering your your ability to be available for communication so thank you for coming today and I do recognize that and and we’ll say appreciate that you stuck around even though the delegation status was not earlier in the meeting before our vote so I do now need just a motion to receive the so first sorry one second okay so we do need now because this was dealt with as as an item after the vote we do need a motion to receive mr. Samuels delegation presentation so we’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Layman so we’ll get that open in just a moment so trust out your mic is on closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 okay colleagues now we have a motion to reconsider the vote on the communication from Ms. Bloch that has been requested by Councillor Trussow can I have a mover and a seconder for that please move by Councillor Hopkins and seconded by Councillor Trussow and we will open the vote on reconsideration to recognize and this only needs a simple majority closing the vote motion carries 12 to 1 so now we can open the vote to receive the communication and again okay we have a colleague that wants to change their vote and wants to explain why yeah so the opportunity for reconsideration I’ve looked at the letter again I voted in favor of it I’m going to vote against this time I didn’t I don’t like the language that says this is a spiteful sneaky underhanded attempt to solve the committee I think the Councillors were pretty transparent and bringing forward a motion to council and I don’t think that this is the type of language that we should expect from a member of an advisory committee so I’m not going to receive this communication after further reflection on it thank you Mayor Morgan just clerk to open the vote sieving her letter yes so if you vote yes you’re voting to receive the letter if you vote no you’re voting not to receive the letter so trust out the clerk needs your mic posing the vote and the motion fails four to nine okay colleagues moving on we have one more item on our agenda the last item is the amendments to council procedure by-law motion this was submitted by myself and other committee chairs we also have a request for delegation status for mr wallis who has now left just gonna check and see if he’s online I do not see him online so again we will as we did with mr Samuels simply add in at the end of the motion that we’ve received the requests for delegation status but that the delegation there’s nothing more to do than that that we received a communication asking for delegation status so on the item that’s on the floor I’m going to look to see if any of my colleagues want to put that on the floor Councillor ramen so that’s moved by Councillor ramen and seconded by Councillor Layman so 4.6 is now on the floor for debate and discussion I will advise already I have heard from Councillor Stevenson who would like part five efficient meeting management provide for the option to put the question at committees where all of council constitutes the membership to be voted on separately just before I go to this speakers list which I don’t have one yet but I’m going to ask Councillor Layman to take the chair for a moment the chair and I recognize deputy mayor thank you so with apologies to colleagues I’m going to ask for your indulgence to consider a part six and this is in consultation with the clerk but it would simply allow for them to bring everything to the appropriate meeting if we approve this at council then it would come to a December 17th council meeting this is with respect to our meeting our 2025 meeting calendar which we have approved that the clerk has to bring back a draft for our final approval but we have approved the constituency week model in that calendar however I do want to move that a part six that the approved 2025 meeting calendar be amended by rescheduling the November 11th 2025 meeting of planning an environment committee to November 12th and the November 12th meeting of the audit committee be rescheduled to November 19th and if I have a seconder for that I will speak to the reason for bringing that forward okay I’ll look for a seconder for that Councillor McAllister seconds I’ll go to your deputy mayor thank you mr presiding officer so this is just coming trying to be proactive for next year that I had some feedback from some folks in the veterans community that they were not happy that a committee meeting a standing committee meeting on Remembrance Day prevented a couple members of council from attending ward level Remembrance Day services that they were hoping to have their council are at their by no means asking us to not have City Hall open on Remembrance Day they are simply asking that we don’t schedule standing committee meetings on that date so that Councillors are able to attend ceremonies so that’s the reason I’m adding this amendment because it is related to the council policy and procedure by-law this would allow the clerk to do by-law any by-law changes approved today in one go rather than having to do it in multiple steps so I’m asking for your support on that amendment okay I’ll look for other speakers on this amendment Councillor McAllister thank you and through the presiding officer appreciate this amendment being brought forward I was one of the Councillors I was impacted by the scheduling I was able to attend the Remembrance ceremony the cenotaph in the morning but I did have a ward event that was scheduled for 2 p.m. and due to caps running long I was unable to attend thank you to the deputy mayor for attending in my absence but I do think it would