Region of Waterloo council did not follow the proper procedure when a councillor was allowed to change her vote regarding the police board budget, but the decision will be allowed to stand. A report from business law firm Aird & Berlis LLP was presented during a council meeting on Wednesday night. The report looks into the circumstances surrounding a special council meeting on Dec. 16. During that meeting, councillors were asked to vote on the proposed police board budget, a highly contentious topic. When councillors voted, the motion to accept the budget was narrowly defeated by a vote of 7 to 8. After the results of the vote was announced by Region of Waterloo Chair Karen Redman, council went into a brief recess. When council resumed less than 15 minutes later, Councillor Sue Foxton, who had voted against adopting the budget, said she wanted to change her vote. Foxton noted she had previously voted in favour of the budget during a meeting of the Strategic Planning and Budget Committee. “Chair, it is my understanding that Councillor Foxton would like to change her vote, having voted in error,” regional clerk Tim Brubacher explained. “We’ve already done that today for Councillor Craig. In this situation, we would correct her vote.” Changing Foxton’s vote meant the police budget would be approved by a vote of 8 in favour, with 7 opposed. Some councillors were upset by the decision. They said they were worried council was not following their own procedural bylaw, a document that outlines how council operates. “I think this is really calling into question the way the democratic process runs, and I am just going to be noted on record that this is really making a mockery of democracy,” Councillor Berry Vrbanovic said. “… did not proceed by an authorized manner” The report from Aird & Berlis LLP confirmed the region’s procedural bylaw was not properly followed when the vote change was allowed to happen. Although there are some ways votes can be changed under the bylaw’s stipulations, such as by council collectively agreeing to reconsider the motion or suspending the rules to allow a vote change, those options were not used. “The change to Councillor Foxton’s vote after the result was announced did not proceed by an authorized manner under the Procedural By-law,” the report signed by John Mascarin, partner at Aird & Berlis LLP, said. “Although we have determined that the approval of the Motion was procedurally irregular, it is our opinion that the defect relates only to Council’s own internal or domestic rules - it does not pertain to any statutory or external requirement. As a result, the procedural irregularity does not invalidate the vote on the Motion,” the report continued. Council was urged not to rely on past precedent when it comes to allowing vote changes after a result has been announced. “We urge Councillors to be vigilant to ensure they vote as they intend given that the Procedural By-law does not authorize self-correction of voting errors,” the report concluded. What happens now? Although the decision can stand for now, Vrbanovic questioned if that could change in the future during Wednesday’s council meeting. “This was ultimately a decision that, in the fullness of time, will impact a $170 million project. There are some who are still considering what their options may be.” Mascarin said a legal challenge could lead to a do-over. “My view would be likely striking down the actual decision and asking council to reconsider it. That’s often what you see on a challenge to a local government.” Procedural bylaws are also reviewed by council ahead of municipal elections. The next election is due to happen in October of this year. “Staff intend to present a report in the coming months that will provide council with options for potential amendments to address a similar situation should it occur in the future. Any changes to the procedure are at the discretion of council,” a statement from the Region of Waterloo said on Thursday.
