Summary#

Council approved appointments to the Licence and Community Standards Appeal Board on June 30, 2026, as part of the consent agenda. The appointees are to serve as public members designated to hear appeals under the Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, with terms ending December 31, 2026. City staff say the appointments are intended to add skills and expertise to the board.

• Council approved the candidates recommended in a confidential shortlist. Their names are to be made public after they are notified and accept.
• The shortlist and applications remain confidential under the Access to Information Act.
• The board already had eight members appointed in December 2025, including two designated to hear Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw appeals. The report said additional designated members were desired, but the available material does not say how many people Council appointed this time.

What it means for you#

• Calgarians: The appointments add public members to the board that hears appeals under the Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw. The decision does not change the bylaw or the appeal rules.
• People appointed: Their terms end December 31, 2026. The public material does not identify them, and their appointments are to be made public after they accept.
• Public: No public engagement was undertaken on the appointments.

Money#

City staff report no anticipated financial impact.

• No cost estimate or staffing change is provided.

What is unclear#

• How many people were appointed, and who they are, are not stated in the public material.
• The confidential shortlist and applications are not available, so the candidates’ qualifications cannot be assessed from these materials.
• The materials do not say when the appointees will begin serving.

Case for#

• City staff say the recruitment campaign sought candidates with expertise needed to hear Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw appeals.
• The report says the board had sought additional designated members after the earlier recruitment did not find enough applicants with the required qualifications and eligibility.
• City staff say public members bring skills and perspectives that contribute to good governance.

Case against#

• The confidential shortlist and applications limit the public’s ability to assess who was selected and why.
• No public engagement was undertaken. The supplied materials contain no stated public objection or opposing argument.