be respectful that we don’t schedule meetings over potential ward events especially on that day of Remembrance thank you a look for other speakers okay we have a motion moved and seconded oh sorry it didn’t see you right beside me Councillor please go ahead look to the left I guess I was going to bring forward a referral but since we’ve sort of made some changes maybe I would like to get a little bit of clarity from the the four movers here of this request because I was looking forward to having a great conversation and governance working group about efficient meetings it’s really important to me I’ve been around 10 years and I’ve seen the many changes that we’ve made especially also that we’re we’re speaking to an amendment right now so keep your comments sorry about that okay this is just an amendment to change the 2025 calendar for November the 11th changing for planning going to November 12th the odd committee going from the 12th of 13th I believe that clerk is uh nodded consent so I’ll look for any more comments or questions regarding the amendment okay we’ve got a motion moved and seconded so I’ll call a vote just on the amendment voting the vote motion carries 13 to 0 okay I’ll return the chair to the deputy mayor thank you and thank you colleagues for your support on that amendment okay so we would still have to vote on the main motion as amendment amended but that part six is now will be part of that however the the bulk of the motion is still on the floor Councillor Hopkins you wanted to ask about that so I’ll come right to you before I look for any other speakers yeah and I was hoping that the the movers of this will will speak to the reasons why we need to do this in a bylaw right away I would have liked to have put forward a referral but given the changes that we’re making to this I would like to have a better understanding and reasons why we are going to be doing this sufficient meetings to me I was looking forward to that conversation at governance working group I’ve been around a lot a long time and and I’ve seen a number of changes especially the changes that we have made in this council on how we meet and how we’ve changed our standing committee committees and now we just had a conversation around the advisory group so I would like to have a better understanding how this is going to be improving and how this is also going to be improving communication and public engagement as we go forward I have I have a concern here because it starts out that we need to manage committee agendas and the length of our meetings and this is such an appropriate meeting to be having this conversation given that we’ve moved this over to the next day which is the first time that’s ever happened but I I’ve been accused of being part of these creating lengthy meetings and I think we need to have a really good understanding what we are doing wrong and I’m really looking forward to understanding how this is going to improve again I’m disappointed it’s not at the governance working group for that conversation I think we could sort of delve into a better understanding on how we can improve our meetings but for someone that has is taking up a lot of time here I need to be convinced that this is going to make a change in my behavior thank you okay so there were a couple of different parts there counselor and so and you had asked the movers if and I think you meant the signatories of the letter because we have one mover and seconder but there were four signatories on the letter so I will give those members an opportunity to respond if they so wish but I’m first going to go to the clerk so that he can speak to the importance of clarifying on the delegations piece and why the clerks have actually worked with us to to draft this language so if I can go to Mr. Schulfuss for thank you through the chair delegations currently in the council procedure by-law they don’t speak to a linkage to meeting agenda items and for clarity it would be very helpful to have a clear wording which links the delegation request to an item on the agenda if council wishes to not proceed with that direction certainly we can continue as we have however it would be helpful to the clerks when we’re receiving these requests when we’re putting it on the agenda to be able to communicate effectively to submitters as well as to keep our agendas tight to the topics that are put on the agenda relevant to the committee and I will look now Councillor ramen Councillor Layman Councillor Palosa I’ll give any one of you an opportunity from the perspective of signatories if you’d like to offer a comment Councillor Layman sure this is not directed at all to any members of council this is just to provide clear a clear outline to those communicating with us whether it’s delegations or communications petitions and quite frankly I think that helps those folks that are communicating with council or with committees because as was mentioned for the average person out there who’s not used to the workings of municipal government it can be a little daunting and I think providing some sort of structure and focus to their communications will help them deliver their message in the most effective manner quite frankly that allows me as a councilor or as a chair to hear what they have to say because sometimes that that can get muddled and in something that is not focused so that’s the position I am I think it’s relating to number one and number two for sure not not any particular councilor here we know we all know how to communicate so that’s that’s where I’m coming up. Councillor ramen or Palosa did you want to respond to Councillor Hopkins question as well seeing a no from Councillor ramen Councillor Palosa did you want to comment?

