“Informal feedback” was used as justification to eliminate off-site Saanich Council Town Hall meetings. I made an FOI request to locate the “informal feedback”. The only feedback in this direction, that showed up in the FOI response, regarding the May 6, 2025 Town Hall meeting, was from Councillor Bondaroff.
By Sasha Izard
Sept 21, 2025
On September 9, 2025, an unrecorded Town Hall was held in the municipal chambers at Saanich municipal hall. Only 20 pre-registered speakers were allowed to speak for 3 minutes each. Despite that, the council chamber was full, with many new people having showed up, and many were left standing outside unable to publicly address their elected officials.
If the event had been held at an appropriate off-site location, as took place on May 6, 2025 at the Hellenic Community Centre, this would not have been an issue. However, Saanich eliminated off-site town hall meetings after that meeting, and severely curtailed the time allowed for the public to address council at them (down to only one hour, up to 3 times a year).
Last months I wrote the following article:
How a groundless narrative cooked up by elected officials and the press of “boisterous” and “raucous” meetings, was used to justify major claw backs in open public input to Saanich Council. – CRD Watch Homepage
In the article I wrote:
“I’ve included that staff report [that the clampdown on off-site council town hall meetings was based on] that was attached to the agenda for the Town Hall item at the Saanich Council meeting on Aug 11, as an appendix.
Here is what the report read:
“Following the May 6 Town Hall, informal feedback highlighted concerns related to maintaining a welcoming space for all participants. Applause and interjections during that meeting created an environment where some individuals may have felt uncomfortable expressing differing views.”
This was immediately followed by the text “Hosting the Town Hall at Municipal Hall provides a setting that supports consistency, neutrality, and the same level of decorum expected at Council meetings.”
Quite vague isn’t it? This recommendation is based on “informal feedback”. Why informal feedback? Were staff and elected officials not present at these events? Why did they need “informal feedback” to come to their conclusions? Why did they not want the meetings actually recorded? Note the qualifier “may” being used, rather than a statement of fact as to whether or not people were uncomfortable at the May 6 Town Hall meeting. Hardly a justification for essentially eliminating town halls by reducing the public open-topic input to council 1 hour from 6-7PM 3 times a year inside the Council Chambers.”
—————————————————————————————————
On Aug 13: I sent the following Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the District of Saanich:
Hello, I am submitting an FOI request for the staff report mentioned in today’s Times Colonist article:
Saanich town hall to move to council chambers – Victoria Times Colonist
“According to a staff report, applause and interjections during the meeting created an environment where some individuals may have felt uncomfortable expressing differing views.”
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
—————————————————————————————————
Saanich’s FOI department responded the following day:
Good morning Sasha,
The Director of Legislative and Protective Services / Corporate Officer report dated July 30, 2025 was considered at the August 11, 2025 Council meeting. Please scroll down to item D.5: Meeting
Kind regards,
Information and Privacy Team”
—————————————————————————————————
On August 14, 2025 I sent the following Freedom of Information request to the District of Saanich:
I’d like to submit the following FOI request:
I would like to see all documents, records and communications in regard to the following “informal feedback” described in the staff report:
“Following the May 6 Town Hall, informal feedback highlighted concerns related to maintaining a welcoming space for all participants.”
Thank you again,
Sasha
—————————————————————————————————
On Sept 15, 2025, I received the FOI response from the District:
REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION NO. 2025-184
RE: Records of “Informal Feedback” described in staff report
File: 2025-184
This correspondence is further to my letter dated August 14, 2025 and your request for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). You requested the following (paraphrased):
All documents, records and communications in regard to the following “informal
feedback” described in the staff report of Director of Legislative and Protective Services / Corporate Officer report dated July 30, 2025 which was considered at the August 11, 2025 Council meeting: “Following the May 6 Town Hall, informal feedback highlighted concerns related to maintaining a welcoming space for all participants.”
I have attached records responsive to your request.
Please note that the CAO/Mayor’s Office and Legislative Services both advised that comments / feedback was also received in person, at the counter and by telephone for which there are no records.
—————————————————————————————————
The FOI response 2025-184, contained a total of 18 pages. Not one of those pages contained complaints from the public in regard to feeling unwelcome etc. at the May 6, 2025 town hall. There was in actuality only one email from the public included about that town hall, in which was stated in regard to it:
“Good morning everyone
First off I’d like to thank everybody for holding the town hall meeting last night.
I was disappointed that I did not get a chance to come up and speak with you all in person.
Maybe if there was less lessons on clapping, which shows approval, and more on the topics of concern, we could’ve had more people go through to voice their concerns?
So saying that I am now sending everybody an email and I’d appreciate if everyone could answer back, acknowledging you received this and what your plans are for my concerns.”
The concerns in the rest of the email were unrelated to the town hall. They were about a specific development and impacts of it on their community.
