Quarterly heritage committee meeting proposal dies in tie vote

By Mike Williscraft

NewsNow

A major suggested schedule change at last Tuesday’s Heritage Advisory Committee meeting touched off a lively debate after members were told staff were recommending the group reduce its 2022 meeting schedule to just four.

A staff report suggested working groups be formed to largely take the place of formal committee meetings – with statutory meetings remaining a constant. Formal committee meetings would then be quarterly or called only on an “as needed” basis.

Staff said this structure would help the committee reach some its goals due to it being an election year.

Grimsby heritage planner, Bianca Verrecchia, told the committee the change was also done in 8-10 other municipalities which had been researched.

Most committee members suggested the result would be just the opposite to what was offered – that a new schedule would improve the process.

“I don’t like this idea at all,” said Anne Brabant.

“The fact that we’re still here at 10:30 at night tells us we need a monthly meeting. I don’t know that the working groups, which don’t have staff there, are actually going to be the best use of all of our time because we’re volunteers too, right.”

Committee chair, Coun. Dorothy Bothwell, noted the schedule change was just one component of a five-item motion presented by staff, so it could be removed easily to leave the

status quo in place.

Committee member Olia Jurychuk said her concern went beyond the work and goals of the committee as reducing the schedule to four meetings in a year would also present transparency issues for the public.

“I find the idea of whittling it down to working groups and then reducing the number of meetings flying in the face of transparency to the public. Also, in the last two years of working through a pandemic, the experience has been replacing meetings with a whole bunch more emails flying around, which would be the alternative,” said  Jurychuk.

“Where this would be headed would be extremely inefficient. I also think it’s setting a bad precedent, but it’s much easier to leave the meetings as is and then cancel them as needed rather than cancel the meetings and then bring them back in as needed.”

As an example, Jurychuk cited 2021’s schedule which had meetings cancelled early in the year, then summer meetings were cancelled and December, typically, does not have a meeting, so the current process worked well in that way.

“We should be doubling down our efforts and not reducing the number of times that we gather,” said  Jurychuk of the best way to achieve committee goals.

After a motion to strike the schedule change was moved and seconded, Grimsby director of planning, Antonietta Minichillo told the committee meeting dates would be preserved and heritage portfolio had been advanced considerably of late.

“In the last 18 months, we have probably made up for 10-15 years of work that needed to be done in heritage. We’ve got Grimsby to where it needs to be,” said Minichillo, adding not having to prepare for unneeded meetings would accelerate heritage matters.

“Given Bianca’s update and everything we’ve accomplished in the last 18 months, to hear anything like ‘a disservice to heritage’ is, frankly, offensive to the extraordinary.”

Minichillo also noted a 63 per cent increase in the number of properties on the Town’s heritage register as one example of the Town’s achievements.

Committee member, Coun. John Dunstall said he was “flabbergasted” at the amount of work done when he saw the staff report and suggested a temporary adoption of the new schedule be tried.

“I think we should listen to our director and maybe give it a try and see if it would go in the right direction,” said Dunstall.

Committee member Pamela Evans said the working groups would be a benefit to the group and reducing the meeting schedule would lighten prep time demands on staff.

“I’m all in support of staff,” said Evans.

Mark Radey, who has been on the committee for three meetings, noted none of the sessions have been less than 3-3.5 hours.

“I think 10:30 or 10:40 at night is a bad time to be starting to make decisions about this,” said Radey, noting committee members get about 600 pages of material to read about 4-5 days in advance in preparation of a meeting.

“We’re volunteers, too, and I understand staff is busy. We are trying to do our bit to help. The fact that we’re having this discussion at 20 to 11 at night – three times in a row – tells me we have a issue.”

A motion was tabled to set four of the report’s recommendations in place, with the fifth one – which would cancel monthly Heritage committee meetings – removed.

Verecchia let the committee know before the vote she was not sure how staff would manage to prepare for regular meetings plus working group sessions, suggesting more time between meetings would allow documents and agendas to be put out further ahead of meetings.