[2:21:37] Yeah thank you for the question just as a committee chair of various committees just looking for those efficiencies and clarity a process and procedure for the public sometimes they’ll come in and ask for delegation staffs on our agenda but there’s nothing on it and I know some council members I would say all of us are really happy when the public shows up and wants to hear from them but if there’s nothing on the agenda it’s creates more confusion than not of is that report coming to that report already come is there a more appropriate time to hear them and then it’s the question of well maybe we hear them today and then at a future ppm or so just making sure that the processes are there as for members of council serving on standing committees in addition to SPPC I think that one speaks for itself and sometimes the question of council procedurally we can put the question but currently per our procedural by-law that does not exist at committee also at committee conversations go for more than the five minutes speaking allotment and allowing for guest counselors and standing committee members those conversations can become drawn out and not necessarily germane to the conversation at hand so just looking to see if that would help efficiencies at those committee meetings thank you thank you councilor palosa uh since the question was directed to those who signed the letter um I’m not going to go to any of those to chair mayor morgan can I ask you to take the chair just so that I can provide my response please yes I will take the chair and I’ll go to the deputy mayor for the response thank you so I I would say I don’t think that this precludes uh ongoing discussion at governance working group around other ideas for efficient meetings I think that that can continue to happen for me I think that these five clauses here um notwithstanding the sixth one that we added um you know the power the option to put to question um we’ve heard that raised at committee many times before I don’t think that that needs a lengthy discussion I think that’s just an up and down vote for us I think we can decide that today um in part four um the standing committee service we’ve encountered this twice now in the time I’ve been on council um I would just like us to to fix that so that um we are not uh treating sppc as the only committee that counselors would serve on um and with respect to the the delegation requests so there are actually a couple of pieces as I’ve been going through our council policy and procedure bylaw with our clerks um that are sort of floating out there unattached um in terms of uh so we have uh for example when we change a bylaw there’s a mandatory ppm but the draft bylaw comes forward and uh we get delegation requests on the draft bylaw and then we have a ppm and we have the same delegations happening and there’s a couple clauses in there that speak to um only new information should be spoken to if if that happens that hasn’t been uh linked properly and so it’s a bit of a housekeeping thing from uh the clerk’s perspective in terms of how those get linked so that delegations are are heard at the appropriate meeting um whether that’s a legislative ppm or whether it’s a standalone matter and to the the linkage to an agenda item because I think that it’s quite appropriate that if if something’s not on the agenda and uh a member of the public or a community organization wants to put something on the agenda I think that the appropriate person um way to do that is to connect with a member of council who will add a communication as an added um that delegation request can then be uh attached to but right now it’s just floating out there with no way to actually link it to the agenda item this would provide the clerks the opportunity to update the bylaw so that it can be linked to an agenda item so that’s the reason why I don’t think these are are particularly complex or really change a whole lot of what we do and I don’t think it precludes in my opinion uh as the chair of governance working group that it would preclude us from having ongoing discussions there about how we can do more efficient meetings Councillor Hopkins you were asking a question there go ahead uh yeah I really appreciate uh the comments and knowing where this is coming from and uh thank all uh the movers on this uh for the work that they’ve done um I’m really pleased to hear that we will be continuing uh the conversation around how we can have efficient meetings uh governance working group so thank you for mentioning that all right I’m going to hand the chair back uh to deputy mayor I had put myself on the list will I had the chance okay well the bad news for you is you’re not next Councillor Stevenson is next and then I will have you on the list after Councillor Stevenson so Councillor Stevenson you are next if you’d like to go ahead thank you thank you for recognizing me um I’m happy to support all of these but number five um number four although uh I find myself in the position of not being on a standing committee this year uh and only being on audit um I’m assuming that is a very unique situation that won’t happen again so I’m happy to support for for five I have a really big issue with this one I have had colleagues put the question at council on an amendment that I’ve moved um and not even had a chance to spoke into to even though I declared at the beginning that I wanted to speak last and so council is one thing but to do it at a committee