Transcript: Special Meeting of Council - 27 May 2026

Okay, I'll try this first. Can everyone hear me? If you can't, please speak up. Okay, I'm assuming you can hear. Thank you. This is a special meeting of council, Wednesday, May 27, 2026. Call to order at 550 5:01. I look to councelor Sanji for the territorial acknowledgement. Thank you chair. To begin, we acknowledge we are gathered on Vasanic territory. Council is committed to strengthening a relationship with our neighboring first nation communities of Pauin, Seckum, Seout, Slip, and the Malahhat. Thank you. Thank you. And so um late items any late items? I I see none. I look for approval of the agenda with no late items. Councelor Stock and seconded council sorry manki I'm losing my voice again and my apologies. Questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous.

Uh we now move to item five which is public participation period. And believing that some people will be speaking I'll go through the old rules of procedures. Persons wishing to address council must state their full name and municipality of residents for identification and also the topic involved. Questions and comments must be on topics which are not normally dealt with by municipal staff as a matter of routine. Questions and comments must be addressed through the chair and answers given likewise. Debates with or questions of individual council members will not be allowed. No commitments shall be made by the chair in replying to a question. Matters which may require action of the council shall be referred to a future meeting of the council. Each speaker during public participation period must use respectful language and refrain from making offenses of gestures or signs and is limited to speaking for 3 minutes unless authorized by the chair to speak for a longer period of time and 20 minutes will be allotted for the

public participation period unless extended by vote of council. Um so um just a comment um the those who wish to speak could we please have first time speakers to this topic uh come forward first. Please come forward. Thanks. Thank you mayor. Uh my name is Alexander Heinman. I'm a resident of Deep Cove in North Sanage. Um, I guess there's only a couple of very short questions I have about this bylaw. Uh, the first is that um, what's the rush? Um, I've heard a lot of conjecture, but I haven't heard any uh, statement as to why we're in such a hurry to make this substantial change to practice in the municipality.

um and and any legitimate rationale as to what the hurry is. And I guess my second question is what is the origin of this proposal? Where did it originate? And what was the rationale for bringing it forward? And we'd really appreciate a lot of transparency on this if you would. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Susan Chandler, a resident of North Sanage. Two days ago, I attended the council meeting and witnessed what was, in my opinion, the unceremonious treatment of some residents when they addressed council during the public participation period. I noted that the mayor read out new rules for the public participation for this meeting.

Where the old version did not allow debates with council members, the new version is silent. As seen at the meeting of the 25th, this change has resulted in council members challenging residents during their time on the podium. There is the example of a member of the public being interrupted by one counselor and then a second counselor following up by speaking for over three minutes. I'm sure you know that 3 minutes is the magical time that we all agree to. The rules of public participation are explicit that proper procedure includes listening without interruption and only speaking when called upon. Residents deemed by the chair to have followed the rules can be removed from the meeting.

But there are examples where members of council interrupted remarks being made by residents. challenging and chastising positions, policing, what perspectives can and cannot be expressed. I am deeply deeply concerned that some fundamental rights around public engagement are being eroded and hijacked. Where did the new opening statement come from? Who wrote it? How was it approved? Are there consequences for those counselors who do not respect or follow the rules? Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, staff, and my fellow residents. I'm Spring Harrison from Forest Park Drive in North Sanage. Regarding the officer's bylaw, um, this proposed change is very concerning and puzzling to me for several reasons. There are two main problems. The first problem relates to the rationale given in the preamble to the May 25th meeting. The initial statement is correct. The community charter does require the municipality to establish two officer positions. Therefore, the recommendation that the bylaw be revi revised to align it to comply more strictly with the committee charter is unnecessary. It appears already to be compliant. Furthermore, there is no strict legislative requirement to establish only three officer positions. Only two are required, but more are possible as we currently have.

Given the above, this rationale is misleading at best and hardly a sound basis for such a major policy change. As no other rationale is offered other than the flawed one just outlined, there appears to be no basis whatsoever for this proposed revision. This appears to be a solution desperately looking for a problem. The second problem relates to the ostensible solution proposed by the bylaw revision. This is also highly problematic. Currently, the discipline and employment security of the designated officers is is in the hands of mayor and council. The advantage of this arrangement is one of shared decisionmaking. It helps to ensure that many points of view may be considered and that rogue decisions will be will likely be rejected. In fact, this concept is recognized and reinforced by the requirement for these decisions to have a be undertaken by a super majority.

This change would place the employment security and careers of some senior staff solely in the hands of the CEO. In an in an ideal world, this wouldn't matter. Supervisors would always act with the utmost integrity and fairness. But as we now see more than ever, we're in a world that is far from ideal. And let me hasten to add that I'm speaking generally and making no suggestions or judgments about any of the current staff. I'm referring to the possibility of future risk that could result from this change. So to summarize, the stated rationale for this bylaw revision is not supported by the facts and no substantial rationale has been offered. If this proposed revision is truly important, why was the existing bylaw approved in the first place? And why has it remained in place for 3 years? And why is it now suddenly important that it be changed?

