Barb Shaughnessy is standing up for her rights and the rights of others. That was her intent when she arrived at Stratford’s regular council meeting on Monday, June 24, and she wanted to make that known.
Shaughnessy came to the meeting with a prepared statement that she never got the chance to read. In it, she addressed the impact the city’s ban has had on her health and also requested security camera footage from the February 26 meeting that she says is being withheld from the city’s appeal investigator as well as her legal representatives at Donnelly Law.
“In your article on June 7, Mayor Ritsma said he would meet with us, and when Mr. Sullivan asked for a meeting we were denied,” she said via email. “Both our lawyer and the city’s appeal investigator made requests to the city lawyer to release the security footage but were ignored. Going to council was my only hope to raise this issue.”
She further commented that Ritsma’s adjourning the meeting was rigid and said there was nothing in the procedural bylaw or Municipal Act that says ‘a process’ justifies cancelling a meeting.
“The City is acting on poor legal advice,” she said. “Their lawyer has been dragging the appeal process out - until recently, the complaints were mostly innuendo and constantly changing but now more information is more specific. We’re at a stalemate until they supply the footage.”
Shaughnessy claims that the footage she has requested will show her exiting chambers to the elevator and then exiting the building without incident.
“I am sure the City is concerned about what the video will not show,” she added. “It should be very concerning to the residents of Stratford that they won’t release the security footage, even to their own investigator. It should raise red flags.”
When asked what she would say to the people who were awaiting results from other city business that was not attended to last night nor at the two previous meetings that were adjourned or outright cancelled due to Sullivan’s presence, Shaughnessy deflected the claim of responsibility back on to the mayor and council.
“Mayor Ritsma and council decided to adjourn the meeting - it was council that voted 9-2 for the adjournment, and they have blindly followed the city’s imposed policy,” she said. “The mayor will not meet with us, and none of those councillors have reached out to me to get my side of the story - so much for representing residents.”
Ritsma defended the city’s actions and said that the appeal process is not something they control so they’re not in a position to ask them to hurry things up to appease anyone involved. He added that he fully intends to meet with those affected by the ban once it’s legally prudent to do so.
“Because of the legal situation going on, I felt it best not to stick myself in the middle of it,” he said. “Once things went down that road, I had to step away. I want to get through this and return to everyone having a voice in public matters. The only agenda I have in my world is serving the public.”
With the clock ticking on the expiration of the ban, Ritsma remains hopeful that he and the rest of council can engage people and get the business of the city done. And that includes Shaughnessy and Sullivan after July 4.
“I hope all who come to council will express themselves in a fitting manner and allow us to do our work,” he said.
