[Update – Final debate on “Prioritization Framework for Planning Policy and Processing Applications” was punted to Council May 30. ABC council member statements could be portrayed as being in favour of reducing public access and democracy, while opposition councillors took the opposite stance. The meeting still has unfinished business (Council member motions).]
Agendas are online for Vancouver City Council this week. Regular Council on May 9, 2023. Many major items are on it, including a report by planning staff overwhelmed with developer inquiries and applications, “Prioritization Framework for Planning Policy and Processing Applications.” The same day, Tuesday, May 9, the Public Hearing has seven items, some major, including an application for a 60-storey tower at 1040-1080 Barclay Street in the West End, seeking an increase for Bosa-Kingswood Properties (Barclay) Inc for a immodest increase in density from 2.75 up to 25.0 FSR. On Wednesday, May 10, Council Standing Committee will look at 2023 Property Taxation, among other things. Disappointingly, and for the record, as of Monday morning just three business days prior to the May 11 Public Hearing, no agenda has been posted online for it.
Here below we look at staff-proposed amendments to the City of Vancouver’s Procedure By-law 12577, which governs how meetings are held. These observations are adapted from an analysis provided by Evelyn Jacob. Thank you, Evelyn.
The Vancouver Procedure By-law is important as it governs how meetings are held. A clearly-written bylaw can help promote efficiency and democratic access to public decision-making. But there can be trade-offs between efficiency and democracy. And what might be considered a good thing for City staff or elected officials could actually reduce the public’s ability to speak to elected officials about crucial matters. Changes in the rules deserve careful scrutiny. Anyone with concerns is encouraged to write or speak to Council. Instructions to do so are on the agenda page for May 9. You are also welcome to add your comments to this post for other readers to see.
Amendments to Procedure By-law No. 12577
Read the entire report by Rosemary Hagiwara (Acting City Clerk) here: https://council.vancouver.ca/20230509/documents/r4.pdf
Staff summary (in their own words): This report seeks Council’s approval of various administrative amendments, including additional speaking time for persons with disabilities if there are accessibility barriers or constraints to speaking as directed by Council. In addition, in response to various questions and comments from Council, staff are including optional administrative and substantive amendments to the Procedure By-law in this report for Council’s consideration to improve overall meeting efficiency. The last comprehensive review of the Procedure By-law was in 2019, with administrative amendments on December 10, 2019, May 26, 2020 and September 21, 2021.
Background: On July 19, 2022, Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the Procedure By-law to allow for additional speaking time for persons with disabilities if there are accessibility barriers or constraints to speaking. In addition, staff are including administrative and substantive amendments in this report for Council’s consideration to improve overall meeting efficiency. To inform these proposed amendments to the Procedure By-law, staff conducted a jurisdictional scan of Lower Mainland municipalities of similar or equivalent size on their meeting procedures around speaking time.
************
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
Below are some of the changes proposed. The staff report classifies the proposals as either “administrative” (Table 1) or “substantive” (Table 2).
An earlier start time for Public Hearings on Thursdays, moving from the current 6 pm to 3 pm start. The staff recommend keepint with the current 6 pm start for Tuesdays. But for Thursdays, the proposal says the change will give Council more time to conduct business, and for the public, staff think the change is no problem as “the ability to participate electronically as a result of the pandemic provides the opportunity for speakers to more easily participate at Public Hearings during the day.”
> CityHallWatch comment: The benefits of the change are debatable. Some members of the public could lose their chance to speak if they are at work and unable to call in to Council during work hours. So we’d say this proposal reduces democracy.
Deadline to sign-up to speak at a Council or Standing Committee meetings: The proposal is to change the deadline (currently 8:30 am on the day of the meeting) to 5:00 pm the day before. Staff say that 20% of speakers sign up between 5:00 pm and 8:30 am.
> CityHallWatch comment: This is a tradeoff between staff/council convenience and democracy. With short lead times, the public often only learns of agenda items just shortly before the meeting, and it takes time for the public to digest the content and jargon and discuss the issues. Cutting short the deadline to sign up to speak reduces democracy.
One proposal is that a defeated Council member’s motion does not need to be rescinded.
Another proposal is to reduce the amount of speaking time for individuals at a standing committee or Special Council to 3 minutes from 5 minutes. Representative speakers have a limit of 5 minutes.
> CityHallWatch comment: This would be a reduction in democracy by reducing the time for a speaker to speak.
Amend the time for Council to ask questions of speakers to 1 minute from the current 3 minutes or alternatively, eliminate them altogether.
> CityHallWatch comment: This would be a reduction in democracy by reducing the opportunity to engage with the citizens.
Reduce the time for Council debate from 5 to 3 minutes.
> CityHallWatch comment: This would be a reduction in democracy by reducing the debate time.
Before suggesting changes to Procedure By-law No. 12577, staff looked at how other municipalities in Metro Van conduct public participation in meetings. (See Appendix B on Page 11 of the staff report, plus the summary table.) This is interesting. Here are some of the observations.
There is a wide range of processes and procedures employed by municipalities to enable public participation in Council meetings. For example, some municipalities hear from speakers only after a Council meeting concludes, some restrict the number of speakers/delegations who can speak to Council per meeting or per agenda item, while other municipalities only allow members of the public to submit written comments on agenda items in advance of Council meetings. Time limits to speak during Council meetings: half the municipalities, including Vancouver, give individual speakers 5 minutes each to address Council. The other six municipalities studied range from giving no time for speakers, to giving 2-3 minutes to individual speakers, up to 10-15 minutes for a delegation to address Council. The majority of municipalities that allow for speakers do not restrict Council members’ time to ask questions of speakers. However, it is important to note that most of the municipalities do not have comparable numbers of speakers to Vancouver for reasons including, but not limited to, restrictions placed on the number of speakers/delegations allowed per meeting or because speakers are heard post decision and after the conclusion of a meeting. Vancouver and Edmonton are the only municipalities that restrict a Council member’s time to ask questions of speakers (3 and 5 minutes respectively).
Read the entire report here:
**************
CityHallWatch covered the procedure bylaw before. And CVN wrote in about it.
CityHallWatch: Tools to engage in Vancouver city decisions 
Was there public feedback allowed for the report?
People could have written in. But anyway, the debate/decision is scheduled for May 30. Nothing is stopping anyone from communicating directly with Council prior to that.