After initially being rejected, this proposal has been resurrected twice and is now being fast-tracked to completion. What is the urgency for something that is essentially an administrative housekeeping matter? This serious lack of transparency created by the combination of a logical disconnect and an information vacuum has led to the inevitable speculation by many residents as to what the actual motives might be. There's large community interest in this matter, but very little community support. The proposed revision is far from ideal. There are better options available if there's some necessity demonstrated. So I strongly urge you to ask yourselves if this proposed change is truly supportable and truly in the public interest. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry.

My name is Hugh Wilzooski and I'm a resident of North Sanage. I'm going to talk about a couple of things this afternoon. kind of feels like groundhog day though before I start. The first relates to a statement I made in the public participation period on Monday night's meeting where I spoke about the vote composition regarding the passing of the uh the original bylaw on May 23rd, 2023. Um, one of the counselors indicated that he could not remember voting in favor of that motion, let alone that he in fact moved the motion. I was taken aback at the time and I hope that during your discussions later on and acknowledge that I was correct on this matter. The second relates to your new revised rules of engagement, oh I'm sorry, rules of procedure for pro public participation at council meetings. The agenda merely states, "Each speaker may address council for three minutes by stating their name and municipality of residents. Attempting to absorb the complete set of rules from the verbal announcement by the mayor that you just spoke a couple of seconds ago prior to the public participation period is

inadequate. I recommend that at least council include the entire set of rules in your agenda as in fact was done for the council of the whole meeting on May 11th. At least then we'll know what our limitations are before being bered by members of council when we break those rules. I also recommend that you allow greater latitude on what residents are allowed to say during the public participation period and how you treat them when they waiver off your rules. Knowing that North Sanage was a star performer on the Adam Sterling show yesterday and not in a complimentary way does not help the district's re reputation.

It'll also be interesting to see how many residents are willing to participate in the public participation process on a go forward basis if this is how they are treated. Thank you.

Mayor and council, I'm Terry Gould, a journalist and resident of North Sanage. Uh, what I have to say today concerns only the timing of the third reading of the new officer's bylaw. What I'm respect respectfully requesting is that council give the bylaw two readings today, publish it in the peninsula news review over the next two weeks, and then bring it back for third reading. I am basing my request on what the mayor informed a gathering of six prominent residents and myself on May 9th, 2026 regarding the amount of time the public would be given to digest the amended bylaw between the date of its first notice of motion vote by council and its final vote by council. The concern of the residents at the May 9th gathering was that the new bylaw would be rushed through with little opportunity for public discussion. The mayor responded by assuring the residents that the notice of motion would only be sorry you can't go there.

That meeting was a private meeting. This was not to become to come to to this council. I don't remember anybody saying that's off the record. I beg you I beg your pun. Nobody said it was off the record. Okay, then I put you on advice that I may take legal action, but please continue. Mayor, you showed up at a meeting with the public. I I'm not going to get into that discussion. I know why I was there, but I'm not going to get into that discussion in this forum.

wish to continue. You've just threatened to sue me. I don't know what if you if you continue to advise divulge information that I assumed was privileged at the time. I'm more than assumed, but you can continue. Mayor, I disagree with you, but you I'm not getting into a discussion on this. Please leave. I've never done so much public speaking in my whole life, so hopefully getting a little bit better. My name is Lori. We live in North Sanich. Um I do have one little piece that I've written down, but I'm going to try and do this one from the heart. I've come with Kleenexes because uh we have a farm shop at our farm. And since May 11th, we have had so many people flooding into our farm shop, people who live here in North Sage, people who come to our farm shop from all over the world. We currently have people as far as way far as far away as Thailand watching what's going on here.

We've had people from other countries say, "Wow, the OCP that North Sanage has actually cares for a community of people, cares about the health and wellness of everybody." and my husband Mike and I have stood in our shop very proudly and we have said, "Yeah, we picked a really incredible mayor and incredible council members who care." Something has shifted and now we have people coming in who are stressed, who are anxious, who aren't sleeping. And quite honestly, after Monday night, I will put my husband and I in that position. We didn't sleep all night. We got up Tuesday with a ton of work to do on the farm and we couldn't do it. The wind was knocked out of our sales. Today I had a phone call from a woman in Cwood who said, "I just heard about all the things that you are growing, the food you are producing. I have a rare disease and I'm sorry, but I'm going to get the emotions are high and without somebody like you and what you are offering from your farm, my life would be shortened.

