In-camera meeting should have been public: councillors

In-camera meeting should have been public: councillors
Cornwall City Hall

CORNWALL, Ontario – Despite campaign promises of more transparency at city hall, a private budget committee meeting Monday is raising questions about the validity of the session, and the people who were in the room.

Two city councillors tell Seaway News much of the session could have taken place with the public present, instead of behind closed doors.

And there is also word that questions are being asked about why an entire slate of municipal managers took part in the meeting as well.

Typically in-camera committee meetings take place with members present, as well as a recording secretary and other staffers relevant to the conversation.

But Coun. Maurice Dupelle said not all of the managers who were there, needed to be.

He sent an email to all of council and CAO Norm Levac requesting clarity on that matter, but has yet to receive a response.

Dupelle was clear, though – much of the content of the meeting was discussed in-camera for no reason.

“I think it could have been an open session,” he said.

Coun. Claude McIntosh agreed.

“After 10 minutes I was wondering why we were in closed session,” he said. “Some stuff did come out that should have been there – but not everything had to be discussed behind closed doors.”

Both men were asked why someone, anyone, did not raise a hand and stop the proceedings in order to go public.

Both suggested city clerk Helen Finn had that responsibility and did not stop the meeting.

But Finn said that is not the case.

“It’s anyone who is present who can do that,” she said.

Finn also suggested there are occasions during closed meetings when issues that could be aired publicly are discussed, but added it would be nearly impossible to yo-yo between open and closed sessions during a debate around the council table.

She added that municipal staffers and managers can be present during in-camera meetings if their departments are relevant to the discussion taking place.

Dupelle suggested that did not take place during Monday’s in-camera budget meeting.

Conrad Spezowka, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, suggested there is no specific policy within the Municipal Act concerning just who can, and cannot, be present in the meeting from a city staff point of view.

“Your municipality may have policies regarding staff attendance at meetings,” he said. “Municipalities are required to have a procedure by-law which governs the calling, place and proceedings of meetings.

“Municipalities are required to have a procedure by-law which governs the calling, place and proceedings of meetings.”

Council made the motion to go in-camera because discussions were set to take place concerning municipal staffing levels and the potential sale of municipal buildings.

Coun. David Murphy conceded the private session “could have been handled differently” but added nothing illegal was done.

“There was kind of a crossover,” he said of the discussion between matters for public consumption, and other material that should have been kept under wraps. “There was no vote taken, and no decisions were made.

“You’re not going to jump in and out.”

Murphy believes Monday’s private session will be the “one and only” such in-camera meeting to take place during budget deliberations.

Share this article