When Langley Township council cancelled the scheduled Jan. 12, 2026 meeting, some residents expressed their outrage online. Staff said this leaves 13 regular meetings scheduled for the year, when typically there would be over 20. 

Residents took to Reddit to share their frustration over what, based on our reading of the posts, seemed to them like an indifferent attitude towards council’s responsibilities to the Township.

In the initial r/Langley thread titled “Councillor Tim Boomer Doesn’t Want to Work in January” (see The Langley Monitor’s most recent article), Mayor Eric Woodward commented that he was arranging a council meeting for budget purposes on Jan. 19 to replace the cancelled meeting, subject to staff confirmation and council approval.

What gave the Mayor’s comment its significance was its timing. At the time the meeting was cancelled, no plan for a replacement meeting had been publicly communicated. The plan to schedule an additional meeting to compensate for the cancelled one was only suggested after residents began discussing it online.

One highly upvoted comment (edited for profanity and clarity) expressed a Reddit user’s opinion: “Vote these [expletives] out of office; let them sit at home permanently.” Woodward responded saying “No need to go quite that far, hopefully!” then redirected the conversation to agenda timelines, staff report deadlines, and why “the 19th will work out a lot better.”

If a replacement date is added and clearly posted through official channels, that would change the narrative. However, despite the Mayor’s comment having been posted approximately a month ago, as of January 16, 2026, no meeting for Jan. 19 appeared on the publicly available Township of Langley’s Council Calendar.

Councillor Baillie also chimed in on the discussion. In a Facebook post, he responded to claims that the meeting was cancelled so he could travel. He described that as misinformation, stating that he was at home on Jan. 6. The post circulated to Reddit shortly afterward, becoming part of the ongoing debate.

Baillie’s response was a direct answer to one specific rumour. It did not address the bigger question that was driving the frustration in the first place: Why reduce a public meeting, and what are residents supposed to look at to confirm the plan going forward?

What this situation shows is how quickly a simple scheduling decision can turn into a broader debate about priorities. Mayor Woodward framed the cancellation as temporary, citing a replacement meeting that, as of publication, does not appear on the publicly available Council schedule. While Baillie’s post addressed one rumour, it did not change the basic facts that a meeting was cancelled and residents wanted a clear picture of what comes next.

Even after the mayor’s online response to the backlash, residents are still wondering: How many times will council meet this year?