HEATHER BOA Bullet News CENTRAL HURON – Central Huron council held two illegal closed-door meetings during 2012, the office of the Ontario Ombudsman has ruled after a six-month investigation triggered by a complaint.
Closed-door meetings held at the end of open council sessions on May 7 and July 22, 2012 contravened the allowable exceptions for the requirement that all municipal meetings be held in public. A third closed-door meeting was held for valid reasons, Andre Marin, the Ombudsman for Ontario, wrote in a 17-page report delivered electronically to Central Huron councillors on March 8. A couriered hard copy of the report arrived at town hall today, and its contents will be included in the council agenda for March 19.
In the report obtained by Bullet News, the Ombudsman outlined nine recommendations “which I hope will help council for the municipality of Central Huron meet its legal obligations with respect to closed meetings as well as generally improve its closed meeting practices.” His report comes after phone interviews with council members and staff, and review of relevant meeting minutes, bylaws and legislation.
Deputy Mayor Dave Jewitt, who chaired Central Huron’s committee of the whole meeting today, said he considers the report to be “constructive feedback” that council will need to consider.
“Council has an obligation to look at the recommendations where we see them and whether we should enact them. If they’re valid, and the concerns are met, them I think we would probably move forward with the recommendations,” he said.
Mayor Jim Ginn said, “I don’t particularly have any problem with any of his recommendations. How he got to those recommendations is a little different. But I don’t there’s any recommendations we can’t implement.”
Marin also pointed out that the municipality’s procedural bylaw that outlines the reason when council can hold closed door – or in camera – meetings is not in line with the province’s Municipal Act. Central Huron will consider the Ombudsman’s comments during its review of the procedural bylaw, which is currently under way.
At the May 7, 2012 council meeting, Coun. Brian Barnim asked his fellow councillors to add a closed-door session to the meeting in order to discuss what he said was a personal matter about an identifiable person. Council informally agreed to add the item to the agenda, although it did not take a vote to approve the addition, which is required by its procedural bylaw. According to the meeting minutes, it later went into closed session to discuss a personal matter about an identifiable person related to ERTH Corporation, a utility company in which the municipality is a shareholder.
Investigators from the Ombudsman’s office, who interviewed councillors and a few staff, found that two subjects ended up being discussed in closed session: a councillor designation to ERTH Corporation’s annual general meeting and a councillor’s concerns about the reporting style of a local journalist.
Discussion about the designation of a councillor to ERTH Corporation’s annual general meeting was cut short when staff advised that the subject didn’t fit into the closed meeting requirements. In open session, council voted to send Barnim to the ERTH Corporation’s annual general meeting.
The investigators found that a concern about a headline on a story in the local media did not involve personal matters and should not have been discussed in closed session. It also did not need to be dealt with immediately.
“Council should avoid adding items to the agenda at the last minute unless they are truly urgent and time sensitive so as to justify suspending the required notice procedures. When doing so, council should be careful to strictly follow the requirements of its own bylaw,” Marin said.
The Ombudsman’s office has oversight of provincial law, the Sunshine Law, requiring municipal councils to hold open meetings, with few exceptions. The office was established by the provincial government five years ago to create a new complaint process to help shed some light on the question of whether what’s happening behind closed doors is in keeping with the law. Prior to that, a citizen, councillor or member of the media concerned about the public being shut out of a meeting of a local government would have had to go to court to attempt to have his or her complaint heard.
On July 22, 2012 at the end of a committee of the whole meeting, Mayor Jim Ginn introduced a motion to go into closed session to ERTH Corporation. Personal matters as they relate to an identifiable individual, a proposed pending acquisition or disposition of land and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege were listed as the reasons for holding the discussion behind closed doors.
After investigation, the Ombudsman found three matters were discussion: a letter from a company the municipality had been in talks with over a solar energy project, a payroll error related to an employee, and a possible lease agreement.
The investigators found there was no specific legal advice for consideration by council. Instead, the topic was an update on a letter that had not been made available to the public. As such, it was not valid for discussion in closed session, the Ombudsman said.
The payroll error and lease agreement fit in with the requirements of a closed-door meeting.
On June 11, Barnim asked to add a closed session item to the agenda to discuss a personal matter. Council informally agreed. The subject of the closed session was not disclosed and no resolution was made in open session afterward.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found council discussion centered around concerns that an employee wasn’t being paid properly as a result of a payroll error and the matter needed to be resolved immediately. Since the employee’s salary as opposed to a salary range was being discussed, it was appropriate to be in closed session.
In closed session, council directed the chief administrative officer to follow up on the matter, without passing a more formal resolution. Marin said a formal resolution in the closed meeting should have been made to authorize the chief administrative officer to deal with the matter.
Here are the recommendations from the report (Read the full report here):
HEATHER BOA Bullet News CENTRAL HURON – Central Huron council held two illegal closed-door meetings during 2012, the office of the Ontario Ombudsman has ruled after a six-month investigation triggered by a complaint.
Closed-door meetings held at the end of open council sessions on May 7 and July 22, 2012 contravened the allowable exceptions for the requirement that all municipal meetings be held in public. A third closed-door meeting was held for valid reasons, Andre Marin, the Ombudsman for Ontario, wrote in a 17-page report delivered to Central Huron on March 8.
