Iqaluit council should exercise discretion when people want to be heard
City ‘learning series’ puts onus on citizens to get on agenda rather than encouraging councillors to be flexible
Iqaluit residents gather at city hall June 10 to show their opposition to changes to the city’s animal control bylaw. A new city “learning series” aimed at helping people understand how city council works says people who want to address council about an issue need to sign up two weeks ahead of time. (File photo by Arty Sarkisian)
The City of Iqaluit’s summertime campaign to make residents better-informed about the mysterious world of municipal governance smells like damage control after councillors wouldn’t hear dozens of residents who wanted to speak about a change the animal control bylaw council voted on last month.
The city launched what it calls a “summer learning series” to help people “become familiar with how city council meetings work and how decisions are made.”
Hey, who doesn’t love spending summer days boning up on the world of bylaws, motions, seconders and first, second and third readings?
The first lesson, published online on June 30, was titled Understanding Municipal Governance: A Summer Learning Series. The second one — Making Decisions: How City Council Meetings Work — dropped Tuesday.
Anything a government can do to help citizens understand how it works is worthwhile.
But it can’t be a coincidence this campaign began two weeks after the June 10 meeting where councillors ignored dozens of people opposed to a controversial amendment to the city’s animal control bylaw.
That change lowered the wait time before killing stray dogs rounded up by municipal enforcement officers to 24 hours from seven days.
The amendment had been working its way through council since May. When it came up for third reading on June 10 — the last step in the process — approximately 50 people packed the council meeting to show their opposition.
Mayor Solomon Awa said he had never seen the chamber so full.
When the people weren’t allowed to speak, some were angry they hadn’t been heard by the people elected to represent them.
But the city turned it around, blaming them for not understanding how council meetings work.
When a bylaw is at its final stage, “no further public input is permitted during that meeting,” this week’s instalment of the summer learning series says.
“For this reason, residents are encouraged to speak up early in the process while council is still considering the issue.”
If you want to speak to council, you need to ask the clerk’s office to add you to the agenda two weeks before the meeting. Those are the rules.
But rules are made to be broken and there are always exceptions to the rule.
A lot of councils have the authority, flexibility and discretion to pivot and add a latecomer to the agenda at the last minute … if they want to.
Also, there was no reason the animal control bylaw had to be voted on at the June 10 meeting. Seeing the dozens of residents — voters — who wanted to be heard, councillors easily could have deferred the vote to a later meeting. That would have created an opportunity to hear the concerned citizens before voting on the controversial bylaw change.
The rules that govern council meetings can be a mind-numbing mystery to the average person not fluent in the Cities, Towns and Villages Act and the Council Procedures Bylaw.
Certainly, the more informed citizens are, the better able they’ll be to participate in civic affairs.
But instead of putting it on the unwashed masses for not knowing how to navigate the confusing and unfamiliar world of municipal governance, there should be some willingness among councillors to exercise discretion when the people they serve want to be heard.
Jesus wept. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, Iqaluit style. Have a nice life, y’all.
Thank you Nunatsiaq News for being bold enough to call out this obvious blame-game disguised as public information by the city.
This is what happens when effective advocacy gives way to performative outrage and pointless petitions.
It’s not difficult to contact the office of the clerk and our councilors are all pretty approachable.
The process wasn’t a secret but it appears no one had the foresight to ask anyone involved in the process about what was going to happen at the meeting or what opportunities there would be for participation.
*Shrug*
I call BS on your statement. This council immediately hid behind their “proper procedure” as usual. The longtimers are leading (bullying) the weaker council members. Even the Mayor admitted that there was more public interest in this matter, as evidenced by the number of people who showed up, than he had ever seen before. Yet they still refused to exercise discretion in allowing a delay. Disgraceful, the people deserve better.
I daresay the dogs deserve better too.
It is good to support more understanding of the standard process for public input. However that won’t help the public engage when council is actively avoiding public input.
The public was first made aware of the animal control bylaw change less than 3 days before it was introduced (and that was only the title, not the details). Council then unanimously closed debate less than 5 minutes after introducing it. Smith was the only councilor to provide any comment at all.
