Wednesday, March 8, 2023

City of Prince Rupert's Adjudication Bylaw plans move forward, with one significant change

A new approach to bylaw ticket enforcement is on the way following 
Monday's City Council session

The path to what the city hopes will be more rewarding outcomes on bylaw enforcement moved forward on Monday evening as City Council adopted their new Adjudication Bylaw, which will offer those who have been issued tickets a chance to make their case with an adjudicator before any outstanding fines re move on to a collections firm.

The Bylaw moved through council fairly quickly with but a few questions and one change, the latter courtesy of an amendment put forward by Councillor Barry Cunningham who questioned the use of the Bylaw officers as Screening officers, fearing a potential conflict of interest.

Mr Cunningham outlined his concerns over the original bylaw and one element of it, that as to who would be assigned as a Screening officer.

"Having a bylaw officer as a screening officer, I think is a conflict of interest as they are the ones handing out the tickets"

Corporate Administrator Rosa Miller offered up an explanation as to the thinking towards the inclusion of the Bylaw officers as part of the screening process.

"That would be the Bylaw officer, who would be acting as a Screening officer would be the alternate bylaw officer. So if Bylaw Officer One issues the ticket, Bylaw Officer Two could potentially be the Screening officer. If Council wishes to have that removed, that's an easy fix."

Councillor Cunningham took Ms. Miller up on the observation  towards removing the Bylaw Officers as screening officers.

"I think that they both work very closely together, they would be talking about the case and everything else so I think we should take them out"

From there the Councillor put forward an amendment towards that wish.

Councillor Adey noting that it wasn't a reflection on the Bylaw Officers but just a guard against potential conflict.

Councillor Randhawa asked as to who would fill the posts as Screening offer, with Councillor Cunningham noting of the range of options that are still available on staff.  

As well as the possibility of the City hiring an independent and neutral adjudicator.

Council then voted to approve the amended version of the Bylaw.

Mayor Pond then raised a question related to the current bylaw ticket process and the voluntary nature of tickets. 

A theme that has been a frequent topic in the last year for Council.

"I had one question Director Miller and that is, and I just happened to be asked it this weekend, are our  current tickets voluntary, because it says so, something to that effect'

Corporate Administrator Rosa Miller provided a tutorial on how the Bylaw process works and what is ahead for it.

"You are correct, it does say so. 

They are only voluntary in the sense that a bylaw infraction, everyone who has received a ticket has a period of time in which they can challenge it, generally it's ten days.

 I believe it says it on the back of the ticket.

If you choose to challenge it, obviously the ticket is voluntary. 

With adjudication that ticket will come to probably myself initially, there are certain criteria that need  to be met in order for a ticket to be removed from the system.

 If we can't agree then it does go to outside adjudication for that,  the adjudicator is appointed by the province.

The ticket is not voluntary after ten days, if you choose  to not challenge the ticket, the ticket is no longer voluntary"

Councillor Cunningham questioned the use of the word voluntary at all, noting of the confusion that the term provides for the community. He also had a suggestion towards having the City tow vehicles after three or four parking tickets have been issued.

"With our parking tickets, I don't know if we can do this or not, if a person gets three or four tickets why can't we just tow their vehicle and they don't get it back til they pay their tickets."

Director Miller provided the thumbnail guide as to how the City approaches the possibility of towing vehicles and how the adjudication process will look to remedy some of the issues.

"There are very specific rules and regulations around when you can tow a vehicle and what you can do around a bylaw infraction.  

It is certainly something that we can look at if Council wishes and we can bring that back for a Council decision.

At this point, given the fact that we are going to adjudication and are in the midst of contracting with a collection agency, those who do not pay their tickets will be subject to collection.

But again, Staff is more than happy to investigate"

The Discussion on the Bylaw can be reviewed from the City's Video Archive starting at the 11:30 mark.


You can review the notes on the Bylaw from the Agenda package for Council from Monday evening, which is found on page 26 of the Council documentation

The final draft of the Bylaw will see the element of Screening officers revised prior to publication on the city website and going into effect in the community.

More notes on Monday's Council Session can be explored here.

5 comments:

  1. "Having a bylaw officer as a screening officer, I think is a conflict of interest as they are the ones handing out the tickets" - Councilor Cunningham

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get a speeding ticket and you choose to dispute that ticket. The officer who issued the ticket is present on the date that happens. That is not a conflict of interest, it is a first account of the incident. This should be the case for bylaw infractions as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From Ms. Millar: ""There are very specific rules and regulations around when you can tow a vehicle and what you can do around a bylaw infraction."

    These specific rules she speaks of might they be City of Prince Rupert policy and bylaws. In many cities they seem to be able to tow immediately. The city doesn't want to tow vehicles so has rules to slow the process down.

    More action from city required to fix the situation. Councilors ask more questions. Follow up is proper from councilors but sadly lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It’s Miller. Not Millar

    ReplyDelete