Ward 2 Coun. Michael Vagnini was close to withdrawing his motion for a reconsideration of a vote held during a Dec. 15 council meeting, but wound up sticking to his guns Wednesday night, opting to revisit the motion at a later date.
Vagnini tabled a motion during council's Jan. 20 special meeting, requesting a reconsideration of a vote held more than a month ago that was asking for an evaluation of the Project Now proposal.
With mayor Brian Bigger absent from the Dec. 15 meeting, the vote to take a closer look at the proposed downtown arena renovation was split 6-6, meaning that the motion was defeated.
Vagnini said he mistakenly voted in opposition to the motion that evening due to a miscommunication, as the councillor thought he was voting on a deferral of the motion at the time that the vote was taken.
Upon tabling his motion for reconsideration of Resolution CC2020-315-Project Now Proposal, Vagnini was given the option to withdraw the motion by Mayor Bigger, who explained that staff would be putting together a report on arena options which included the downtown arena.
"Councillor Vagnini, I'm hoping that at this point in time you would be agreeable to withdraw that motion as we are having staff prepare an updated report that will include the community arena event centre project in the second quarter of 2021," said Bigger.
Vagnini was amenable to the mayor's wishes, with the caveat that his original vote be corrected.
"I have no problem pulling the motion, I just want people to realize that I did make an error and I would like that part changed," said Vagnini.
"We know we've had technology problems and I thought we were voting on a deferral but we weren't and that's what I'm looking for, is just to correct my error and have my vote the way it was supposed to have been."
City clerk Eric Labelle explained that the record of Vagnini's original vote cannot be changed, explaining that the clerk's office has the authority to make changes to votes only in the event that the mistake is made on their end.
"Let's say that you vote ‘yes’ and I record it as a ‘no,’ that is something that we can go back to the video and see," said Labelle. "I don't have the ability to make the correction where a member has indicated his vote and at the same meeting or later on wishes to change that. I advised the councillor that the only option was to bring forward a reconsideration."
Had Vagnini brought the reconsideration forward at the Dec. 15 meeting, he would have only required a majority vote in order to put the motion back on the table.
However, the city's procedural bylaw states that in order to have a reconsideration passed at a subsequent meeting, a two-thirds vote in favour would be required in order for it to pass.
The mayor explained that Vagnini's intentions had been documented and repeated that staff would be looking at three options in its report that would be brought to council later this year.
Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc interjected, questioning if Vagnini's motion could infringe on the staff report.
"So we would have a revote on Project Now and let's say the vote got defeated once again, would that then eliminate staff from having to look at Project Now and just technically focus on the KED?" said Leduc.
Labelle explained that despite the Project Now vote having been defeated in December, council's direction to staff to look at a potential renovation to the downtown arena wouldn't be impacted.
"The report that would be coming forward in Q2 would be a revisiting or review about the potential for renovation of the Sudbury Community Arena, which may not necessarily involve the Project Now plan," said Labelle.
"It would perhaps involve additional information regarding the potential renovation and refurbishment of that building. The report being proposed by the mayor is perhaps different than the Project Now review."
Labelle went on to indicate that regardless of the reconsideration vote and if the request for the Project Now review was defeated a second time, council would be in the same position that it's in currently.
As Tuesday's meeting bled into its fourth hour, both councillors Leduc and Robert Kirwan indicated that they did not wish to have the meeting proceed beyond 10 p.m., but Bigger did not call the vote to proceed past 10 p.m., again asking Vagnini if he wished to withdraw his motion.
Vagnini stated that he would not be withdrawing his motion and will have it put back on the table at council's next meeting.