Thank you for giving me a sense of hope. 45minute phone call and she ended it with will you always be there and I said so we're trying we're fighting hard we are aligned with the farmers in the Cavage Valley Regional District over 800 farmers who are currently sitting with their livelihoods and ability to grow food and keep people fed. And that's coming back in October. So I'm standing here saying what has changed? What is the difference? Is this is it because it's an election year? I'm sorry if it is because when we voted you each in, if we didn't know you personally or we hadn't experienced what your work was, we looked up your bio. We researched you. We could find the different things about you online, we trusted you. We don't know who the person who might be filling a position that is about to be changed with the overarching authority that in the end could affect every single person's life who lives in North Sanich. And I just want to close with something.

If you haven't noticed, I tend to research everything to the nth degree. And I I love to go to every single avenue that I can think of. And this one was just too perfect to to not share. So these are not my words although I will agree with it. This I found online. Whether granting full authority to one position of staff is good depends heavily on your local government. While it allows the efficient daily management, high pressure environment with major developer interests requires strong it requires a person who has strong explicit checks and balances to pro to prevent corruption and protect farmland at all costs.

Again, speaking for my husband and I, we have the honor of recently having spent time off the island with one of the world's Excuse me. Um, could you wrap it up? You have three minutes. Is it up? Okay. Um, top growers and uh, rainwater harvesters. And his big take-home message was get the hands in every or get the seeds in every person's hands because what we don't know is the biggest famine is coming our way. And so I beg of you, we need checks and balances. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? I saw see no one else coming forward. I call it close to the public participation period.

So right now we come to reports which is a staff report which is the district signage offices bylaw number 169. I look for a motion to put it on the floor. Chair, I can make the I'll read the first one that council give first and second reading to the district of North Sage officers by Do three together. Sorry, you can do the three together. Sure. um officers bylaw number 1609 2026 which establishes the officer positions and assignments of statutory authorities as required under the community charter and two give third reading to the district of North Sanage officers bylaw number 1609 2026 thank you do I have a second council stock thank you motion is on the floor counselor's discussion comments Council Pinto.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um I don't know. I I know that we're dealing with a motion. The motion's on the floor right now, but there were some things that were said that um I personally need to clear up. Um I was an error uh on comments that I made. Um and especially to Mr. Rubuski. Uh you were correct. I was in error. Um, I did not have recollection of a um a motion that I voted for three years ago. Um, and to this day it it escapes my memory. But um, I do apologize. You were correct and I was wrong. Thank you. Council questions, comments?

No questions, comments? Okay. Council Marshall? Thank you, chair. Uh, thank you to the speakers who came to speak tonight, who spoke on Monday, and who have spoken previously. I appreciate your comment and engagement, and I understand uh the emotions that you have. We have very engaged residents who are passionate about their community, and I appreciate you taking time to speak to council. My personal style of speaking, debate, and decision-m is to concentrate on the facts at hand and have wholesome input and debate from all sides. My job as a counselor is to listen and represent the community. I have heard from many community members concerned about their voices being heard and concerned about ensuring fair processes are in place and exist and I appreciate your input and thank you to staff for writing a report in response to the mayor's motion.

For clarity, the officer's bylaw has been in place since 2010. Likely before that, I think it's 868, but that document wasn't available. The bylaw was updated in 2023. The current bylaw and the one preceding it have multiple officers of the municipality and multiple municipalities. I'm not going to argue how many. Other municipalities have bylaws that include multiple officers of the municipality. After the last meeting, I engaged with community members to try and understand their concerns regarding this bylaw. These are some of their concerns. Hopefully, by understanding them, we can concentrate on debate. I'm not saying whether these views are right or wrong. It is not about any one person. I'm speaking about what we as council and what I have heard. Residents feel that the process was rushed. They raised concerns about a special council meeting being held without allowing time for adequate consultation, debate, or explanations.

Some residents have raised concerns about moving forward with changing this bylaw when the province's housing report is expected shortly. They are concerned about the effects that report could have on the community, the environment, and what the intended purpose is. I'm not going to debate whether or not that is a correct sentiment. I am going to say that the way the bylaw has been brought up and debated by council and the lack of adequate explanation for this change has contributed to those community beliefs and concerns. Some residents have raised concerns about why now they don't feel that question was adequately answered. The bylaw was updated in 2023 has existed since 2010 over 16 years in several councils.

It has been viewed by some residents that freedom of speech was stopped during audience participation. It is unusual for council to enter into debate with residents during audience participation and for some that's been viewed negatively. As counselors, we have a forum after audience participation to correct records or narratives and can speak loudly with our votes. Concerns were worsened when members of the community pointed out inaccuracies which from the community's point of view were not adequately addressed. We also heard counselors state concerns about the need for accuracy. That's important. This was reiterated when a member of the public while versed in the legalities of the community charter municipal affairs raised those same concerns and we heard that same member of the public resolve inaccuracies by explaining the current officers bylaw lines with the charter.

