Simcoe County wrong to discuss PR expenditure behind closed doors

September 16th, 2009
The following news release was issued by the SDS41 group
ELMVALE — Simcoe County Councillors went behind closed doors August 25 to discuss a reported $250,000 expenditure for the hiring of Fleishman-Hillard.International Communications, one of the largest public relations firms in the world.
“This is wrong,” says Anne Ritchie-Nahuis, an Elmvale dairy farmer who has been fighting Dump Site 41 for six years.
“The Municipal Act is clear, it restricts councils to only a few items they can discuss behind closed doors, and public relations is not one of them.”
Simcoe County Clerk Glen Knox has confirmed that the matter was voted on after an in-camera session in the evening of August 25.
No one reading the minutes of that council meeting would suspect that council had made such a decision or that it involves such a large sum.
The recommendation was contained in County Officer’s CO 09-032 confidential report “regarding security of the property of the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.” This report is unlikely to be made public, according to the County Clerk’s office.
If the county’s legal advisers proffered advice on public relations, that is not subject to solicitor-client privilege, Ritchie-Nahuis said, and councillors should have insisted that any non-legal aspect of the County Officer’s report be dealt with in public.
The minutes are full of confidential items with no real clue as to their meaning, Ritchie-Nahuis noted.
“It makes me feel that this PR item is just the tip of the iceberg. What else are they not telling us? We are worried about the eventual sale of Site 41 to a landfill corporation. It could already be sold, for all we know.”
Quite apart from the way in which this item was inappropriately dealt with behind closed doors, Ritchie-Nahuis believes this is a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ dollars.
“This is a lot of money and we don’t even know what services have been contracted for. It’s half the $500,000 that was quoted for mothballing Dump Site 41, a figure we suspect is inflated.”
Councillors and staff have decried the effectiveness of members of the Stop Dump Site 41 movement in getting their message out, and cited the dump controversy as a reason for getting more effective PR than is provided by the County’s four-person communications department.
Ritchie-Nahuis said the SDS41 message is effective because it’s the truth, and it reflects new and changing attitudes towards the environment which are not in tune with the County’s antiquated landfill focus.
She called on County Council to honour democratic principles and select new leadership to help clean up their reputation and lead in a more responsible fiscal and environmental direction.
“I urge taxpayers to contact their County Councillors to let them know how they feel,” she added. “Hopefully the councillors will reconsider the implications of following through with such an ill-advised idea.”

Edit | 8 Comments »

Sue says:
September 16, 2009 at 7:21 pm  (Edit)
When I heard this on the news I was a little baffled by this event. For such discussions to take place in “closed camera” seems deceitful to the residents (tax payers). Closed Camera sessions are for the protection of names and legal proceeding, not for Guergis to plan another attack!
As I stated in my letter to the Barrie Examiner, the only name that he is trying to protect is his own and I can’t belief that the Mayors and Deputy Mayors have fallen once again for Geurgis’s shenanigans…..$250,000 of taxpayers money should not being going to some PR Firm, the County name will be just fine when the County Council does the right thing and slams for Guergis for what he really is!

Sue says:
September 16, 2009 at 7:46 pm  (Edit)
Oh Boy….just read the rest of the news of the weekend events and it would seem that the “Infamous Guergis” name is M U D with Tony’s Regime and Helena’s Husband getting busted in Angus this weekend. Even more reason for the taxpayers to demand that no money be spent on any P.R. work required to clean up such a scandalous local Government run by the Guergis Clan!

Ann Truyens says:
September 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm  (Edit)
Where was this news release issued?

I have written to my Mayor and DM about this.

I don’t believe DM Hough was present for the closed camera session or the vote at the end of the day on Agust 25..but I think Mayor Hughes was. I have asked him how he voted.

According to the minutes, only half the councillors (12) were there for the closed camera session and vote. Is that legal and allowed by the Municipal Act?

jim tolnai says:
September 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm  (Edit)
No it is not. There must be a quorum for a legal meeting to be held.
In law, a quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative body necessary to conduct the business of that group. Ordinarily, this is a majority of the people expected to be there, although bodies may have a lower or higher quorum.
12 attending is way less than even half of the 32 councillors. The meeting should have never been conveined. Another blatant breach of the Municipal Act.

jim tolnai

Ann Truyens says:
September 17, 2009 at 5:41 pm  (Edit)
Sorry..I made a mistake.

There are a total of 32 councillors on SC council..so there was a total of 20 present for the closed camera session and the vote on August 25.

Is that still considered a quorum?

jim tolnai says:
September 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm  (Edit)
Twenty is more than a majority of 32 so of course it was legal if indeed that was the actual number. I’m curious where did you get the number 12 from????
jim tolnai

Sue says:
September 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm  (Edit)
Yes that is still considered quorum.

Ann Truyens says:
September 18, 2009 at 12:50 am  (Edit)
Jim..I got the number 12 absent from the minutes of the meeting on August 25.

Apparently the minimum required for a quorum is 17.