of the whole where we’re supposed to be a working group this is the time to to discuss and to debate we’ve already limited talk to five minutes so fellow councillors get a chance to you know say whether or not a colleague gets to get uh is able to have an extra five minutes so we already have that to put the question at committee means that we would potentially be depriving a ward representative of voicing their uh on behalf of their elected i’m having trouble speaking here but councillors are elected by the people in their ward and I don’t understand under what circumstance we would deny that elected representative an opportunity to speak for their five minutes at a working standing committee to say yes to this is to give colleagues the option to deny the people in that ward their voice so I have a really big issue with that I also wonder I’ve heard a lot of comments in the last year particularly about efficient meeting but do we mean efficient meeting or do we mean short meetings because we have uh some very serious things going on and again we already have the five-minute limit each in terms of when we’re allowed to speak and if we’re not willing to give each one of us five minutes to speak on issues that they believe are important at every single committee meeting then I think we need to question what what why are we rushing why do we think that meetings need to be short if there are serious issues to discuss so um I like short meetings too and if colleagues or myself feel that there’s things worthy of working at that’s what we were elected to do and so um I I’m as much as I sometimes dislike it at council I’m not looking to change the rule at council but please let’s say no to number five and and ensure that every single ward in this city their representative gets five minutes at a standing committee thank you thank you Councillor Stevenson looking for other speakers on this oh yep right I had Mayor Morgan next as he indicated well I could chair I forgot um so I’ll speak briefly I I want to say I appreciate Councillors wanting to bring forward changes to the procedure by-law and and over my time on council I’ve become known for knowing the procedure by-law really well and and doing my best to adhere from it I would say having chaired the number of meetings that I’ve had now I would emphasize that although I can support the changes before us procedure by-law is a tool it’s a tool that chairs and councils have to try to get through the meeting under a relatively fair understanding of the rules in which we would engage with each other but following the rules to the t each and every time is not the goal of the meeting the goal of the meeting is to have the dialogue and make the decisions that we need to make and represent the community in the way that we do and so although I think we can continue to make adjustments to the procedure by-law there are things that each and every one of us can do that can make meetings efficient it can make meetings I know this will sound odd but enjoyable um to walk into the chambers and represent your ward and share ideas and engage thoughtful with each other and although we have a bunch of rules of decorum that we can follow and a bunch of procedures that chairs can rely on and and councillors can rely on to to move the meeting along at the end of the day how the meeting feels is going to be up to how each and every one of us show up in this room so if we show up with an attitude where we’re going to poke our colleagues or we’re going to use language that we know is probably going to set someone off and we’re going to get into you know orders of personal privilege and procedure if we’re going to leave this chamber having lost a vote and I will say I’ve lost dozens and dozens and dozens of votes that chamber some on things that I care about quite a bit but if you’re going to leave this chamber with hard feelings or taking things personally it is no amount of procedural changes are going to make this an enjoyable experience or feel like a good experience or feel like a meeting that you want to show up to the next time so I think with some changes the procedure bylaw you know and at the midpoint in this term we can all take the opportunity to maybe step back and reset our expectations come to the meetings looking forward to engage with colleagues bring you know a respectful attitude and perspective to the debate engage in the debate thoughtfully and if you can find a way do not take the loss of a vote personally do not take someone opposing your opinion personally if you can I know it’s very difficult I’ve done it many times I’m Councillor Squire and I have walked out of this room furious with each other and then found the opportunity to find each other in the hallways and like say let’s just leave it in the room it will be a much more enjoyable next two years of the term if people can find a pathway to do that that being said the rules or procedures are tools that we have at our disposal that the chairs can use but I think how a meeting feels in his run goes well beyond that and I would encourage colleagues at the midpoint of the term to reflect on how maybe we can all approach future meetings in a different way with our perspectives the way we approach discussions and what we want to leave in this room when we walk out of it so thanks for that answer trust out yes let me start by saying that putting aside items for which I sort of think is already our rule but it just needs to be clarified that that’s our rule and six which is something I’d like to see voted on separately because I think that