Excerpt:
“These high density development that some counsellors see for Normandy Road is forcing people out of their neighbourhoods people that have been here for years. Raise their kids here established a well-maintained home here are now being forced out by developers and Saanich could care less.
Like it was said last night who’s running the show the developers or council?”
—————————————————————————————————
As seen above, only one feedback from a member of the public was provided in the FOI response in regard to the May 6, 2025 town hall. The feedback did not fit their narrative in removing off-site town halls. On the contrary the person wrote: “thank everybody for holding the town hall meeting last night.”
They also wrote: “Maybe if there was less lessons on clapping, which shows approval, and more on the topics of concern, we could’ve had more people go through to voice their concerns?”
So apparently Saanich’s response to this feedback was to eliminate off-site town halls, in order to clamp down on clapping, and reduce public feedback time at a future town hall to only one hour (20 speakers at 3 minutes each).
Clearly Saanich’s response was not based on the feedback provided by the one person on the record. So what was this “informal feedback” that the District used as justification to eliminate off-site town hall meetings?
“Please note that the CAO/Mayor’s Office and Legislative Services both advised that comments / feedback was also received in person, at the counter and by telephone for which there are no records.”
So in other words the “informal feedback” used as justification to eliminate off-site council town hall meetings, was not on the record.
Anyone can make an anonymous phone call, or government employees could even pretend that one happened if was the case (How can we know otherwise? There is nothing on the record.), and that would be enough on its own to justify eliminating town halls, if the elected or unelected staff want that to be the case.
—————————————————————————————————
There was however considerable feedback pushing in the direction indicated included in the FOI response, but it was not by a member of the public. It was by none other than Councillor, Dr. Teale Phelps Bondaroff.
The day after the off-site town hall meeting, Bondaroff wrote a lengthy email with the subject: “Concerns over decorum at the Town Hall meeting”.
It was sent to Saanich’s CAO Brent Reems, the Corporate Officer Angila Bains, and to Mayor Murdock. It is this three, incidentally that together sign off on the agendas for upcoming council meetings.
It began:
“Friends,
I hope this finds you well. I wanted to flag a serious concern arising from Tuesday’s Town Hall meeting.”
Dr. Bondaroff is the only person on the record to have provided feedback regarding such concerns about the May 6, 2025 Town Hall meeting.
—————————————————————————————————
The CAO responded:
“Thanks for these notes, Councillor Phelps Bondaroff. We will review and loop back with you.”
Bondaroff responded:
“Thank you, if we do nothing else, it is important that we include this advice in the chair script and remain diligent.
Please let me know how this feedback will be incorporated into future townhalls.
Cheers,
Teale
—————————————————————————————————
So what about the other pages in the 18 page FOI response?
They were unrelated to the May 6 town hall meeting.
Rather they included feedback from potential, or likely non-residents, in regard to a meeting held 2 months later, the July 7, 2025 meeting in regard to the Quadra McKenzie Plan update.
Here is one email chain from it:
Bondaroff’s response:
Note: “We should do coffee again soon, and we should loop [censored] in. I wanted to connect with y’all about media and communications and planning for the elevator resolution we have heading off to UBCM (did you see we got written up in Elevator World, the “premier magazine for all things elevator). And I always find our conversations highly productive.
Random question [censored].
Bondaroff responded about “more informal chatting” and about “hammering out all the coms and advocacy” to the province:
—————————————————————————————————
Conclusion:
Nothing on the record shows the public making a case against off-site town hall meetings, or even making complaints about it, other than one complaint that the councillors talked too much about clapping, thus cutting down on opportunities for public input time.
Yet, a councillor, senior staff, the mayor and the media created a narrative that there was a crisis that needed to be addressed, and the response was to eliminate off-site town hall meetings, and reduce public speaking time at unrecorded on-site town hall meetings to only one hour.
The only source of feedback on the record (and extensive feedback on the record) in such a direction of control of town hall meetings was from Councillor Bondaroff.
The feedback in the form of outside of the District complaints included in the FOI response against public input, had nothing to do with off-site meetings, but were rather directed toward a specific on-site meeting held 2 months after the off-site town hall meeting.
Yet, as it fell within the scope of this FOI request, this unrelated feedback was included in the “informal feedback” that was brought up by staff in their report that was used to justify eliminating off-site meetings.
Yes, you got that correctly, it appears that complaints about an unrelated on-site meeting held months after the offsite meeting, were used as part of the razor-thin justification used to eliminate off-site meetings, and turn them into on-site meetings.
Appendix 1: Staff Report attached to the Aug 11, 2025 Saanich Council meeting in regard to the following item:
See also:
LETTER: Public input limited at Saanich town hall – Saanich News
LETTER: Saanich residents clap back over loss of town hall meetings – Saanich News
Index of articles and letters regarding the reduction of public input in the District of Saanich. – CRD Watch Homepage
CRD Watch Homepage 
Leave a comment