Surrey mayor, supporters bar some residents from council meetings

SURREY (NEWS 1130) — Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum and his slate of councillors have passed a motion barring some “individuals” from in-person meetings, a move the opposition is slamming as undemocratic.

In a statement, McCallum says the motion will apply to “individuals who have repeatedly disrupted and verbally harassed council and city staff during public hearings,” and is necessary to “protect council and city staff from harassment.” According to the mayor, the impacted individuals have been “given notice” that they will “be able to submit questions in comments in writing” but be denied access to council chambers.

“Our democracy provides for freedom of thought, opinion and speech, but when the discourse devolves into aggressive and disorderly behavior, we must ensure that Council and City staff are able to carry out
their duties without fear of verbal assault and harassment,” McCallum writes.

“I am disappointed by the ongoing hostile behaviour of these particular individuals which is why Council has felt it necessary to put these measures in place,” McCallum writes.

From the City of Surrey – people who have "repeatedly disrupted/verbally harassed" council/staff will no longer be allowed to access Council Chambers. The 7 individuals who are apparently part of Keep RCMP in Surrey group, can submit written questions/comments @NEWS1130 #bcpoli

— Tarnjit Kaur Parmar (@Tarnjitkparmar) September 14, 2021

Coun. Linda Annis, who voted to oppose the motion along with the other three councillors who are not a part of McCallum’s Safe Surrey Coalition, released a statement condemning the move as a way to shut down dissent.

“People in Surrey are frustrated and angry. Rather than banning Surrey residents from city council, the mayor should look in the mirror and realize that voting to keep people away from council doesn’t deal with the real issue, which is all about being ignored and feeling like they have absolutely no say in how their city is being managed,” she writes.

“Silencing people, particularly people opposed to you, is what politicians do when they’ve given up on democracy.”

Doug McCallum & his four councillors have voted to ban some Surrey citizens supporting the RCMP from speaking at Council chambers. A vote against free speech. A vote against democracy. A vote that disrespects Surrey taxpayers who want to exercise their democratic rights.

— Linda Annis (@LindaAnnisBC) September 14, 2021

Coun. Brenda Locke, in a tweet, says the mayor’s motion is directed at seven residents, all supporters of the campaign to keep the RCMP in Surrey.

The vote on this motion fell along similar lines as the dispute over replacing the Surrey RCMP with a municipal force. McCallum and his supporters have beem moving ahead with setting up the Surrey Police Service, while opponents continue to demand a halt saying the move is opposed by the majority of residents, lacks transparency, and is too expensive.

RELATED: Critics of Surrey Police Force get go-ahead to try to get referendum

The dispute over who polices the city has become even more heated in recent weeks, with the mayor alleging someone ran over his foot with their vehicle after a police-related confrontation at a grocery store. Supporters of the campaign to hold a referendum on the transition, in turn, filed a complaint with Elections BC accusing McCallum of intimidation and interference with their effort to gather signatures.

Commentator not convinced ‘draconian’ move necessary

Frank Bucholtz, a longtime municipal politics watcher and columnist, says the move is not totally unprecedented for a city council. However, he’s not sure a compelling case has been made that it’s necessary in Surrey at this time, even amid the “discord” surrounding the policing issue.

“Is the discord such that people should be banned from council meetings?” he asks.

“Democracy is about the contest of ideas, and there’s going to be ideas that you disagree with. I think the best way to deal with that is to have open dialogue, and not to attempt to ban people from speaking, or ban them from attending the council chambers. I think there’s got to be a pretty strong reason for that to happen. Right now, I’m just not aware that the reasons are that strong. I know that there have been words exchanged between members of [Keep the RCMP in Surrey] and members of the mayor’s slate and the mayor himself. But have they been exchanged at council meetings? Has there been disrespect at council meetings? Is it at such a level that a move this draconian needs to take place? I mean, I kind of doubt it.”

“Is discord such that ppl should be banned from council meetings?I’m not aware that it’s that bad.Council deserve to be treated with respect but democracy is about contest of ideas & there are going to be ideas you disagree with. Best way to deal with that is have open dialogue.”

— Tarnjit Kaur Parmar (@Tarnjitkparmar) September 14, 2021

Bucholtz says the issue of barring some people from attending meetings was raised before the recent flare-up of the conflict over policing, and was being discussed before the council adjourned for the summer. If recent events did play into the decision of the mayor and his slate to raise this motion now, Bucholtz says that would be a problem.

“While it may have had something to do with it, it’s really not relevant,” he says, noting the incident at the grocery store did not take place on city property or during a council meeting. Further, he points out that bylaw officers have apparently been ticketing people trying to collect signatures for the referendum.

“There’s no question that bylaw officers have frequently been called on members of that group as they’re attempting to get the petition signeD,” he says. “That in itself is not acceptable.”

“This gets people talking and thinking about this more deeply. I was concerned we had a Council that had members from the same slate, when there was a controversial issue nobody would say anything. Now we have a split council and there’s more discussion.”

— Tarnjit Kaur Parmar (@Tarnjitkparmar) September 14, 2021

Having watched McCallum during his past tenure as mayor, Bucholtz describes McCallum’s style as “confrontational,” and his clashes with opponents as fairly consistent with his “political modus operandi.”

Monday’s motion notwithstanding, Bucholtz says a debate over civic engagement and disagreement on council is better than the alternative.

“In many ways, this kind of thing is actually good for democracy because I think it gets people talking about it and thinking about it a little bit more deeply,” he says.

“The very fact that there is this ongoing discussion of these issues, and there is this ongoing debate at the council chambers — I think — is extremely healthy for democracy.”