Debate flares up again as ACW confirms controversial new three-flag policy
BY SCOTT STEPHENSON
Following a heated discussion at its Tuesday meeting, Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (ACW) Council held a recorded vote that resulted in the adoption of a new flag-raising policy that restricts the municipality’s ability to show any support for community groups using its flagpoles.
Mayor Glen McNeil opened the pre-vote discussion by asking for additional comments on the policy before voting. Councillor Jennifer Miltenberg raised her hand to make a comment on the subject, but was immediately interrupted by Deputy-Mayor Bill Vanstone, who called a point of order. “This is already debated,” he stated, waving his hands. “There should be no more conversation. There should be nothing more on it except voting on the bylaw.”
Miltenberg, who has, historically, argued against Vanstone’s push for a restrictive flag policy, countered with a point of order of her own, pointing out that she had the floor. Vanstone then attacked the meeting’s agenda for including an option to discuss the bylaw at all, saying, “This is wrong, this shouldn’t be there!”
Miltenberg explained that she wasn’t opening a debate. “I have a comment, which is my right.” The agitated Deputy-Mayor continued to try to prevent any discussion of the controversial policy. “It shouldn’t be there to even be commented on. It’s already been passed that it’s going to go to bylaw. So we vote on the bylaw. We don’t - we don’t - like, if we brought everything back that we’ve passed, it’ll take forever!”
Miltenberg continued to assert that she had the floor, not Vanstone. McNeil called on Clerk Florence Witherspoon to weigh in and clarify the matter. “Even if someone has the floor, any member has a right to call a point of order and interrupt the conversation to address matters of procedure,” Witherspoon explained.
McNeil tried to move the meeting along, but Miltenberg still had questions about procedure. “Mr. Mayor, just to confirm - I have no right to speak at all? So the third reading is simply a rubber stamp?” she asked. “Is that correct? Is that not why we have two readings and wait two weeks and do the third reading? I’m looking for an update on procedure here, not on this issue.”
McNeil referred to Witherspoon again. “So, at the last meeting, we agreed to set a policy,” the Clerk explained. “[Council] agreed to set the policy based on what was put in the bylaw. We brought the bylaw forward with the policy, as indicated. So the decision, today, is on approving the bylaw.”
Miltenberg pointed out that she was trying to comment on the wording of the policy. “My question is about specific language in the policy, not whether the policy is apt. Because my feelings are very well known on that. Do I have the right to question something in the policy that is presented?” McNeil directed her query to Chief Administrative Officer Mark Becker, who confirmed that members of council are, in fact, permitted to comment on the proposed policies that come before them, and Witherspoon concurred, saying, “It is of my opinion that a member of council does have the right to comment on the wording within the policy document that is being considered. While it was agreed that the three flags be flown at township facilities, or at the municipal office here in principle, because the final policy has not yet been adopted, I believe there is a right for members of council to speak on it.”
When finally allowed to make her comment, Miltenberg had this to say: “This specific flag policy states that only the three flags can be flown, which means none of our community flags can be flown. I have two specific questions about that. Is this only for the municipal office, or is it for the municipal properties? Because Benmiller, Port Albert, Dungannon - they all have municipal properties with the ability to fly flags to support their events, like the Super Pull, or the Quincy Tournament - are they allowed? Because they are municipal property. And furthermore, my second question goes to shared facilities - specifically, the three in Lucknow: the medical, the fire, and particularly the arena and fairgrounds.” ACW shares all three of those properties with Huron-Kinloss, a Bruce County municipality with an inclusive community flag policy. “Seeing as we co-own this property that is allowed to fly flags that do not convey our policy, whose flag policy rules?” she concluded.
Becker interpreted the proposed policy as applying to all municipally-owned property, and Witherspoon concurred, although neither the CAO nor the Clerk had an answer as to who would have control over the flags in Lucknow.
Miltenberg then drove home her point by saying, “If we are passing this bylaw today, none of these communities can fly their flags. Just so you know that. In Benmiller, Port Albert, Dungannon - because of this policy. We’re really concerned with flags, apparently. So either the wording needs to change, or the policy needs to change. And I would not be comfortable, if we are convinced that this is the right policy, until we worked this out with Huron-Kinloss.”
Councillor Anita Snobelen agreed that the policy has too many variables, and reminded council why they had started down the path of flag restriction to begin with. “I think that there was an intent to restrict one particular community group when this flag policy was first talked about. But as Councillor Miltenberg has pointed out, this not only restricts that one particular community group, it restricts the communities that we live in, personally. It has a far-reaching effect that perhaps, some people, haven’t given full consideration to.” Snobelen went on to point out that the contravention of a bylaw typically comes with ramifications, the parameters of which are outlined in the bylaw. “I’m not sure that I see that here. Maybe I’m not looking close enough, but I think there’s some holes in this bylaw.”
McNeil commented that he had only been considering the policy as applying to the municipal offices, not all municipal property. Councillor Curtis Blake suggested they modify the wording to specify that the policy only applies to the municipal offices, but when Witherspoon informed him that it would require one of the four members of council who voted in favour of the bylaw in the first place to put forth a motion to change its wording to be site-specific, Blake chose to support the bylaw as is.
Vanstone also supported the bylaw as is. “I think it should be all of our properties. Any of the municipal-owned places. I’d hate to see - everybody is saying that this is a PRIDE thing - it’s not! It’s not! I think it’s good to set a policy. I encourage everybody. We don’t stand and we do not have prejudice against anybody in ACW. You can be whatever you want and come to ACW and we welcome you with open hands. This flag issue - I don’t want to look out my window and see a Montreal Canadiens or Toronto Maple Leafs flag flying over Benmiller Hall. I think it should be the Canadian flag, or our flag - one of the three. That’s why I’ve brought this here the way it is…. People keep saying this is about PRIDE, it’s not the PRIDE. I welcome people like that every day.” To date, the only community group to make a flag request of ACW has been Huron PRIDE.
Councillor Evan Hickey also spoke in support of the flag restriction policy, adding that they could talk to Huron-Kinloss about it after they voted in the bylaw. “It should go to conversation with Huron-Kinloss if our policies do not align. But we are entitled to our own policy down here how we see fit.”
Hickey motioned that the bylaw be passed as is, which was seconded by Blake. Miltenberg, Snobelen and McNeil all voted against the bylaw, but Vanstone, Hickey, Blake, and Forster all voted in favour of restricting the flying of any flag on any municipal property within ACW that isn’t the federal, provincial or municipal flag.