Shouldn’t compliance with legislation be key instead of perceptions? This is a follow up to my June 17 post, How Many Members Of Council Can Attend An Event?
CAO Critchley stated we have found that it’s the “perception” of the situation that is the key and, as we have received Closed Meetings Complaints in the past due to such perceptions, we like to err on the side of caution.
I believe the Ombudsman investigated the Town of Amherstburg and reported his findings based on compliance issues and not perceptions.
From the Ombudsman Ontario website:
Town of Amherstburg – “Behind Closed Doors” council repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law. Council discussed issues in closed session that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act, and also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors.
Town of Amherstburg improperly held a vote during an emergency closed meeting in February 2011.
Town of Amherstburg the subject matter discussed in camera was permitted; however, Council did improperly vote during the in camera session of the November 26, 2012 Council meeting.
Town of Amherstburg council violated the Municipal Act when it discussed bank signing authorities in closed session under the “personal matters” exception on December 10, 2014.
Town of Amherstburg Joint Police Advisory Committee (JPAC) failed to comply with its terms of reference in closing several meetings using the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman found council violated the Municipal Act in closing a meeting under the security of the property exception.
Town of Amherstburg contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act on September 13 and November 16, 2021 by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera. The Town also contravened the requirements of section 239(7) of the Act by failing to keep a record of what occurred in camera on November 8 and November 16, 2021.
Town of Amherstburg council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and the municipality’s procedure by-law when it approved accounts payable over email in December 2014 and January 2015. Council’s collective email discussion and approval of the accounts constituted a meeting for purposes of the Municipal Act, which was closed to the public and did not fall within any of the Act’s permitted exceptions.
On October 14, 2015, the exception for personal matters in s. 239(2)(b) cited in the resolution to close the meeting did not apply to the discussion of a legal fee reimbursement.
On October 26, 2015, council’s discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in s. 239(2)(b), only because council referenced extraneous personal matters throughout the discussion. Had council limited its discussion to the item stated in the resolution, the discussion would not have fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules.
Recommendation 2
Members of council for the Town of Amherstburg should avoid exercising the power or authority of council or laying the groundwork to do so through email communications.
the burg watch 