Pro Forma. It means “done or produced as a matter of form.” A rubber stamp, if you will: a vote must be taken, but the deal is already done. 

Such votes are uncommon in Prince Edward County. On that ground alone it might be worth going back and seeing how we got here. Never mind the palpable dismay people are feeling that the vote we were promised on the secret deal the County has suddenly made with Picton Terminals will…not be a vote. 

Procedure is important. So important, that, as all watchers of police procedurals know, never mind of former President Trump’s many trials: if there is a breach of procedure, a case will be dismissed. Following the correct procedure is more important than any single argument or whatever matter at stake. With good reason. Procedures need to be transparent, reliable, open. They need to be known by all parties. 

If there was shock at Shire Hall last week over the announcement that a decade of failed negotiations with Picton Terminals and an Ontario Superior Court case with dates set for October had suddenly ended in a secret “done deal,” then that was because the procedure was…not what was advertised. To put it mildly.

On June 25, Council approved motion 2024-304 by a vote of 7-6. It had five parts. Council voted to: “approve draft terms of settlement;” to seek a “similar approval” of those terms from Picton Terminals; to convene a meeting with representatives of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte to discuss “the draft terms of settlement;” and, finally, “bring a by-law to implement a settlement agreement.” The public would get to see the “executed minutes of settlement” three days before the meeting.

The motion did not say that should the “draft terms of settlement” be accepted by the Terminals, it would become a legally binding and enforceable contract. Nor did it mention that what it referred to, twice, as “draft terms of settlement” was a contract. 

Likewise, the County’s Public Service Announcement repeated that the County had issued “draft terms of settlement” which would come back to Council for approval should an agreement result. 

There was no disclosure to the public that the settlement offer could lead to “a legally binding agreement” before anyone had even seen it, nor that Council’s vote to approve would then be a pro forma ratification of a done deal.

Perhaps even more concerning, even Councillors seemed to be unaware of what the June 25 motion they voted to approve would actually entail. 

At Council last week, on July 23, the public found itself in  an unusual position. It witnessed the reaction of Councillors who had learned the deal was done at almost the same time it did. 

It was not a pretty sight. Councillors were visibly angry and dismayed. The tone was shocked, even funereal. 

Councillor Kate MacNaughton, worried at the sheer unusualness of her request, asked if Council could move into yet another closed session for “sober second thoughts” and, perhaps, an amendment. 

That motion carried 7-5, but no second thoughts emerged from the closed session, sober or otherwise. As we had been told by the County’s legal counsel, Sarah Viau, second thoughts were not going to be allowed.

Councillor John Hirsch had to send a note to his constituents the next day to explain that the motion he had planned for the meeting, to reconsider the June 25 offer to settle, could no longer be entertained by Council. 

“Council is not allowed to reconsider a decision if the original motion has been implemented, resulting in a legally binding commitment,” he wrote. It was clearly news to him.

And then there was the Mayor. “This is not the outcome I expected,” he said. 

Really? After Council voted to send a contract to Picton Terminals with, apparently, everything it had ever wanted? Did even the Mayor not realize Council, in sending that plum offer, had entered into a binding legal commitment to hand over Picton Bay to continued, reckless exploitation? 

Well, he has my sympathies. I had no idea either. Neither did the over 100 people who wrote letters in the wake of the June 25 motion about a draft agreement and a final vote, or all those who came to Council that evening — 17! — prepared to make public comments, every single one of them opposed.

At Shire Hall that night it looked like someone — the County’s legal team? the proverbial “staff”? Those wily PT lawyers, who know when to hold ’em, when to fold ’em, and when to snap up a good deal when they see one? — had done an end run around Council. 

Residents thought there was going to be a vote on the whole issue — a real vote; there was no mention of a pro forma vote, not a word — likely in August, after all the drafts had been drafted and the meetings convened. They were going to find out what the terms were — finally — and be able to weigh in on them, and then there would be a vote to approve or deny the draft agreement. 

Why did they think this? There are two reasons. First, because that is what they were told would happen. And second, because that is the procedure for important matters of civic concern. Once, twice, three times. Going, going, gone. One vote leads to another vote. There are always multiple places in County procedures, not endless, but at three different points in the process, items can be considered again. And when it comes time for a final vote, it is a real vote. It is not a shortchanged, done deal, pro forma, for-appearances-only kind of vote. 

This secret deal, with a company that has turned Picton Bay into a battlefield for nearly a decade, shortchanges transparent democratic process and undermines the County’s jurisdictional authority. 

Council’s decision to settle a serious and important legal case with a secret deal behind closed doors makes an utter mockery of public consultation and transparent decision-making — governance, in other words. 

Forcing an international container shipping port and industrial zone on a small, scenic harbour at the centre of a County trying mightily to establish itself as a world-class destination of outstanding natural and cultural beauty is just wrong. 

Council’s secret deal is nothing less than a shockingly cowardly about-face that shirks the core of governmental responsibility: protecting and sustaining a healthy, thriving, and engaged community. 

Picton Terminals must be challenged. Democratically and openly. If Council cannot manage to do that, then the vote must be to take the case to a court of law. At least there, the procedures, the arguments, and the outcomes cannot be cloaked in darkness.