Sergeant-at-arms a distraction from real issues

For Niagara’s municipalities, it seems the hiring of sergeants-at-arms is all the rage.

Last week, Niagara Falls city council and Niagara regional council both voted to proceed with the hiring of a person to provide security at council meetings, joining St. Catharines city council in this dubious exercise.

The question is: What practical purpose will a sergeant-at-arms serve? Other than to create additional costs, of course.

In Niagara Falls’ case, Mayor Jim Diodati said the purpose is to “provide a presence to help maintain a friendly order and act as an official in council chambers.”

“Part of the problem is,” Diodati continued, “a lot of people come in here, it might be the first time they’ve ever been at a council chamber and they don’t know the rules and procedures …”

People might get up, “start clapping, they bring signs and the problem is, we can’t go out and police it,” said the mayor.

Diodati also said events in the U.S., specifically the Parkland school shooting in February, prompted some councillors to express concerns regarding security.

The impetus for the Region’s move seems partly related to its ongoing response to events at the Dec. 7, 2017, meeting during which Standard reporter Bill Sawchuk saw his computer and notes illegally seized and he himself ejected from the meeting and the regional headquarters building. Also seized was recording equipment owned by a community blogger after it was found to have been left running during an in-camera session. The office of the Ontario Ombudsman is investigating this incident. Police have also investigated and determined no charges were warranted.

In addition, there were incidents in December and January during which a member of the public attending meetings felt threatened and harassed.

The purpose of the sergeant-at-arms in the Region’s case, is, again, to help regulate meetings.

The problem is these new officers will have no official powers of arrest, they would still have to call for police assistance should the need arise, and they are not armed themselves. This is not the gun-toting parliamentary sergeant-at-arms in Ottawa.

It will still come down to the person leading the meeting — the mayor, the regional chair, the chair of whatever municipal committee is meeting — to make decisions and enforce control.

Is there a person in attendance being disruptive? The new sergeant-at-arms can warn the disruptor to behave but can do little else.

It will take the head of council to have that person removed from the meeting, and again, the police would have to be called to perform that duty should the need arise.

To be fair, these three Niagara municipalities who have gone the sergeant-at-arms route are not alone – some other Ontario municipalities have made similar decisions.

But this all seems to us little more than a distraction from the real issue at stake -- the ability of councils to maintain order at their own meetings, following the rules that already exist under federal and provincial legislation.

In the Dec. 7 case, a recording device was inadvertently left on leading council and staff to over-react and assume search and seizure powers the municipality does not possess under Canadian law.

In the other cases in December and January, a sergeant-at-arms would have been able to do nothing -- Regional Chair Alan Caslin should have intervened then and would need to do so again if any similar occurrence occurs in the future.

This is about leadership, pure and simple. Or the lack thereof.