An Open Letter To Township Council

An open letter to Township Mayor & Council in response to Public Notice regarding the proposed Council Procedure Amendment Bylaw No. 6234 :

Mayor Woodward and Members of Council,

Hoping this finds you all well!

I am sending this email in response to the public notice, re Council Procedure Amendment Bylaw No. 6234 proposed for 1,2 & 3 reading June 15th.

In response I am asking Council to pause two of the proposed amendments in this report.

These changes affect how future Councils will share authority, protect fairness, and deal with serious conduct issues between elected officials.

Those are not minor housekeeping matters.

They go to the heart of how Council governs itself.

I believe these changes should either be deferred to the incoming Council after the October election, or held until the Province completes the new code of conduct framework already underway through Bill 17.

Amendment 1: Removing the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Censure

This is my biggest concern.

Currently, there does not appear to be a clear, independent process in place for handling conduct complaints against elected officials before Council reaches the point of deciding whether to censure or sanction one of its own members.

A censure is not a normal Council vote. It is a serious public action against an elected official. It can affect a Councillor’s reputation, credibility, ability to serve, and relationship with the public.

That is why the current two-thirds vote requirement matters. On a nine-member Council, it means at least six members must agree before Council can censure one of its own.

That higher threshold does not stop Council from acting when there is a serious issue.

It simply ensures censure cannot happen by the narrowest possible majority.

The proposed amendment would remove that protection and allow censure by a simple majority, five members on a nine-member Council.

Staff are correct that a simple majority is generally the default under the Community Charter. But the Province has recently introduced Bill 17, which is intended to create a stronger, more consistent process across all of BC for handling conduct complaints involving local elected officials.

That matters because Bill 17 recognizes that conduct complaints should not be handled only through political votes around the Council table.

Bill 17 would bring in independent investigators, defined sanctions, and rules about who can participate in decisions; it would create a more neutral process before serious action is taken against an elected official.

Removing the two-thirds requirement now would remove an existing protection before the new provincial system is in place.

I recognize that Bill 17 has not yet passed and that the regulations have not been finalized. The Township of course has not yet had the chance to align its own bylaw with the new provincial rules.

That creates a gap. During that gap, a Councillor could potentially be censured by a bare majority, without the independent process the Province is now moving toward.

This is not about protecting bad conduct.

If an elected official behaves improperly, there should be a fair and serious process to deal with it. But the process must be credible, must be seen by the public as fair, and must protect both Council as an institution and individual Councillors from decisions that could appear political.

The current two-thirds threshold helps do that. It requires more than political alignment. It requires broader agreement. It gives the public greater confidence that censure is being used only when there is a serious and widely recognized reason.

My ask: Keep Section 11.08 as it is until Bill 17 is passed, the provincial regulations are in place, and the Township can update its procedure bylaw to align with the new provincial framework.

That is a practical and cautious approach. It does not reject future changes. It simply avoids removing an existing protection before the replacement process is ready.

Amendment 2: Removing the Equal Rotation for Acting Mayor

I also have concerns with the proposed change to the Acting Mayor schedule.

Currently, every Councillor serves as Acting Mayor for an equal number of weeks. That is simple, fair, and easy for the public to understand.

The proposed amendment would remove the requirement for equal rotation and allow the schedule to be changed “from time to time.”

I understand that some scheduling flexibility may be helpful. Councillors have different work schedules, family commitments, availability, and community obligations. There may be practical reasons to adjust dates during the year.

But the current wording does more than solve scheduling problems.

It removes the principle of equal sharing without replacing it with any fairness standard.

The Acting Mayor role is not just ceremonial. It can involve chairing meetings, representing the municipality, attending events, and stepping into the Mayor’s role when required. It gives Councillors public visibility and leadership experience.

That opportunity should be shared fairly among all Councillors , not informally, not selectively, and not based on who happens to have majority support.

Flexibility can be added without removing fairness. Council could allow the schedule to be adjusted for availability while still requiring that each Councillor receive a fair share of Acting Mayor duties over the year.

This amendment would also apply to the next Council, after the October election. That Council has not yet been elected and has had no say in whether this change is needed.

My ask: Defer this amendment to the incoming Council after the October election.

If the next Council believes more flexibility is needed, it can make that change with clear language that protects fair and equitable distribution of the Acting Mayor role.

Good governance is not only about what Council is legally allowed to do. It is also about what builds public trust.

In my view, both of these proposed changes raise fair questions about timing, process, and safeguards.

The Province is already moving toward a stronger and more independent system for conduct complaints involving elected officials. Until that system is in place, the Township should keep the protections it already has.

And when it comes to the Acting Mayor role, fairness should remain clear in the bylaw. Flexibility is fine, but it should not come at the cost of equal opportunity for all Councillors.

I believe the cautious and responsible path is to defer these two amendments, allow the incoming Council to consider them, and align any future changes with the provincial framework once it is complete.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards,

Leith White

Willoughby, Township of Langley

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026HMA0033-000349