Grimsby Council Information requests questioned, repeatedly

By Mike Williscraft
NewsNow

Many people are searching for the meaning of life…and Grimsby Coun. Dave Sharpe may issue a request for information from Town staff to get an answer.

At Monday’s council meeting, Sharpe launched into a lengthy tangent about requests for information, asking clerk Sarah Kim if an inquiry of any kind could be issued.

The matter arose after Coun. Dorothy Bothwell issued a request for information at the June 7 committee of the whole meeting but did not see any confirmation of that in minutes presented.

The request focused on an email exchange between Mayor Jeff Jordan and the Town’s legal counsel.

Jordan characterized the exchange as informal and not a formal legal opinion which would typically be issued on letterhead and in a formal manner. A legal opinion is disseminated to all of council for their information.

Coun. Kevin Ritchie claimed the email constituted a formal opinion and should have been circulated.

Kim confirmed three information requests had been sent to legal and answers would be forthcoming at the July 5 council meeting.

This led Ritchie to inquire about costs being incurred from such a request, which Kim confirmed are typically internal and regard operations, administration of financial impacts.

“If there is one (a cost) it should be through a motion of council,” said Kim, who added allowing the requests was accepted at the June 7 meeting.

Ritchie alluded to a review of the process and Sharpe later suggested the procedural bylaw be changed again to control how information requests are made and sought a definition of a request.

Kim noted the bylaw does not include a definition.

“So where does the line get drawn? Can I ask ‘what’s the meaning of life?” asked Sharpe.

While Sharpe, Ritchie and Vaine all noted concern with cost for information requests, Vaine noted later he wanted to hear an opinion from a scientific expert regarding the risk of COVID-19 to residents if the town proceeds with erecting free library houses around town
Sharpe went further off topic quoting from the council/staff partnership policy noting council has no capacity to direct staff in their duties.

Kim noted again questions are clarifications, not directing duties, “something we have readily available. It’s just a matter of us coming back later. Anything with an impact should be done through a motion of council.”

Sharpe went further bringing up a legal opinion requested which came with a cost of $11,000.

Sharpe again said requests for information are done without a vote and without a motion or debate.

Kim – who had noted several times any requests with a budget impact such as something going to legal counsel should come with a motion of support from council – said if it is still not clear council may need to consider a definition under the procedural bylaw for information requests.

“Can I make a resolution to amend our procedural bylaw to include some verbiage on information requests?” asked Sharpe.

Jordan said Sharpe could return at a later meeting with a Notice of Motion on the topic.

314 MAIN ST. PUBLIC MEETING PRESERVED

A motion to lift an item for further debate – a directive to have staff host another public meeting regarding development of lands at 314 Main Street East – was defeated Monday.

When councillors Dave Sharpe, John Dunstall, Kevin Ritchie and Randy Vaine raised their hands to vote in favour of lifting the item from the June 7 minutes to get it back on the table for debate, a recorded vote was called.

As clerk Sarah Kim read the roll, after Coun. Dave Kadwell voted against the motion to lift and it was likely the motion would be lost, Sharpe changed his vote registering against the motion he had initially supported.

June 7, council voted to have staff host another public meeting after the lands in the east end were clear cut making way for development.

Director of planning Antonietta Minichillo noted this action was outside the guidelines set by council and the developer could face fines.

AGENDA CONTROL

A majority of Grimsby council was not willing to see its ability to control debate watered down as a motion to require a two-thirds majority to remove items from an agenda was rejected 5-4.

Grimsby had never used an agenda approval mechanism until the procedural bylaw was changed last year.

Vaine accused those, typically in the minority of looking “to subvert the majority” and changing the process to suit their wants.

Jordan said it was important all matters and residents can be heard, after that, council can “vote them down by a simple majority,” he noted.

Dunstall, Vaine, Ritchie, Kadwell and Sharpe rejected the idea.