Opinion – Shattering Decorum: What Burlington Voters Should Know Before October

Sometimes the most important decisions made in a council chamber are not the ones that receive the headlines. They are the procedural decisions – like the ones that determine who will chair the meeting, how debate is managed, how votes are taken, and ultimately how the public record is created. While these matters may seem technical, they form the foundation of transparent and accountable local government.

On July 6, 2026 I attended the COW meeting for an unrelated purpose. Having reviewed the official meeting information beforehand, I expected to witness the measured, respectful and businesslike proceedings that have traditionally characterized municipal government. Instead, I found myself surprised by both the tone of the deliberations and the procedural issues that emerged. That experience prompted me to look more closely at what had occurred.

Seeming like it came out of nowhere, a surprise motion was introduced from the floor to waive Section 10 of the City’s Procedure By-law. The purpose of which was to alter the chair rotation and appoint Councillor Shawna Stolte as Chair for the July and September Committee of the Whole meetings.

There may well have been sound reasons for proposing the change. Councils have the authority to amend procedures, and members are entitled to debate and vote on such matters. The more interesting question is not whether Council could do so, but why it was considered necessary, why it was introduced without prior notice on the published agenda, and whether Burlington residents were provided enough information to understand the reasons behind the decision.

During the discussion, several different justifications were offered. The mayor noted that Councillor Stolte was the only member not running for re-election and suggested that having a non-candidate in the chair would help keep proceedings focused on city business rather than election campaigning. Others spoke about restoring order, reducing political posturing, and improving decorum.

Councillor Lisa Kearns raised an interesting point. At the time of the meeting, nominations for the municipal election had not yet closed. Under Ontario’s election rules, candidates have until late August to file nomination papers. In other words, whether any member – including Councillor Stolte – would ultimately become a candidate was not yet a settled fact. That observation did not invalidate the motion, but it did highlight that some of the rationale being advanced rested on circumstances that could still change.

Another question arose during the discussion. According to the established chair rotation previously approved by Council, Councillor Angelo Bentivegna was expected to assume a future chairing role following Councillor Paul Sharman. Yet the meeting offered little explanation as to why that rotation should be altered. When asked directly whether he had agreed to give up his turn, Councillor Bentivegna simply replied, “No comment.”

Having reviewed the transcript, one observation stands out. Councillor Paul Sharman demonstrated a calm, organized and measured approach while chairing the opening portion of the meeting. He maintained order, recognized speakers, sought clarification from staff where appropriate, and kept the meeting moving. Based solely on the proceedings, there was no obvious indication that a change in chairmanship was operationally necessary. That does not mean Council’s decision was wrong, but it does raise a reasonable question about why the established rotation needed to change.

The discussion also reflected the realities of municipal politics. Three members of Council are seeking the office of Mayor, while another councillor had not yet reached the nomination deadline and therefore retained the option of entering the race. Under those circumstances, heightened tensions and sharper exchanges are perhaps understandable. Politics is, after all, a human endeavour.

That makes adherence to established procedures even more important. Whether that practice fully satisfies the spirit of transparency is a legitimate question for residents to consider. It is also one of the issues I have raised separately for independent review.

Ultimately, elections are about much more than campaign promises. They are also about judgment, leadership, temperament and respect for democratic institutions. Voters should pay attention not only to what candidates say on the campaign trail, but also to how they conduct themselves in the council chamber when difficult decisions must be made, how they treat one another, how they respond to procedural disagreements, and whether they demonstrate a commitment to fairness, openness and accountability.

Municipal government often works best when it is uneventful. Meetings are orderly. Rules are applied consistently. Votes are transparent. Decisions are understood, even when they are controversial. Those qualities build public confidence.

As Burlington prepares to elect its next Council this October, residents have an opportunity to look beyond campaign slogans and ask deeper questions:
Do our elected representatives model the professionalism we expect? ;
Are our procedures being followed consistently? ;
Are decisions being made transparently? and;
Are we leaving future councils with governance practices that strengthen, rather than weaken, public trust?

Those are questions worth asking – regardless of who receives your vote.

You can read an AI summary and an AI-generated transcript of the meeting here:

https://www.focusburlington.ca/committee-of-the-whole-july-6-2026/