The residents of North Sanage are politically engaged and are concerned with what they're seeing with governments and democracy to the south of us and within their own governments. This raises concerns about checks and balances as we've heard and centralizing authority. So for our residents, it brings into question what is the best practice. We have heard a number of ideas from the community and from council on why this bylaw needs to change or needs to stay the same. However, I have not heard a compelling reason as to why council should support the motion. I appreciate the community's concerns. I acknowledge all the challenging work that staff has done on this matter and I acknowledge the limited opportunity that staff has to respond in public forums. I acknowledge the many viewpoints that have been expressed. I have not heard a compelling reason for amending bylaw 1556 and for those reasons I will not be supporting this motion.

Council councelor McConi. Uh thank you chair. Uh first of all thank you staff for your report and to the members of our community who took their time to write letters and to speak during public participation to the proposed officers bylaw. Feedback from our community is integral to council's decision-making process and a cornerstone of democracy. The residents of North Sanich are intelligent, informed, passionate people who care deeply about our community. Since Monday night's council meeting, numerous residents have reached out to me to express their concerns regarding the meeting as it pertains to the proposed officer's bylaw. The majority of their concerns were similar in nature. residents felt their voices weren't heard and their questions went unanswered. Questions such as, "Why is this item back on the agenda when it was defeated just over 5 months ago? What is the rush to accelerate the process? Is this a fatal comple? I was elected as a counselor to represent the residents of North Sanage. I've heard loudly and clearly from them on this motion. I believe I would be remiss if I was to

ignore their concerns and therefore I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you. Council for this council Sanjief. Thank you chair. I've got uh 17 points to make and these are all coming from the staff report looking at strategic plan implementation. I'll start off. Excuse me. Can I can you please explain why that relates to what's in the on the agenda? Thank you chair. The way it relates to the agenda is it clearly states that the strategic plan of this implementation of the bylaw is related to good governance principle of community engagement accountability leadership impartiality and transparency. what has been identified in the report. I'm just speaking to that with respect to it. As it stands, there are some aspects of it that are make it easier. So, it does strengthen clear and simplified structures with only three officer positions. It does take into accountability is a narrowly focused statement that comes into play. That's good that everybody can see where the accountability or who the person should be who is accountable to it. However, it also puts a significant burden on

whoever holds that position. The narrower officer structure can obscure who is formally accountable for high-risk statutory decisions. It can also impact the governance preserving the organization for the future. When I talk about that when we employ it, this particular bylaw also takes away the possibility of appointing a deputy for that is deputy provisional entity is removed from it. What it does is it weakens the issue with regards to matter being becomes municipality municipality experience where we can have delays due to illness, vacancies, retirement, emergency absence, turnovers without officer redundancy, governance becomes fragile and as a result to build in contin uh continuity through the performance of the district. The previous bylaw allowed that process to take place.

There are also other elements that are not covered in this report. For example, governance risk assessment, the concentration of authorities, continuity risk, statutory delegation risk, succession planning, emergency operation risks are not covered as the report stands. In addition, there are issues with regards to the capacity to meet its obligation as once given to uh in the current structure. Removing officer recognition may unintentionally diminish governance, visibility and accountability. This is just from the structural point of view. If we want to recognize operational specialization as governance is critical, the previous law allowed that to take place in a much coherent manner. The current uh bylaw while reducing formally recognized officers law it should be balanced with assurance, transparency and distribution.

And so my concern here is that we are putting a responsibility a greater responsibility and burden on one position which can have not only impact that position but it also changes the entire operational structure. I would hope that as member of councils as we think about the motion and approving of this the question should be does this bylaw merely satisfy minimum statutory compliance or does it strengthen the district's governance capacity resilience accountability and stewardship over the long term. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? I see none. Oh, council can talk. Yes. Thank you. Um, since Monday when we first passed this bylaw, um, I've had a number of phone calls and I've had a number of discussions with the public.

And um I came to this I came to this meeting tonight with an open mind knowing I voted for it last Monday and still there isn't um a reason to change my mind. I still believe I made the right decision on Monday having heard my colleague speak and thank you very much for that. However, I will be voting in favor of this motion. Thank you. Further questions, comments? I see no further questions, comments, and I call for the vote. Those in favor of the motion? Those opposed? Motion carries 43 with councelor McConi, councelor Sanjief, and councelor Marshall in opposition. Okay. Are there any motions? New business up. We let some people leave.

Any motions? New business? I see none. So then I move on to correspondence. There's no correspondence. And again, item nine, no correspondence. There's no rise in report. I'd look for a motion of adjournment. Councelor Sanji, second council Stark. Those in favor? Unanimous.