Opponents of City Hall like to condemn City Council for a lack of openness and transparency. A few claim that Mayor Eddie Francis is more secretive than his predecessor Mike Hurst ever was. That is why I find it odd that the media has completely ignored (so far) the long-awaited administrative report measuring time spent by Council at in camera meetings compared to public meetings. Last November 14th, Council passed my "sunshine bylaw" resolution directing the City Clerk to provide quarterly reports of these basic statistics. After a good deal of badgering on my part, the report finally appeared on the Communications Agenda last night (Oct. 23).
The report was not based on quarterly data, as directed, but summarized the period January to September 28, 2006. Twenty-nine (29) in camera meeting have taken place in that time with 137 items being considered during a total of 47 hours and 48 minutes. By comparison, thirty-four (34) open meetings were held with 430 items being considered during a total of 91 minutes and 25 minutes. In other words, almost twice as much Council business is being conducted in open session as behind closed doors. Depending on your perspective, that reflects an open and transparent Council, or one that spends too much time behind closed doors. I can honestly say that Councillors, not just myself, frequently question whether an item should be in camera, and, in fairness, there has been an effort by the mayor to push items into the public forum. An administrative agenda committee determines which items qualify for in camera items. The mayor sometimes attends those agenda-setting meetings, but not always, due to his schedule. At the beginning of each Council in camera session, normally starting at 4 p.m. on Monday meeting nights, Councillors can attempt to push items out to the public forum. It requires consensus, or a vote of Council, if there is disagreement, to kick it outside. There are basically four reasons, under the current Municipal Act, whereby matters can be considered in camera -- legal, property, personnel and labour negotiations. Embarrassment of Council is not a legitimate reason. There is a current agreement between the Association of Municipalites of Ontario (AMO) and the provincial government to expand authorization to meet in camera. This is one of the proposed reforms to the Municipal Act, and it would basically allow municipal councillors to meet in caucus, as the provincial and federal goverment cabinets do, to discuss strategic planning or to receive information "in a way that does not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Council." I personally believe that this proposed change could be open to abuse. "Materially advance" could be interpreted broadly or strictly, depending on who is making the determination. Meanwhile, the provincial government has given first reading to Bill 142, sponsored by Government Whip Kim Craitor of Niagara Falls, which includes a controversial clause to allow a single citizen, even one who does not live in the municipality, to call for an investigation on the merits of any matter being considered in a closed meeting. If the municipality in question does not have its own ombudsman, Ontario Ombudsman Andre Morin could be brought in to do a probe. Morin is reportedly anxious to get involved in such municipal matters. AMO is fighting it, based on the premise that it could be open to abuse from political critics of Council or someone with an axe to grind. Back on the home front, I am happy to report that administration has re-committed to provide Council with a quarterly report, on time spent in camera, in the future. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a public report, which I orginally requested, on an in camera meeting Council had with border lawyer David Estrin last month. Council was given a legal opinion by City Solicitor George Wilkki that this matter should remain largely confidential under solicitor-client privilege, since it could compromise the city in its ongoing border disputes with third parties. Council has authorized a sizeable amount of money to be spent on legal fees in this latest response to the enemies. You might remember that I have pushed for the public to be informed of the border legal and consulting costs in a timely fashion, and administration has committed to do so. Mayor Francis has asked the legal department to put together a report for the public agenda on this matter, restricting the report to information that is not deemed to be compromsing to the city's case. It will be interesting to see if this report finds its way onto the public agenda before the Nov. 13th election. It should. Readers have left 3 comments. No.1 Untitled
Why have you not stepped aside in this election , you are a lame duck candidate .
Democracy and te vpte of council is all but a joke with Eddie as he uses his executive board to ramrod his ideas through and not that of council.
Defend Eddie but then again you are in conflict and have no voice or is it that you have no spine. No.2 Fairness
Elizabeth; I am not defending the mayor, simply stating objectively what the facts are as I know them. As you see, I am pushing to make the border funding issues public, and will continue to do so. No.3 Untitled
I believe this one applies "Unless each man prodiuses more than he receives, increases his output, there will be less for him than all the others", doesn't it? 
|
