May 11, 2016 (6:30 pm)

May 10, 2016 – Click here for an Agenda for this meeting with links to supporting documents contained in the package. Part of the meeting will be closed for consideration of the Ward & Uptigrove report on staffing.

Note that the Council meeting at 6:30 pm is preceded by a Planning Committee meeting at 6:00 pm (re-zoning in the vicinity of Hwy 6/10 and the Massie Road) and that there are two packages related to this meeting (first package including Planning Committee Agenda, second package).

After posting the package, I sent the following email regarding Agenda Item 10.1 (Website Policy):

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I am sending this email this morning to urge you to hold off on approving the Website Policy that is on the Agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting.

According to the proposed Procedural By-Law (that was read for the first and second time at the May 4, 2016 meeting and that is on tomorrow’s Agenda), there is no way for any citizen to provide input to the Website Policy that is also on tomorrow’s Agenda EXCEPT by means of correspondence such as this.

This points out what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the Procedural By-Law. In order for me to make a representation to Council on the Website policy, I must have made a request to the Clerk/CAO on or before last Wednesday, May 4. I wouldn’t argue with that except for the fact that I didn’t know until the Agenda package for the May 11 meeting was posted (yesterday) that Council would be considering the website policy at tomorrow’s meeting.

But this email is only indirectly about this flaw in the proposed Procedural By-Law. Rather, it is to urge Council to NOT approve the Website policy as proposed because it raises a number of concerns, and needs to be looked at from the viewpoint of taxpayers and citizens.

My immediate concern has to do with retention periods. Specifically, there is no reason whatsoever to remove key information after two years as the policy states.

There are documents including minutes on the Grey County website going back 10 years; Georgian Bluffs has documents going back to 2008. For Chatsworth, on the other hand, documents from 2014 have already been removed (leaving less than 1.5 years). What purpose does this serve?

The Website Policy is, in my view, a perfect candidate for public input.

Yours truly,

Trevor Falk