Some of the bigger issues over this past term:
Proposed Sale of former Normal School,
270 Water Street (Discovery Centre)
Oct. 2024, Nov. 2024, Jan. 2025, June 2025, Sept. 2026
Below are my comments from the September 14 Regular Council meeting:
“I just wanted to comment and share my frustration with the process regarding this item. I just wanted to go over the timeline:
In October 2024 this item was discussed in camera (closed meeting). I did not support moving into camera because I felt all discussion would take place in closed meeting in camera.
In November 2024, this was in a public meeting, beginning a process to declare surplus, I wasn’t able to attend, and no discussion -not one word- because it had already taken place in camera away from the public.
January 16, 2025, a public meeting was held, but on January 9, seven days before, at a budget meeting, a member said, “until it’s sold we probably will need some maintenance” and “if we’re going to sell it we don’t need to make the entire contribution” for the maintenance of that building.
June 2025, again in camera, and then again today, and my real concern is that when this potential sale returns to the public in a public meeting the decision will again already be made and the discussions will not take place in front of the public.”
Strong Mayor Challenge -May 11, 2026
Below are my comments from the May 11 Regular Council meeting, expressing my disagreement and frustration with council's decision to proceed with litigation of choice against the Province of Ontario, and the process that I believe should have taken place in public meetings rather than closed meetings.
Following my comments, the following motion was carried by council:
THAT all costs associated with the Strong Mayor Power Charter Challenge, including legal and staff time, be brought to Council.
Motion Carried.
Strong Mayor Challenge comments May 11, 2026
"I would like to comment and address today’s news release regarding the City of Stratford’s Charter Challenge against the Province of Ontario’s Strong Mayor Powers.
First, I do agree that these powers are unnecessary and in many ways undemocratic, and at the very least should not be imposed on municipalities. However, I have two main points of concern regarding council’s decision to begin litigation of choice against the Province of Ontario.
One: The debate, discussion, and decision took place by choice in closed meetings hidden from the public, by the same council which has seen members vote against hearing delegations and supported the idea of cutting the time residents are permitted to speak at meetings in half. Being heard at meeting is more crucial to democracy than being rid of strong mayor powers and should take precedent over costly litigation.
Two: This is no doubt an important issue, not unlike other Provincial legislation shortcomings. If members of this council believe it is important enough to take the province to court, there is nothing stopping individuals from doing so with private or personal money. But voting against our residents’ ability to delegate, shutting residents out of the conversation, and then committing an undetermined amount of taxpayer dollars to fund unnecessary litigation while we know, and have heard again tonight our residents are truly struggling -I can not support.
Given this decision has already been made in closed meetings, I will make a motion that all costs associated with the charter challenge, including legal advice and staff time on litigation to date be tracked."
Respectful Workplace Policy -July 22, 2024
Below are my comments from the July 22, 2024 Regular Council meeting:
“I put this motion forward because I have heard concerns form many people about this policy and its implementation. I’ve also heard from people who have received notices and letters based on comments made at meetings. Others still have told me they are hesitant to seek help for concern of receiving a notice.
In my opinion, this policy has created an atmosphere where people are becoming increasingly discouraged from engaging with council. In my view, it is council’s role to encourage engagement. After one year, now is the appropriate time to pause and reflect on a policy that is not working. Both sides have dug their heels in, and as council we need to take responsibility to rebuild public engagement and dialogue.
It isn’t good enough to only review, we need humility, and that begins with the immediate suspension of the Respectful Workplace Policy.”
Motion:
THAT the "Respectful Workplace Policy," policy number H.1.36, be suspended;
AND THAT staff provide options for the review of the "Respectful Workplace Policy," policy number H.1.36, to council for consideration at a future meeting.
Motion Defeated.
Avon Crest - March 27, 2023
As Avon Crest was approaching a timeline for demolition, I put forward a Heritage Stratford recommendation with intent to designate the building heritage (below). Amidst much engagement and frustration from the public that this building could be demolished, council chose to hold closed meetings on Avon Crest on March 27 and April 11, both of which I opposed and advocated for moving into a public meeting. As a result, discussion whether to designate Avon Crest a heritage building took place away from the public, and prior to allowing residents to speak to council on the matter on March 27. Avon Crest was ultimately left not designated and demolished.
Notice of Motion from Councillor Sebben
THAT Council consider the November 9, 2021 motion from Heritage
Stratford and adopt the following motion, as Heritage Stratford has
adequately demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the site meets
one or more of the provincial designation criteria set out in Ontario
Regulation 9/06:
“THAT Council issue an intent to designate 86 & 90 John Street South
under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act specifically the:
1. 1891 hospital (Avon Crest), including the semi-circular landscaped
entrance driveway;
Regular Council Minutes 22
March 27 and 30, 2023
A vibrant city, leading the way in community-driven excellence.
2. 1910 extension;
3. 1904 Gardener’s cottage; and
4. 1929 Nurses’ residence.”
This motion did not have an opportunity to be made at the March 27 meeting, as council voted to refer this to a legal opinion which was provided in a closed meeting April 11.