Investigations

15 Questions, No Answers: Who Decides Delta’s Delegation Requests?

DCC Now · September 2, 2026 · updated September 5, 2026

The record. Fifteen written questions asked the City of Delta to identify the legal authority behind two delegation-request denials — and a third denial with the same pattern. Six were answered only with an uncited reference to “the Council Procedure Bylaw.” Five were deflected. Two were declined. None identified a named decision-maker and a specific bylaw section for those denials.

A disclosure, up front

This piece covers correspondence that involves DCC Now’s editor, Sarbjot Singh Locham. The delegation requests described below were submitted by him personally. It is published because the same process question is already on the public record: who holds delegation-approval authority in Delta, and whether that matches Bylaw No. 8330 as written. Readers should weigh that personal interest. The correspondence is summarized as it stands in writing.

What the bylaw actually says

13.4 — “An external organization wishing to appear before Council to discuss a specific topic must send a written request to the City Clerk. All such requests are subject to prior approval of the Mayor.”

Plain meaning: the written request goes to the Clerk. The Mayor approves it.

13.10 — “Delegations wishing to address Council may do so during: (1) A Regular Council Meeting, at which the delegation has been scheduled to appear, as approved by the Mayor. (2) A Regular Council Meeting in which Council has resolved to meet as Committee of the Whole and at which the delegation has been scheduled to appear, as approved by the Mayor.”

Plain meaning: a resident may appear at a Regular Meeting when the Mayor has approved the appearance. The Clerk then sets the date.

Those clauses do not name the Corporate Officer, the City Manager, or external counsel as the approving authority.

Full bylaw: Council Procedure Bylaw No. 8330

Background

Between November 2025 and July 2026, three delegation requests were denied in writing:

the first communicated by the City’s external counsel (November 5, 2025);
the second by Deputy Corporate Officer Leslie Tuerlings (May 20, 2026);
a third by Deputy Director of Legislative Services Hanieh Berg (July 8, 2026).

The May 20, 2026 letter from Deputy Corporate Officer Leslie Tuerlings relies on the November 5, 2025 counsel letter. It does not name a bylaw section or state that the Mayor reviewed the request.

None of those three written denials cited a specific bylaw section, Council resolution, or instrument of delegated authority.

On July 6/15, 2026, a 15-question letter went to Director of Legislative Services Laurie Darcus, copied to the Mayor, Council, and the City Clerk. Dr. Darcus replied on July 16, 2026. On August 6, 2026, a question-by-question review of that reply was sent back, with an August 12, 2026 date requested for a substantive response.

What the August 6 letter recorded

Six questions (7, 8, 9, 12, 14, and part of 4) were answered only with a repeated, uncited reference to “the Council Procedure Bylaw” — no section number and no supporting document attached.
Questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13 and 15 were met with a request for documents that had already been supplied, or were otherwise not answered on the point asked.
Questions 5 and 10 — who made the decision to deny, if not Ms. Tuerlings or the Mayor — were declined on the basis that Dr. Darcus was not present for the relevant conversations, without naming who was.
A June 29, 2026 City email described a two-stage internal process (“City Manager reviews, Mayor approves”) that does not appear in the text of Bylaw 8330. Asked whether that process is written down, the reply described it as “an internal process.”
Bylaw 8330 was not attached in the City’s replies reviewed for this piece.

A third denial, same pattern

A separate request — to address Council on Community Charter section 113.2 before the July 13, 2026 Regular Council Meeting — was denied by Deputy Director of Legislative Services Hanieh Berg on July 8, 2026. That message stated the request “has not been approved” and did not give written reasons or confirm mayoral review.

Asked whether the Mayor had personally reviewed and approved that denial, as 13.4 and 13.10 require on their face, Ms. Berg wrote on July 9, 2026 that the request was “processed in accordance with section 13.10” and that there were “no additional details to provide.” The correspondence reviewed for this piece does not confirm personal mayoral review.

Scope

The City’s external counsel wrote on August 1, 2025 in connection with subdivision file LU009583. A November 5, 2025 letter from the same counsel stated that the position on the development file was not intended to restrict communication with Mayor and Council on governance and policy matters more generally. The August 6 letter asked how that scope was later applied to unrelated delegation requests and other correspondence. That question was not answered in the record reviewed here.

Where this stands

The August 12, 2026 date passed without a further question-by-question reply identifying a named decision-maker and a specific written authority for each denial.

The process question remains narrow: does Bylaw 8330, as written, authorize anyone other than the Mayor to approve or deny a delegation request? After fifteen written questions, the City has not identified that authority by section and by name.

The City was given written notice that this process record would be published. Any written reply sent to info@dccnow.com will be published in full.

Source correspondence

City emails and counsel letters published in full as received. The counsel letters are not court orders.

Sarbjot Singh Locham
Resident & Editor
DCC Now – Delta Community Concerns
info@dccnow.com · dccnow.com Independent Community Reporting • Public Records • Transparency • Accountability