goes without saying I really have some concerns about the rest of them once again I believe that these would be better have been would have been better to discuss these at the governance working group once again I believe that we’re undercutting the role of the governance working group and communications petitions delegations well with respect to delegations the council always has the discretion as to whether or not to accept a delegation so if we don’t think a delegation is germane irrelevant for an appropriate use of time we do not have to accept it so I just I just don’t think the um part b is it all helpful because we already have the am I am I out of order or something okay um I just I just feel that um we already have the ability to um not take delegations and we can apply that pretty strictly don’t be late I mean we we can apply that very strictly um a communications and petitions when do members of the public get to send a communication or petition to this council do we really need to restrict that has it been a problem do we receive so many communications and petitions that are a burden that we have to change our rules to say you can’t do that and yes you could go through a council member but what about allowing members of the public our residents our citizens our taxpayers to address this council directly do we really want to take that away I don’t think we do that seems to be the direction we’re going in um efficient meeting management that word efficient is really loaded I get very frustrated with certain members of this council at some at some points but they should have their say and if their five minutes are up we don’t have to grant them additional time again that’s discretionary with members of this council I have to agree with that Councillor Stevenson on this one I think the um put the question can be used by the majority to stifle the voices of the minority and I’m very very concerned about that I see this I see this council today going in a direction that has me very very worried so as much as I would like to um as much as I would like to support four and six I I I guess I’ll ask for those two to be voted on separately because I I think that that’s I think that’s far but I can’t support the rest of it because I already think we have some safeguards in place to uh to make sure that we don’t abuse those things I guess I should ask the clerk is receiving communications and petitions uh a burden it needs to be um addressed we will go to the city clerk thank you through the chair I suppose uh burden is subjective but I’ll do my best to answer the councillor’s question it depends on the item that is before the the committee or council that determines the level of communication that is submitted to the clerk’s office as members of council will recall we have had uh we being the municipality have had some some very contentious issues in which hundreds of pieces of communication were submitted uh as a general matter uh for non contentious items uh no we do not receive a lot of communications however um if council directs that we were to if we were to include all communications regardless if they are connected to an agenda um I suspect that that would change the uh the page count and uh the information that is going to councillors uh with each agenda and the items before committee and council uh would become uh lost within uh a very large number of communications however if that is the direction that council wishes to go we’re in your hands so um thank you through the chair I’m not I’m not hearing that it’s been a problem and I I think the clerks are able to deal with this situation without further direction from council so I’ll certainly be voting against this motion save uh four four and six um I suspect we can get into a long discussion about whether they should be sent to the governance working group um I suspect that motion would lose I think it should be but I’ll spare everybody that exercise in the interest of a efficient meeting because um it’s going to be noon soon but I really think that this council is going in some directions that that are are directly contrary to our goal in the strategic plan to um be a well-run city and to engage engage our um constituents so I’ll leave I’ll leave it at that I I’ll be voting uh in favor of um four and six once that’s pulled out I’ll be voting against everything else and um I guess I have to raise the question why do we have a governance working group and I’ll leave it at that being for any other speakers seeing none uh I will ask uh the clerk I will ask the clerk to call four and six separately councilor trussow that’s not a problem um we will call each one separately because the clerk’s already been pulling them out so we’ll do two votes and then we’ll vote on the balance um and I will uh briefly ask uh Mayor Morgan to take the chair I just want to provide one last thought on part a okay I’ll turn it to the deputy mayor to make a final comment uh thank you and with respect to communications and petitions um uh I do want to share my view in that uh the agenda uh that comes before council for a standing committee meeting for a council meeting uh is based on the items that council itself has determined it will be dealing with through sometimes updates through and reports through civic administration sometimes through items that we have put on the agenda ourselves um but I think it’s very consistent uh with uh how the other two levels of government operate as well um you don’t put an item on the agenda at the house of commons or at uh queen’s park um by submitting a petition