“If we had those meeting times spread out a little we would have time to have those agendas up earlier,” said Verecchia.

Jurychuk said she does not believe that to be the case – adding she appreciates the work Verecchia has done and the achievements the heritage portfolio has generated.

“I’ve been crying and moaning about agendas being released two nights before meeting dates for all three years I’ve been on this committee and its never happened and I realized why. It’s because there’s only a statutory requirement that it’s released at least 48 hours before the meeting,” said  Jurychuk, noting the issue goes further back before Minichillo arrived on the scene and all this other work was added to workload pile.

“We still couldn’t get agendas sooner no matter how many times I asked. I have a hard time believing it will happen now. We have a different interpretation of how we’re going to get to the finish line. I am grateful for what has been done, but I am not going to thank you every five seconds. I’m a volunteer. I’m not getting thanked every five seconds.”

Minichillo took exception to those remarks.

“I’m just looking at my team here and I’m disheartened to hear the way Olia is speaking to us. Nobody is asking for thanks. This is our job. We do it willingly. We go above and beyond,” said Minichillo.

“This is awful.”

“It’s not ok,” Bothwell agreed.

“We need respect for our staff and we need respect for where we are at with this motion. It’s not personalities. It’s not work. It’s not the committee against staff. This is just a motion to determine whether or not we want to continue with the frequency of business meetings as they exist or if we want to approve a new method.”

When Bothwell attempted to bring the committee back around to voting on the amended recommendations, CAO Harry Schlange, who had signed into the meeting after the four-hour mark, cut her off.

“Bianca said if (recommendation number) five isn’t included, she can’t commit to the other four, so if you’re going to reject (number) five, reject all five,” Schlange interjected.

“She can’t do the working groups and still meet monthly.”

Bothwell noted the committee had been told staff would only be available “if needed” for the working groups and minimal, if any, staff time would be required to prepare for them.

“She would still have to prepare for them,” said Schlange, while at the same time Minichillo said staff resources would be required.

When Bothwell again attempted to conduct the vote already on the floor, Schlange interjected again.

“She has made it clear she cannot resource the four recommendations if you don’t change the fifth,” said Schlange.

Bothwell went back to the mover and seconder to see if they would withdraw their amendment.

Jurychuk said the committee was told formal meetings would be held quarterly and to allow staff to be “unencumbered” during working committee months, “now I’m hearing from CAO Schlange, that there would be staff commitment, even though there are working groups? I’m not clear, based on what this staff report is saying in terms of reducing workload on staff, where is the needle being moved on alleviation from staff resources if we still need to bother you for working groups?”

“There is still staff support needed in working groups,” said Schlange.

“Bianca’s made it clear there is no way she could do the four (recommendations, plus monthly meetings). And your comments, Olia, prior to that, if we went to quarterly meetings we’d probably get agendas out earlier. You should apologize for those comments you made earlier.

“I will apologize. Bianca, honestly, you’re the only common thread that’s been on this group since the staff turnover that has taken place and I hold you with a really high torch,” said Jurychuk.

As she continued her apology, Schlange interjected a third time.

“That’s not how you spoke,” said Schlange.

When Jurychuk got the floor back, she continued, “Bianca, I’m being honest from the bottom of my heart, I do appreciate what you have accomplished with and in spite of the turnover that’s swirled in and around around you. I obviously didn’t make that clear. The clearest point I wanted to make, is that we appear to have a different interpretation of how we’re going to take this over the finish line.”

“I will drop it (the amendment). I don’t want to be seen as the thorn in everyone’s side. If that is what Bianca is saying she needs then, ya, I’m going to support her.”

The amendment was dropped and the motion for all five recommendation was put to a vote.

Brabant, Radey, Kate Sharrow, Mayor Jeff Jordan and Bothwell voted against the motion.

Evans, Dunstall, Jurychuk, Sara Nixon and Brian Riley voted in favour.

The motion died with a tie vote.

With that, the meeting wrapped up at about 10:50 p.m. with three significant agenda items being held over to the committee’s Feb. 8 meeting.