Chilling Democracy on the Slippery Slopes of Addington Highlands

Jamie Uson | Nov 23, 2023

Note - Web only content (this item did not appear in the November 23 print edition of the Frontenac News due to space considerations, but may appear in a future print edition)

The Addington Highlands municipal council has, with the passing of its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy, taken a regressive step against the very constituents it serves. Disingenuously presented as the only available solution to protect township staff from harassment by community members, this ostensibly noble intention is belied by the far broader drafting of the policy itself. The policy not only blurs the lines between necessary oversight and undue interference but also raises concerns over its potential application as a tool for stifling public discourse rather than addressing the outlier instances of truly disruptive conduct for which such policies are typically intended. Far from being a measure for protection, this policy stands as an instrument that could be wielded to suppress dissent and discourage engagement from the community it purportedly serves.

The policy’s language is alarmingly vague, allowing for subjective interpretation that can easily be misused. We are told that it is unreasonable to “make excessive demands on the time and resources of township representatives with frequent or lengthy communications” without detail as to what constitutes “excessive”, “frequent”, or “lengthy”. We are told it is unreasonable to “persistently approach the township about the same issue” without defining “persistent”, or enlightening us as to why it is unreasonable to be persistent with our elected officials. We are told that we will be deemed unreasonable for “submitting requests with a very high volume and frequency of correspondence”, without a clear delineation between high volume and very high volume, or between high frequency and very high frequency, or clarity as to what exactly is the difference between “communications,” “approaches,” and “correspondence.”

By the wording of the document it would seem that I’m allowed to communicate with a high volume and frequency, as long as I’m not persistent, and as long as I don’t veer into the realm of very high volume or very high frequency. My communications with the Township can be frequent as long as they’re not lengthy but if lengthy they cannot be frequent. When asked if the policy would be issued with an instructive flow-chart, council demurred. This is merely an illustrative sample of the shoddy legal drafting and anti-democratic restrictions our elected representatives have chosen to accept.

The sanctions for being deemed unreasonable are equally vague, and of questionable legality. These include requiring a person deemed unreasonable to communicate with the township through a lawyer, limiting the township representatives with whom the individual may communicate, restricting the individual from accessing certain undefined township services, and prohibiting the individual from attending certain undefined township properties.

Reeve Hogg’s defence of the policy, comparing it to a Customer Conduct policy, and by extension his constituents to customers, is a fundamental mischaracterization of the relationship between citizens and their democratic government. Taxpayers are not customers; they are the employers of public servants and the foundation of our municipal structure. This flawed analogy betrays a concerning misunderstanding of democratic accountability. Councillor Hook’s contention that the policy needs to be vague because to make it appropriately specific would make it too long, is equally troubling.

During the council discussion, a meaningful exploration of this policy’s implications was conspicuously absent. No back-and-forth dialogue with community delegates was permitted, signalling a worrisome avoidance of scrutiny. The questions I posed, aiming to dissect the policy's verbiage and gain a better understanding of how I would be allowed to communicate with council after implementation of the policy, went unanswered, illustrating a disheartening evasion of transparency. The chilling effect this policy may have cannot be overstated. It sets a precedent where the simple act of questioning can be misconstrued as unreasonable behaviour. The policy in its current form is an affront to democratic engagement, with the potential to muzzle those who might otherwise come forward with legitimate concerns and questions.

 This policy does not protect; it threatens. It threatens the voice of the community, the engagement of its citizens, and the accountability of its council. It must be challenged and reevaluated to ensure that it cannot be misused as a tool for silencing the very people it is meant to serve. Our council must be reminded that they are accountable to their constituents, not the other way around.