An abbreviated version of this text was read into the record at last night’s council meeting by Councillor John Tamming

It will surprise no one to hear that I like mavericks, gadflies, contrarians and those who advocate the devil’s point of view. I like those who pester us with questions, who don’t take no for an answer and who generally make a pain out of themselves. Such persons grease the skids of our democracy.We need more, not less of them.

This is a critical debate. It concerns the functioning of what I have called our little Parliament on Second Ave East.

Procedural bylaws may cause eyes to glaze over, but for city councils, issues of process are everything. We have heard from scores of people in the last 24 hours who have let us know they care about process. They care in spades.

This procedural bylaw sets the table for every discussion, every proposal, every deputation, every motion that will ever come before or emanate from council.

This past Thursday, city hall posted the agenda for today’s regular council meeting. This gave one or two business days plus a weekend to read it over - and that during the last days in August. That simply does not allow for considered debate with an informed electorate.

So the timing bothers me.

As for the content of this bylaw, some of the recommendations make sense. I just learned that the bylaw has always blocked questions which are either inappropriate or offensive. The mayor and city manager will now have the tools to double down against that sort of thing. That is how it should be. Councillors and staff should not be subject to gratuitous insults or defamation.

I myself have been subject to grossly defamatory comments in this chamber and the author of that defamation is now a defendant in a lawsuit. You cannot misuse this parliament. That is as it should be.

But other than that, the overall theme of these recommendations bothers me. Staff suggests that a ratepayer only be allowed one chance per year to ask the same question. The report also suggests that questions go from 5 minutes down to 2 minutes. There is more where where that came from.

All of this just limits debate, limits dialogue.

We need more engagement in this town, not less. Consider our media. The Hub does its part. I have clashed with its proprietor on many things but thank goodness we have that particular online water cooler. For reasons known only to God and it’s editor, the Sun Times has not published a single masthead editorial on ANY local issue in years. I have no idea why an editor does not wish to write editorials (kind of like a mechanic refusing to work on your car), but the self-muted voice of that venerable institution is a darn shame. And the radio stations can only do what they can do. The fourth estate in this town does very little to enhance debate or to educate our residents.

So that leaves this chamber.

After all, what are we afraid of? Meetings which go on too long? I remain surprised at how brief so many of our meetings are, at how little debate we have. I was surprised as a new councillor at how few deputations appear, at how rare our interlocutors are.

Do councillors and staff fear embarrassment? If we have made foolish decisions, the public has a right to tell us that, regardless of the fallout.

 If I had my way, the preamble to this bylaw would say this:

“Owen Sound Council welcomes any and all debates of any civic issue. Whether council members or staff, we don’t assume we know it all. So write to us as often as you wish. If you are civil, you will be heard. We invite you to appear anytime before city council as a delegation. Again, if your comments are neither vile nor defamatory, you will welcomed with open arms. And if you think we have not answered your question, please ask it again. We commit to answering any question you have as fulsomely and robustly as we are legally able, even if the answer might make anyone of us uncomfortable. After all, this is your parliament, your polis, your public square, not ours.”