He outlined seven recommendations “which I hope will help council for the municipality of Central Huron meet its legal obligations with respect to closed meetings as well as generally improve its closed meeting practices.”
He also pointed out that the municipality’s procedural bylaw that outlines the reason when council can hold closed door – or in camera – meetings is not in line with the province’s Municipal Act.
At the May 7, 2012 council meeting, Coun. Brian Barnim asked his fellow councillors to add a closed-door session to the meeting in order to discuss what he said was a personal matter about an identifiable person. Council informally agreed to add the item to the agenda, although it did not take a vote to approve the addition, which is required by its procedural bylaw. According to the meeting minutes, it later went into closed session to discuss a personal matter about an identifiable person related to ERTH Corporation, a utility company in which the municipality is a shareholder.
Investigators from the Ombudsman’s office, who interviewed councillors and a few staff, found that two subjects ended up being discussed in closed session: a councillor designation to ERTH Corporation’s annual general meeting and a councillor’s concerns about the reporting style of a local journalist.
Discussion about the designation of a councillor to ERTH Corporation’s annual general meeting was cut short when staff advised that the subject didn’t fit into the closed meeting requirements. In open session, council voted to send Barnim to the ERTH Corporation’s annual general meeting.
The investigators found that a concern about a headline on a story in the local media did not involve personal matters and should not have been discussed in closed session. It also did not need to be dealt with immediately.
“Council should avoid adding items to the agenda at the last minute unless they are truly urgent and time sensitive so as to justify suspending the required notice procedures. When doing so, council should be careful to strictly follow the requirements of its own bylaw,” Marin said.
The Ombudsman’s office has oversight of provincial law, the Sunshine Law, requiring municipal councils to hold open meetings, with few exceptions. The office was established by the provincial government five years ago to create a new complaint process to help shed some light on the question of whether what’s happening behind closed doors is in keeping with the law. Prior to that, a citizen, councillor or member of the media concerned about the public being shut out of a meeting of a local government would have had to go to court to attempt to have his or her complaint heard.
On July 22, 2012 at the end of a committee of the whole meeting, Mayor Jim Ginn introduced a motion to go into closed session to ERTH Corporation. Personal matters as they relate to an identifiable individual, a proposed pending acquisition or disposition of land and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege were listed as the reasons for holding the discussion behind closed doors.
After investigation, the Ombudsman found three matters were discussion: a letter from a company the municipality had been in talks with over a solar energy project, a payroll error related to an employee, and a possible lease agreement.
The investigators found there was no specific legal advice for consideration by council. Instead, the topic was an update on a letter that had not been made available to the public. As such, it was not valid for discussion in closed session, the Ombudsman said.
The payroll error and lease agreement fit in with the requirements of a closed-door meeting.
On June 11, Barnim asked to add a closed session item to the agenda to discuss a personal matter. Council informally agreed. The subject of the closed session was not disclosed and no resolution was made in open session afterward.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found council discussion centered around concerns that an employee wasn’t being paid properly as a result of a payroll error and the matter needed to be resolved immediately. Since the employee’s salary as opposed to a salary range was being discussed, it was appropriate to be in closed session.
In closed session, council directed the chief administrative officer to follow up on the matter, without passing a more formal resolution. Marin said a formal resolution in the closed meeting should have been made to authorize the chief administrative officer to deal with the matter.
Recommendation 1
The Municipality of Central Huron should ensure that discussions that take place in closed session under an exception to the Municipal Act’s closed meeting requirements are limited to those matters that council is permitted to discuss in closed session under the exceptions in the Act.
Recommendation 2
Council for the Municipality of Central Huron should avoid adding agenda items at the last minute unless they are truly urgent. In cases where an item comes to council’s attention after the agenda is prepared, efforts should be made to amend the agenda prior to the meeting. When adding an item at the council meeting, the requirements of the procedure by-law should be followed.
Recommendation 3
When proceeding in camera, council for the Municipality of Central Huron should pass a resolution that provides a general description of the subject matter to be discussed.
Recommendation 4
When directing staff during an in camera session, council for the Municipality of Central Huron should pass a resolution that clearly states the direction being given.
Recommendation 5
The Municipality of Central Huron should audio and/or video record all in camera meetings and store such recordings in a confidential and secure fashion for future reference.
Recommendation 6
The council for the Municipality of Central Huron should follow a practice of reporting back publicly after a closed meeting, in at least a general way, on all matters considered in camera.
Recommendation 7
The Municipality of Central Huron should amend Section 10 of its procedure by-law so that the wording of the exceptions to the open meeting requirements is in keeping with the language of s. 239 of the Municipal Act.
Recommendation 8
The Municipality of Central Huron should revise its procedural by-law to formalize its practice of providing notice to the public of meetings by posting the agenda on its website the Friday prior to the meeting. It should also ensure that the by-law provides for notice to the public of all meetings, including special meetings.
Recommendation 9
All members of council for the Municipality of Central Huron should be vigilant in adhering to their individual and collective obligation to ensure that council complies with its responsibilities under the Act and its own procedure by-law.
One Comment on "Central Huron’s council holds two illegal closed door meetings, Ombudsman rules"
Very interesting indeed. I wonder how many councils get away with this and are never questioned? Perhaps it’s time to start?