How was anyone supposed to apply more than two weeks in advance of second reading when they had less than three days notice, and mere minutes with the bylaw details.
In the future, council should exercise it’s discretion to amend agendas. Council should be desperate for public input, not hiding from it.
This article reads more like an attempt at clickbait than a good faith critique of municipal governance.
Let’s be honest: Iqaluit stories generate engagement, and his coverage seems more driven by traffic metrics than consistency of principle.
If he’s genuinely concerned about the right to public input and the importance of accessibility in governance, it’s worth asking: where is this same energy when it comes to Federal,Territorial or Inuit governments? Why hasn’t he been as vocal about those levels of government failing to provide accessible and meaningful consultation processes, or meeting language obligations under the Inuit Language Protection Act or the Official Languages Act?
It’s no secret that even his own publication doesn’t fully comply with those language laws. If we’re going to hold public institutions to account, let’s not pretend media outlets are exempt or blameless.
So if this is about standing up for democratic principles, then consistency matters. If it’s about scoring points off Iqaluit Council to keep the paper viable, let’s at least be transparent about that too.
Any attempt to clean up this org starts with an editor that actually lives here and follows some sort of standard that is applied to ALL orgs.
TMZ of the North Strikes again!!!!!!
If the federal government or territorial government passed controversial legislation and then didn’t allow for official community input, Nunatsiaq wouldn’t stop covering it. These other levels of government actually do public outreach, including on the Official Languages Act (publicly solicited feedback).
City Council sped through an unpopular amendment without consultation or community engagement and then blamed members of the community for not reading their minds and showing up for the several minutes between first and second reading. They acted in a way that should be scrutinized and criticized.
“Click bait” is clearly a council member who made their bed and is now frustrated they have to sleep in it.
Gotta get the ad revenue again up Corey??? lol
I remember when this rag of a news org actually had standards and ethics. Time to boycott this negativity generator, it actually hurts Nunavut by spreading the negativity everyday
Can’t report on all the positive in Nunavut??? Guess that doesn’t produce the clicks for revenue
So pathetic, the city is damned if it does or doesn’t with NN.
Shouldn’t expect any better from an editor that lives in the south I guess
Reading yet another editorial singling out Iqaluit, one can’t help but ask: what exactly is Nunatsiaq News’ issue with this city?
Time and again, we see Iqaluit held under a microscope while the vast majority of Nunavut’s Hamlets are given a free pass. Where is the critical coverage of those local governments? How many of them offer livestreamed meetings? Publish minutes regularly? Invite public commentary in multiple languages? If Nunatsiaq is so concerned with transparency and accountability, why the selective outrage?
Iqaluit is far from perfect—but it’s also one of the few municipalities making a serious effort to operate in the open. So why is the paper so determined to tear it down, rather than hold the rest of the territory to even basic standards?
The answer, unfortunately, may be simple: clicks. Iqaluit generates outrage, and outrage generates traffic. But journalism that relies on punching down at the most visible institution—while ignoring systemic gaps across the board—isn’t serving the public. It’s click bait.
If Nunatsiaq is serious about democratic engagement, then let’s see some balanced scrutiny across the territory. Until then, these editorials are starting to look more like an axe to grind than a stand for principle.
Complaining about media coverage is always a desperate move, and this reeks like a councillor or employee of the city who is fed up with the additional scrutiny and accountability.
Nunatsiaq is covering this story because it was of substantial public interest, in territory’s largest community. Of course Iqaluit is going to be a focal point for their paper, it’s one of their largest audiences!
City council pushed through this ridiculous, heavy handed, by-law without any public outreach or consultation. They did it because they knew it would be unpopular and then hid behind rules related to third reading rather than facing their constituents. The City should own this right up until the next election. I know I’ll be casting my vote with this by-law in mind.
Looking at the picture, how many are actually allowed to vote. These persons are there because they love dog’s. If they did a survey of them, how many people were allowed to vote. My guess is 40%
Some serious racial profiling vibes in Tommy’s comment.
Ahj the residents of the HAMLET of Iqaluit strike again.lmao and smh
When will it end? Is Rankin ready for City status?