County councillors met in closed session Tuesday for 3.5 hours
George Cornell
‘We appreciate that the public often has questions about why these sessions are held in confidence,’ says warden, noting they followed protocols
By: Jessica Owen Collingwood Today
County of Simcoe councillors met in closed session for three-and-a-half hours on Tuesday morning. However what was discussed and what was decided as a result of the session is unclear.
During Tuesday’s joint committee of the whole and council meeting, a planned closed session was bumped up on the agenda to happen earlier in the meeting. Councillors went into closed session at 11 a.m. and didn’t emerge until 2:40 p.m.
“We have a couple of items on our agenda that we suspect will be very lengthy and important deliberations,” said Warden George Cornell when explaining the schedule change to councillors at the beginning of the meeting.
There were three motions up for discussion during the closed-session portion of the meeting.
According to the agenda, the first matter was concerning a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land under the Procurement, Fleet and Property department.
The second matter was concerning a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land, but under the Forestry department.
The third matter, involving the Solid Waste Management department, was concerning potential litigation and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations.
BarrieToday reached out to the County of Simcoe requesting an interview with Cornell to ask about the unusually lengthy closed-session meeting.
The Warden instead issued the following statement.
“We had a lengthy discussion in closed session yesterday about county matters,” said Cornell in his statement issued Wednesday. “We appreciate that the public often has questions about why these sessions are held in confidence. County council and our legislative services staff always work to ensure transparency and abide by legislative requirements under the Municipal Act.
“All our municipalities follow these protocols and most council meetings, at all levels of government, have a closed session portion – this is a very normal process,” he said.
Cornell said closed sessions occur when confidential items such as ongoing negotiation, contracts, financial, labour or legal matters are being discussed by council, and if made public, could result in harming the position of the county and its taxpayers.
“Closed sessions also occur to protect the rights and proprietary information of individuals and organizations,” he said.
After councillors emerged from the closed session, a majority voted in favour to approve what was discussed in closed session on all three items, however not all councillors were visible during the livestream, and some had their cameras turned off during voting.
Votes are also not recorded during committee of the whole, and no recorded vote was requested when council ratified the decisions. As a result, how some individuals voted was not clear.
The buying and selling of taxpayers assets (land, forests et al) should be an open discussion up to the point where numbers are being negotiated.
If Simcoe County is selling or buying ANY real assets then the initial statement/discussion allowing the public to know what they are intending should be in the PUBLIC portion of the meeting not hidden behind some poorly defined rules set down by the Province and increasingly being “misused” to hide the governance process.
All votes of any level of government should be recorded votes so that taxpayer get to see just who is ending up making the decisions by majority vote. It takes no more time than raising hands if its done with any of the new electronic systems – Money well spent!
As I understand it, votes cannot be taken inside the closed meeting they have to be made in the public portion of the meeting. What’s the point of having a vote on some item that is not fully disclosed to the public?
Closed meeting are increasingly being used to prevent taxpayers from knowing what is going on and with the move to have the Ethics Commissioner also be the In-camera meeting oversight, its more taxpayer money being wasted keeping lawyers employed and involved in almost every aspect of governance and each time paid for by taxpayers who have no say in these matters.
“Cooking up” a closed meeting is easy, you only have to have one “identifiable person” included in the discussion and it can become a closed meeting.
Ethics commissioners should be removed and replaced by the Ontario Ombudsman (or some other entity covering ALL municipalities and using a common set of determinate criteria for rulings). END the cosy relationship between the municipality and their chosen Ethics Commissioner!
“Conflict of interest rulings (Clearview example) should be IN WRITING with the full facts of disclosure made available BEFORE a decision so that the public can have input into that process.
In Camera meeting oversight should also be under the Ontario Ombudsman
All municipal Codes of Conduct should be replaced by ONE code written into provincial legislation after public input that covers the conduct of both staff and elected officials – Lets have a level playing field across all 440 municipalities with a common code of conduct for all those involved in local government (that also includes volunteers) and a common basis of investigation and ruling.