A Step Backward for Local Governance: Why Less Frequent Council Meetings Harm Our Community

Progressive, growing communities do not thrive by doing less. They succeed through active leadership, open debate, and continuous civic engagement.

At the Tuesday, September 8th bi-weekly town council meeting, the Council decided to lengthen the time between meetings, shifting from a biweekly schedule to a once-every-three-week rotation - that's a 1/3 reduction in the number of meetings!  While this decision technically complies with Section 39 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Towns and Local Service Districts Act—which only requires councils to meet publicly at least once per month—it represents a major step backward in how our town is governed.

To be clear, the ripple effect of this decision reaches far beyond public council sessions. Sound decision-making in Clarenville is built on recommendations vetted through standing council committees, which traditionally meet during the alternate weeks between public meetings. Typically running about two hours, each committee session pairs at least two councillors with key department staff. This staff involvement is crucial—they provide the operational context, technical expertise, and professional advice elected representatives need to make informed decisions.

A town council's primary role is to act as the governing body that sets the strategic direction, establishes policies, and provides financial oversight for the municipality, rather than managing its day-to-day operations.  

As formalized in the province's governing Towns and Local Service Districts Act, individual councillors are legally obligated to "consider the welfare and interests of the town as a whole" and to "participate generally in developing and evaluating the policies and programs of the town."

Reducing public council meetings effectively slashes the number of opportunities for the people we elected to represent us and to ensure that good, well-advised decisions are being made. Given the operational demands of running a multi-million-dollar municipal corporation like Clarenville, cutting these sessions forces an unwelcome compromise: either cramming more business into marathon, rushed meetings, or cutting back on consultation altogether before major votes take place. Neither scenario fosters good governance.

Reducing the frequency of council and committee meetings by a third is a poor decision for several critical reasons:

• Eroding Oversight and Transparency: Fewer public meetings lead to reduced council oversight and less transparency. It increases the risk of concentrating decision-making into fewer hands or pushing discussions behind closed doors during privileged, in-camera sessions.

• Creating Counterproductive Workarounds: Fewer formal meetings do not mean fewer problems to solve. Shifting council business to back-and-forth email chains often serves to exacerbate complicated issues rather than resolve them—resulting in email-based problem-creating rather than genuine problem-solving.

• Slowing Down Municipal Progress and Slowing Decision-Making: Extending the gap between meetings inherently slows down municipal decision-making. Delays in approving permits, motions, and town initiatives can stall local development at a time when agility is needed most.

• Stifling Debate and Innovation: A three-week gap cuts down the dedicated time councillors have to meet, develop ideas, debate policy, and collaborate effectively.   Council may become 7 individuals making decisions independently, rather than acting as a group decision-making body.

• Diminishing Councillor Engagement: Municipal governance is hard - especially in a growing town like Clarenville.  It works best when the council makes well-informed, well-thought-out, fully discussed decisions - with a full complement of councillors. Fewer meetings will increase the probability of missing councillors, which would effectively limit councillors' engagement and her/his opportunity to fully understand issues, discuss with staff, voice concerns, and stay involved in their role.   

• Diminishing Citizen Engagement: Municipal governance relies on accessibility. Reducing public meetings limits the opportunities residents have to observe proceedings, voice concerns, and stay involved in town affairs.

Ironically, this decision itself illustrates the problem with reduced consultation. Had this motion been given more thorough debate and consideration beforehand, council might have anticipated the fallout. Hasty structural changes often create more problems than they solve.

Across Newfoundland and Labrador, meeting frequency reflects a town's scale and ambition. While smaller rural communities often meet monthly to satisfy the minimum statutory requirement, thriving, mid-to-large towns—such as Clarenville (until now), Conception Bay South, Gander, Corner Brook, and Mount Pearl—maintain regular biweekly cycles. Larger cities like St. John's operate on weekly alternating schedules to manage their workload.

Thankfully, for the past number of years, regular council meetings have been broadcast for the community to watch. These livestreams and recordings have been a vital tool for local democracy, giving residents who cannot/do not attend in person the ability to stay informed, witness discussions firsthand, and hold their representatives accountable. However, public broadcasts only work if there is open, transparent business being conducted on screen. (Is this the next to go?)  Slashing meeting frequency diminishes this vital window into municipal affairs, leaving citizens with fewer opportunities to tune in, follow civic issues, and remain actively involved in our town's progress.

A Question of Process: What Is a Posted Schedule Worth?

Section 39(3) of the Municipalities Act explicitly states that a schedule of regular meetings must be approved annually by resolution and made public, setting out the date, time, and place of regular meetings. The Town of Clarenville approved and posted its official meeting schedule for 2026 earlier this year - now it has changed it - and I hope to help see it change back.

If Council can simply alter that schedule mid-stream at will, what is the point of requiring an annual posted schedule in the first place?

Conclusion

Our town did not become one of the province's fastest-growing municipalities because past councils chose to scale back their commitments. Thriving towns demand engaged, proactive citizen representation. Reducing our council's meeting schedule by a third directly contradicts that goal and sets a concerning precedent for our community’s future.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED MEETING SCHEDULE