On December 18, 2024, Owen Sound resident Ken Jones participated in the Public Question Period at a City Council meeting and attempted to raise a question about Owen Sound’s high municipal taxes. According to the City’s Procedural Bylaw, residents are allowed up to five minutes—including a brief introductory statement—to present their question to Council. Despite this, Mr. Jones was interrupted by the Mayor just two minutes into his remarks and was pressured to immediately ask his question.

At 2 minutes and 58 seconds, Mr. Jones began framing his question, but was again interrupted at the 3-minute and 40-second mark. He ultimately completed his question at 4 minutes and 10 seconds—still well within the five-minute limit prescribed by the bylaw. His question was direct: How can the Mayor explain why Owen Sound has the highest taxes and the lowest average incomes relative to comparable municipalities?

The Mayor responded by stating that "Owen Sound does not have the highest taxes" and that Mr. Jones was relying on outdated information. He argued that some municipalities have higher "taxes per capita" than Owen Sound. However, the municipalities he referred to are predominantly single-tier municipalities with far broader service responsibilities and are therefore not valid comparators—contrary to the assumptions that grounded Mr. Jones' question.

What the Mayor failed to address was the central issue: Mr. Jones was referring specifically to comparable municipalities—those similar in population size, density, and number of occupied dwellings. According to the most recent available data from the 2023 BMA Municipal Study and the 2022 Audited Financial Statements, Mr. Jones was in fact correct: Owen Sound has among the highest tax levels not just in comparable Ontario municipalities, but also across all municipalities in Grey and Bruce Counties.

The claim that Mr. Jones used “outdated” data is also demonstrably false. His question referenced posts based on the most current available sources—official documents that are relied upon across the province for financial benchmarking.

The Mayor then claimed he was simply upholding the Procedural Bylaw. But if that were the case, why was Mr. Jones interrupted multiple times despite clearly remaining within his five-minute limit? Mr. Jones himself suggested that it was because the Mayor did not like the subject of the question—high taxes, a politically sensitive topic given the Mayor's voting record.

A sharp contrast can be drawn with the January 15, 2024 Council meeting chaired by the Deputy Mayor. At that meeting, a resident was welcomed with a more respectful and supportive tone. She was not only allowed to finish her full question but was invited to stay at the podium for follow-up dialogue. The exchange lasted approximately seven minutes, exceeding the five-minute guideline without interruption.

Why the difference in treatment? Was it the tone? The topic? The gender or age of the speaker? The Deputy Mayor clearly showed that a more inclusive and equitable approach is possible within the existing procedural rules.

A further example of selective enforcement occurred on December 18, 2023, when the Mayor himself made a deputation to Council. The Procedural Bylaw (section 64(i)) limits deputations to 10 minutes. Yet the Mayor spoke for nearly 30 minutes without interruption. The Deputy Mayor later acknowledged this, noting the time overrun.

These inconsistencies raise serious questions about fairness, transparency, and equity in how Public Question Period is administered. Mr. Jones was not afforded the same respectful treatment as others. He was entitled to five minutes. He was cut off multiple times. Others, including the Mayor, have been permitted to exceed time limits without interruption. This inconsistent application of the rules strongly suggests discriminatory treatment.

Mayor Ian Boddy has served for nearly a decade and is well-versed in the City’s Procedural Bylaws. His decision to cut off Mr. Jones early—despite knowing the five-minute allowance—calls into question the fairness of his conduct. Was this done, as Mr. Jones believes, because the question touched on the Mayor’s political record regarding repeated tax increases?

If so, that raises concerns of a disqualifying conflict of interest. The Mayor has presided over Council during a period of sustained tax increases and has personally voted to raise taxes on at least thirteen occasions. In such a case, silencing public questions that challenge that record undermines the integrity of public discourse and may violate Council's Code of Conduct.

Further troubling is the Mayor’s lack of response to a detailed research report submitted in mid-November outlining these very concerns. That report—based on audited municipal financial statements—offered concrete recommendations for fiscal reform. Yet the Mayor has neither acknowledged receipt nor provided any response, professional or otherwise.

In conclusion, the treatment of Mr. Jones appears inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of Council’s Procedural Bylaw. More importantly, it reflects a troubling pattern of inequitable treatment of residents who raise challenging or politically inconvenient questions. If Council is to rebuild trust and credibility with the public, it must ensure that all residents—regardless of topic, tone, or political alignment—are treated with fairness, respect, and consistency during Public Question Period.

What do you think?