Clarington (and Durham) Meetings - Behind Closed Doors

A report was brought forward in the November 5th agenda entitled, "Meeting Investigator - Closed Meetings" which can be found on the Municipal website (CLD-036-07). This was obviously in response to Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin's comments during a panel discussion a couple of weeks ago on openness and transparency in government, where Marin said citizens should be furious with the business their local government does while squirrelled away from the prying eyes of the public.

Our local press has picked up on this story - read Metroland's "Residents will soon be able to investigate secret meetings" from November 8.

Starting in the new year, the Municipal Act allows any individual to request an investigation be undertaken to determine whether a municipality or local board or committee of either, is complying with the rules on what is allowed to take place during a closed or in camera meeting.

...The new rules mean either an investigator can be appointed, or, failing that, a review can be done by Ontario's Ombudsman's office.

At this point, though, Clarington councillors aren't sure of the best way to implement the new rules. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is offering a service, which would be billed hourly, based on $1,250 a day plus expenses. Or the Ombudsman's office can do the review -- but it's not yet known what, if any, cost will be associated with that.

Councillors say they want to ensure the Municipality isn't out of pocket to comply with the rules.

Perhaps they had better be more careful about how often they go "in camera" for discussions, which seems to be quite frequently according to agenda items listing "confidential matters". That may save money, but finding a way to limit people questioning these secret meetings or scaring them out of asking by saying they will be responsible for costs is limiting the intent of the Act, isn't it?

As with his other scathing reports, Marin is exactly right. Closed meetings are permitted under the Municipal Act, but only in select circumstances.

A property purchase or sale is permitted to go in camera, an understandable exemption to protect the integrity of the transaction. But many municipalities have stretched this to mean any matter dealing with property, and that includes renovation costs to buildings already owned by the government.

Legal advice is allowed behind closed doors, as is any discussion about an identifiable individual. The caveat is the debate is allowed in secret, but the vote must be public. It's amazing the way municipal governments get around this, voting on obscurely worded motions that give no idea about the issue being discussed.

That fact has been lost on local government. Just because the Municipal Act permits a council to retreat in camera, it doesn't mean council has to retreat in camera.

Maybe because Marin made these comments during a panel discussion and didn't put them down in a formal report, municipalities will sidestep the firestorm that met other Marin investigations. But they shouldn't.

Every municipal council in Ontario should pay close heed to what Marin is saying. And if the ombudsman gets it within his authority to formally investigate the in camera practices of municipalities, we'd suggest he take his investigation a step further, and look at the boards and agencies of municipal governments that are all-too-comfortable shutting the public out of their deliberations. Board chairs should be cognizant of what the rules are regarding public attendance at any local committees and boards and should not shut out or shut down residents when they ask to speak or even ask just to sit in on meetings. That is happening far too often.

How will Clarington Council deal with this? Time will tell. There will be a staff report within the next few weeks. Accountability and transparency are of utmost importance, and there is too little of that these days at all levels of government. Too many in-camera sessions, too many cryptically worded motions voted on afterward.

We hope they will come up with a fair solution that won't cost taxpayers an arm and a leg for unjustified queries from the public, but also will not stop justified questioning of the public meetings or the lack of information on what the meeting was about afterward, with the exception of names or particulars which should be kept private. It will be nice to see this policed for a change as it appears that the Act regarding closed meetings has been misused.

Of course this does not limit or hold accountable those politicians who do their dealings (lobbying) behind closed doors - the back-room deals and promises which are not made during Council meetings, but before meetings to garner required votes to pass a particular upcoming motion. I am speaking more of Regional Council in this vein. I so wish THOSE private meetings could be policed and made public! It most certainly would open the eyes of the public who don't realize this is common practice in some circles. More often than not we are left out in the cold when decisions are made before being brought to the public for so-called "consultation", and the Region only goes through the motions - such as with the Incineration EA for example. Now that one is a sham if I ever saw one, which is sad for the residents of Clarington and the entire Region.

This is why 'watchdogs' are needed. That includes the press, Andre Marin, the public and yours truly.