Procedure bylaw moves forward after clash

Crowsnest Pass council gave first reading to a rewritten procedure bylaw March 10, but only after a prolonged debate over how the document had been drafted and whether it went beyond what council originally asked administration to do.

The proposed bylaw was previously deferred and returned to council for further discussion. Much of the debate centred on whether it was a straightforward amendment or a broader rewrite.

Councillor Doreen Johnson apologized for procedural confusion that contributed to the bylaw returning to council but said she could not support it in its current form without a more thorough review.

She argued the original direction from council had been to amend the bylaw, not repeal and replace it outright.

“What is on the table in front of us is a full repeal, which does not match the direction that this council gave to administration,” Johnson said.

She also objected to the lack of a red lined comparison copy showing what had changed, arguing council should be able to track revisions clearly and preserve bylaw history.

Johnson said she spent hours doing her own line by line review and raised concern with one clause in particular, a proposed restriction that would prevent the same person, group or organization, or the same topic, from returning as a delegation within six months unless the CAO believed there was a compelling reason.

She said the clause was too restrictive, poorly worded and contrary to council’s stated intention of improving transparency and loosening restrictions on public input.

“If a person comes in and talks about the food bank as a delegation and then a month later wants to come in and talk as a delegation from the ski hill, that person would not be allowed to because it’s the same person,” she said.

CAO Patrick Thomas told council the rewritten version incorporated prior changes, cleaned up multiple amendments made over time and also included additional recommendations from legal counsel on best practices.

He said the delegation restriction had been flagged as one such recommendation and did not have to remain in the bylaw if council did not want it.

“[It] can just be deleted,” Thomas said.

Thomas also defended the decision not to provide a red lined version, saying substantial rewrites can become more confusing than helpful when every page is covered in tracked changes.

Still, Johnson said the rewrite included issues never debated by council and argued time and legal expense had already gone too far.

“There has already been far too much money spent on this in my opinion,” she said.

Rather than kill the bylaw at first reading, Johnson ultimately shifted position and argued council should pass it through first reading so the document could move to a full item by item debate at second reading.

Councillor Dean Ward backed that approach.

“I like the idea of let’s just pass first and then go through it step by step,” he said.

Councillor Tony Vastenhout said the scale of the rewrite suggested council may need to start over, while Johnson countered that first reading was the quickest way to get the matter into a more detailed public review without further spinning time and legal costs.

The bylaw passed first reading and will return  at a later for that more detailed discussion.