Our local press has picked up on this story - read Metroland's "Residents will soon be able to investigate secret meetings" from November 8.
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?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.
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.
Watchdogs are needed for a lot of reasons over both Clarington and Durham Region Councils. And probably at least some of the rest of the municipalities too. I think the closed-door meetings are overused and unnecessary probably in a lot of cases. As far as being open and transparent, that's certainly a problem. At least the appearance of transparency is sorely lacking. Trying to recover money from those who ask for audits and now talking about recovering costs from anyone asking for an investigation on closed-door meetings - they don't seem to want the public to ask questions even though it is our right to do so.
ReplyDeleteJust like with the EA process now going on with the incinerator project. Our Clarington Council doesn't seem to want us to ask questions. The mayor keep saying the studies being done will give all the answers. That is NOT true. He doesn't understand how an EA works. It is dependent upon questions being asked by stakeholders (or those who will be affected by the project). That is how an EA process works. Without the questions that must be answered by the proponents, there is no EA. It would simply be a one-sided study to promote the project. Questions and true public consultation are the cornerstones of an EA process.
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding, right? They don't want questions, especially those they have no answers for. I used to have a lot of respect for Regional staff, but have become terribly disappointed in those Works Dept. staff who are responsible for waste management. I still have confidence and respect in Planning staff and others, but works has fallen in my eyes over the last months.
ReplyDeleteClarington Staff are to be commended for looking for true answers for Clarington rather than promoting the "political" view of an issue. So far they certainly have solidified their reputation as being straight arrows, looking out for what is best for the municipality, unlike some of the politicians. Keep up the good work.
I'm not so worried about the closed door meetings as I am about the meetings with closed minds!
ReplyDeleteThe councillors in Clarington are hoping/wishing for some sort of miracle from the Region via Roger Anderson, as it relates to waste management and they are putting all of us in danger with the Mayor and 2 Regional Councillors bowing to Anderson and the 4 local Councillors not having the intestinal fortitude to introduce a motion to declare Clarington as an unwilling host.
The likes of Charlie Trim and Mayor Abernethy should be ignored as neither of them will be running in the next election, Charlie is politically worn out and Abernethy will not run (according to insiders from his own campaign team)so we can't threaten them. Mary Novak will run no doubt, because she thinks she can continue to fool people, but once this incinerator becomes a reality, she won't stand a chance in hell of being re-elected.
However the 4 local councillors could change history for the residents of Clarington, but they must act now.
What we need is less 'wishbone' and more 'backbone'. C'mon fellas, introduce a motion before it's too late!
As many people have said already, if our local councillors declare us a "willing host", there is no longer any reason for any of the 28 regional councillors to vote against the incinerator. They will simply feel that Clarington is willing so why say no? It removes any last barriers and will do nothing to increase our strenth "at the table". The Region will do as it wants with absolutely NO opposition politically. The only remaining opposition will be the residents, and we've already seen (and heard) how much they are listened to. Roger Anderson said the Region will do as it pleases no matter what our Council says or residents say. Let's not let them do it with no opposition where they can just say well, Clarington has no objections so lets go ahead with our incinerator. AND we will do it exactly the way we want to do it. Clarington can give us their requests but since they have said okay, they are willing, who cares what they want. We'll push it through in a way that is best for us (Region). Damn Clarington - they are already the garbage pit of the Region. Might as well continue the process.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the city of Oshawa asking their residents for input "on the level of accountability it demonstrates for the decisions it makes, the services it delivers and on the transparency of its processes", but Clarington is trying to decide how much it will cost them if there are any investigations. Clarington Council has not even thought of a committee or input from residents, but then why should they? They have not been listening to residents so far. Why start now?
ReplyDeleteWatchdog:
ReplyDeleteJust when you thought matters could not get any worse with the inept bunch we have elected in Clarington,I have just read today's paper (Clarington This Week, Nov. 23)and see that it did! (see Jennifer Stone's article on p. 14).
In regards to the debate about our councillors continuously going in camera at almost every meeting, and leaving folks wondering what they have to hide so often, the Province has come up with a solution to this nonsense on behalf of citizens. Beginning Jan. 1, the Municipal Act will allow citizens to request an investigation to determine or question why council needed to conduct certain business 'in the back room', instead of being open and transparent as our new Mayor promised during the election.
The Province has offered to have the Ontario Ombudsman's office investigate a legitimate claim free of charge to Clarington citizens.
The only other option was for our elected officials to choose, was to allow the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to conduct the investigation, but charge the taxpayers $1250.00 per day plus expenses.
One would think that Clarington, having just gone through a whopping tax hike, and listened to the divel by people like Councilor Trim who wants to keep the hike next year down to 2%, and others tripping over themselves trying to look fiscally prudent, would opt for the free service. NO. They decided to go for the most expensive method!
They had hoped too, that being the people who like to appear to be so concerned about openness and honesty, that if someone asked for an investigation and if proved to be frivolous, then that citizen would be sent the bill! That really encourages people to demand integrity from those elected now, doesn't it!!
Even when they were informed that they could not charge the taxpayers (the Act does not allow for it) they still chose the expensive way of doing it.
What the hell, it's only your tax dollars right?
New news on Durham's garbage front.
ReplyDeleteDurham Region is saying if the border closes before the incinerator is finished or never gets started, that it has been considering three landfills.
Of course the only one in Durham considered is the Hale site in Newtonville. A Toronto owned site and another one in Sarnia are the other options.
Mayor Abernathy said that he will not allow the landfill in Newtonville.
I wonder if the garbage incinerator can be considered the same thing. If so, why is he saying no to one thing but saying yes to the other, against what the voters say.
I didn't know where else to put this so I put it on the newest post.