Semantics, sophistry, and a bag of pretzels.
This was the response Councillor John McDonald received when he suggested that staff ought to be compelled to respond to emails sent by residents for information or explanation.
Councillor McDonald was specifically referring to two emails, one sent by a Rose Curley and another by Charlene Riopelle, the former asking about procurement policies for capital projects and the latter having to do with Ma-Te-Way.
You should have seen them twisting in their seats.
But seat-twisting aside, Councillor McDonald was slapped-down in his request, for a number of reasons, some of them patently absurd.
Before proceeding, I wish to state categorically and without reservation that the Town of Renfrew, both political and administrative, has a horrible record of responding to emails, or any other form of communication directed its way by the people they purport to represent and world for. Absolutely abysmal.
I suspect that’s a notion that’s supported somewhat by Reeve Peter Emon who said that “we better figure this thing out” to come up with a communications protocol that does’t result in Council or staff flat-out ignoring its citizens. But aside from Councillor McDonald, myself, and maybe the reeve to a degree, the entire room shifted the other way, round things attempting to squeeze into square holes.
It was tough to watch.
Clerk and PGIC — Person Generally In Charge — led the counterattack with a treatise on the mechanics and expectations that are part of the email experience, an argument laden with words such as “TO” and CC (carbon copy) and even BCC (blind carbon copy) which immediately puts us all at ease now that we’re finally beginning to grasp and understand the concept of email after some thirty years of usage.
According to Clerk Errett, only those finding themselves in the TO section of an email have any duty to respond, and even at that, there’s no real duty anyways. In her view, and I’m guessing here,, the CCs and BCCs of this world have tickets to the show, but are mere spectators and not direct participants. In the case of the two emails in question, neither had a staff member in the TO section, meaning that they’re just tourists along for the ride. The emails were directed to politicians, so it’s the politicos who have the burden of response, should they decide to accept it, which more often than not means no response at all. Just like if staff were to find themselves in the TO section of an email. The response is essentially the same.
Nothing.
Clerk Errett didn’t need to consult her Little Red Book of Municipal Procedure, a prop she likes to wave about as she articulates responses. In this case, she even suggested that it might be argued that an email specifically directed to all seven politicians in the TO section might be interpreted as a council meeting in that all of council is “present” and in the act of discussing council business with a member of the public. And if that were to be the case, that Little Red Book explodes with procedural rules and barriers that leave most people agog in their seats with the thousand yard stare.
I do, though, like her assertion that an argument can be made.
Makes me want to suggest that an argument can be made that she’s one of the more prominent among those who choose to completely ignore and brush off questions from citizens and councillors alike. It might be interpreted that she represents one of the more significant problems with respect to this whole communications issue. And as to her LRB. — Little Red Book — anything in there is also subject to interpretation, with arguments to be made that a lot of what’s in there amounts to huge dollops of horse hockey and coupons for Dairy Queen.
But then Councillor Andrew Dick offered an opinion, stating that in the Curley email, no specific question was raised, so therefore no duty for staff to respond. In fact, no duty for anyone to respond. Okay, fine.
Councillor Legris stated that, with only politicians in the TO section, the expectation is that only the politicians should be expected to respond, that is if they “decide to do so.” Okay. A little troubled by that whole “if they decide to” thing, but okay.
Councillor McWhirter took the position that he didn’t even get the email in question, something verified by a spelling mistake in the TO section where the email was sent to a .cs address rather than the required .ca address. I guess the councillor viewed this as a ticket out of the discussion, so he took what looked like a pass instead.
Councillor Cybulski, whose Facebook post was mentioned in both emails as the catalyst for the writing of the emails in the first place, declined to offer commentary.
So two citizens of our town (and there’s plenty more where they came from) crafted emails to town officials and were ignored. One councillor, McDonald, rallied to their defence, with the reeve allowing that something ought to be done moving forward. The mayor deferred to the clerk, while Councillors Dick and Legris focussed on a single aspect to dismiss the emails on what could be argued as technicalities. Councillor McWhirter found some bread crumbs leading to a convenient exit, while Councillor Cybulski remained silent on the periphery.
Did I mss something in there? Did I not get that right?
Councillor McDonald was left with no real option other than to gracefully withdraw the motion, whereupon everyone in the room, other than the author of one off those emails, had a little laugh, perhaps to break the tension, perhaps for some other reason. Whatever the reason, it didn’t come across as entirely appropriate given the circumstances, especially without clear audio for context.
But if I was that citizen, who had endured over four hours of council business before this even came up, I’d not be very impressed. In fact, I’d be angry, and with cause.
All the points raised regarding who the email was primarily directed to are valid points, I’ll more than grant that. But for most people, or at least those not privy to the contents of little red books, an email is directed primarily to a person or persons who are to be considered to be the primaries, so the decision to respond is definitely in their court. The CCs of this world are the secondaries, people deemed by the author to have some interest or some connection to the matter at hand. While not the direct recipients, and not duty-bound to respond, they still have the inherent role of accountability witnesses, because they can see the discussion in all its glory and are in a position to assess the merits of the enquiry (if there is one) or the appropriateness of the response, again if there is one. They’re also in a terrific position to ascertain whether or not that citizen is being ignored. So they’re not entirely unburdened of some sort of responsibility.
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that these two emails need not be responded to for all the reasons given. Are they not still germane to the broader problem of staff and Council not responding to emails, or any communication? Was this not an opportunity to lean into this, on the record? Is this not a problem that’s been identified before and often?
Councillor McDonald broke the ice on this topic, an important topic, and it’s not something that I feel is going to go away. Are the specific details of these two emails enough to deflect from the need for an earnest discussion around the documented failure to respond approach seemingly employed by the town?
In my mind, seven elected representatives of the people were present when this issued was raised, but only two showed up. A sixty mile per hour fastball served on a platter right over the heart of the plate. Two made contact, with five, for different reasons, whiffing. A team batting average of .286, which admittedly is not all that bad in baseball, but kinda sucks in real life where a lot of us live.
I’d advise the authors of those two emails, Rose Curley and Charlene Riopelle, to watch the YouTube video of the discussion involving their two emails. Watch, listen and learn.
Then go back to your computers and send the very same emails, only this time complying with all the “rules,” real or imagined. Follow the very procedures and procedural points that were used to shut you down, and send that damned email again.
And then we’ll have to see what happens.
We’ll see if, indeed, Council and staff end up looking like a bag of turnips, an outcome the reeve cautioned us all about should we fail to address this quickly and substantively.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 