without a member of the legislature or parliament sponsoring that that petition to come forward for uh the legislative bodies direction and I think being consistent ourselves with that same piece um I don’t think communications and petitions uh represent the end all be all of engagement we’ve talked earlier today about things like get involved and bang the table and people’s ability to send individual emails and all of those things uh I think that there’s lots of ways that can do that and I don’t and I don’t think that anything in this precludes a counselor from receiving a petition and deciding to put an item on the added agenda uh or the regular agenda to say we I want to put this on the agenda for discussion but I do think uh that it needs to come through uh that process of an elected member bringing it forward okay I’ll return the chair to the deputy mayor I don’t have anybody who to add the spheres list thank you for chairing that piece your worship and I believe the clerk has votes ready so unless there are other speakers we’re gonna start and we’ll start with four which is the standing committees clarifying that standing committees are not uh in addition sorry in addition to SPPC um which is not clear in our current council policy and procedure by-law then we’ll deal with part six which is the remembrance day change to the calendar then we’ll deal with the balance of uh the report council roman uh thank you and through you and just on part four I just wanted to remind uh my colleagues that we made some changes to the counselor role description and in it we actually did stipulate this exactly where we said that uh counselors would serve on standing committees of council with an expectation that you’re ready willing and able to serve on each of these committees during your term and then separate bullets serve on strategic priorities and planning committee of the whole or sorry policy committee of the whole and attend both committee and council meetings so I see this as alignment and uh I think it’s important that we do that thank you and counselor stevenson I saw your hand go up as well yes you were going to allow me to vote separately on five as well yes that sorry I didn’t say that but the clerk has that set up and he’s scribed that way so we will begin and we’re just going to go in numerical order here so we will ask the clerk to open the vote on part four first this is standing committee service using the vote motion carries 13 to 0 thank you colleagues will now open the vote on part five that is the uh clause on put the question at committees of where all of council constitutes the membership closing the vote motion carries eight to five we will open the vote on part six uh that’s with respect to no standing committee meetings on remembrance day closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 and then our final vote on this matter would be that the balance of the motion as amended be approved closing the vote motion carries 11 to 2 okay colleagues that includes our items for direction uh section of our agenda uh uh under deferred matters additional business counselor stevenson we don’t really have inquiries at committee but this does it does relate to a deferred matter uh so you had a question that you wanted to ask and I’m just going to go to you to ask that question thank you yes I was just looking for an update on the code of conduct review that was passed at SPPC on May 7th and we’ll go to the clerk on that thank you through the chair yes after that meeting we began working on that immediately we spoke with the integrity commissioner we’ve been working with legal services in the interim however we became aware that the minister of municipal affairs and housing in response to some recommendations was working on a standardized code of conduct I don’t know exactly when that is uh going to be uh prepared or ready um and perhaps the mayor has some additional context for that um but that is uh that’s the reason we’ve not brought something back to SPPC I can speak to Mayor Morgan of course thanks for recognizing me I can speak to um uh what I know of the provinces process for uh common code of conduct as colleagues will recall from a previous term of council um there was a widespread call by AMO to uh to ask for updates to the ways that uh counselors can be held to account and the parameters around the operations of the ombudsman integrity commissioners codes of conduct that was a common AMO position what ended up happening with that was is the premier um ended up asking um there I believe their integrity commissioner uh to bring forward a series of recommendations based on the feedback that had been given by a number of municipalities as well as other organizations the commissioner provided that feedback to the premier in a report that I think is a public report on September 30th um within that structure the premier had indicated that then they would work towards bringing forward um uh those recommendations in some form through government legislation uh some of the recommendations include that that the ministry should create a single standardized code of conduct for all municipalities so in other words any work that we would do on updating our code of conduct would likely be overridden by the bringing forward of a common standard code of conduct across the province that the government is is now actively uh considering and bringing forward in legislation there are a number of other um recommendations within um that report that the uh the provincial integrity commissioner had including that integrity commissioner should maintain a central database of all inquiries um the ministry should maintain a registry of all the integrity commissioners because they’re they’re hired individually by municipalities um there’s uh considerations for the establishment of a singular province wide annual reports on this standard processes for integrity commissioners investigations so that it’s not up to each of the integrity commissioners in the way that they do that but essentially a standardized process and and my understanding of the reasons for this is that if the government is going to consider uh higher levels or higher thresholds for punitive measures within code of conduct infractions um if that’s going to include any sort of judicial process or even come close to uh the process of of removing a counselor from uh from office as you’ve seen and in other provinces move in that direction that it’s likely to be a judicial process that is going to require a standardized base set of criteria that that municipal counselors would be held to account across the province otherwise it would be a very difficult thing to to be enforceable um if they went with higher punitive measures which i don’t know if that’s what they’re actually doing or not but all this to say um it’s expected that the government will bring forward uh pieces of this i’m not sure if it’ll be all of the integrity commissioners recommendation but the part that probably will come forward is the idea of a standardized code of conduct for all municipalities which would which would essentially create uh create challenges for any sort of code of conduct changes we made because we’d be likely automatically required to standardize or or our code of conduct would be deemed um not in fact anymore and and the provincial wide one would be the basis of of reviews from that point forward so that’s what i know it’s not all of the information but i hope that’s helpful to the counselor’s question uh counselor Stevenson thank you well with all due respect um there i had a very serious issue with the code of conduct complaint last December i raised that to my colleagues uh in council it was recommended that i had other paths to take which would be a judicial review or the ombudsman i came forward with the judicial review council was not even willing to discuss it that in that code of conduct complaint from last December is currently being investigated by the ontario ombudsman i filed it in june and they are still working on it i have had six code of conduct complaints since and although most of them have been dismissed and uh including the one uh the ones where people go public uh like the women’s agencies um those have all been dismissed but it has been a very difficult process very inconsistent and the reason that i brought it forward and the reason that i asked council to support the review of the protocol was to um protect counselors from a process that is unfair and so we have a process the integrity commissioner said it’s not workable they’re not using it or they use it inconsistently so if council isn’t going to take that into consideration when the integrity commissioner brings forward reports then it was only reasonable for me to say let’s get clear on the protocol so that a counselor a duly elected counselor has some awareness of what the methodology is going to be when complaints are submitted so uh you know that may 7th sppc it was approved at the at the next council meeting and what was said at the sppc was that an aggressive timeline would be sought and it would be about two two cycles it’s been eight cycles and when i ask now i’m being told well we’re going to basically not going to do it and i think again i’m confused as to how that doesn’t come forward to council for our decision because i am a counselor that is continuing to uh have to deal with this and my the residents in my ward are being less served because i am having to spend so much time trying to follow a protocol that is not always being followed by the integrity commissioner so i’m really i’m honestly i’m very confused by this and why no one has come to talk to me to address the concerns i am a female woman in politics and i have been under attack and no one in civic administration and has like there’s been nothing to address my concerns i’ve gone through the proper procedure to have it recognized by council and it was a direction of council to civic administration and i’m going to take the rest of this conversation offline but this is very concerning to me that i everyone knows it’s been very public the attacks that i have been under and i have asked for the decency of knowing what the policies are and what i can expect from the integrity commissioner and from council as to how to address the attacks on me so i’m going to follow up with this offline but i find this to be incredibly disrespectful to me and to the residents that i serve hey thank you counselor Stevenson and i’ll recognize that as that was an update to something on the deferred matters list that you’re taking that offline and and maybe bringing forward some direction uh at a few at council or at a future meeting uh based on what you’ve heard um so we’ll uh my understanding is there my understanding is there no deferred item list for sppc which is another huge issue for me so i’ll be addressing that as well okay thank you uh we have no items for confidential session we therefore just need a motion to adjourn moved by counselor cuddy and seconded by counselor mccallister and we can do this one by hand all in favor motion carries thank you colleagues have a good rest of your day