Midland one of three Simcoe County municipalities to use Ombudsman
Sixteen prefer to pay a private consultant to investigate closed meeting complaints
By Kate Harries AWARE News Network October 30 2012
Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin has released his first annual report on complaints received and reviewed by his office’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) from April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012, and the state of the ‘Sunshine Law’ in Ontario.
Midland has made the news for two complaints from the public about closed meetings, with the Ombudsman identifying seven violations. But it should be noted that Midland is one of only three Simcoe County municipalities that decided to use the Ombudsman as its closed meeting investigator, thereby submitting to a higher standard and a more public accounting than those who pay a private consultant.
The other two are Penetanguishene and Tiny; two complaints were received about Penetanguishene, but no violation was found. All told, the Ombudsman is the investigator for 191 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities.
Sixteen local municipalities retain a private consultant. Residents in those municipalities – from Adjala-Tosorontio to Wasaga Beach, from Barrie to Orilia – do not have the option of requesting an investigation by the Ombudsman of matters relating to transparency.
Earlier this year AWARE Simcoe urged Simcoe County councillors to retain the Ombudsman (at no cost to local ratepayers). But councillors voted 12-17 to hire a London consultant for $100 an hour plus a $1,000 retainer.
The following are the references to Midland in the Ombudsman’s report.
The Town of Midland council held closed budget meetings in December 2011 that potentially affected readily identifiable individuals and thus came within this exception. But council went on to discuss other things at the closed meeting, which was improper…
In January 2012, council for the Town of Midland used this exception (education and training) to close a meeting where numerous items of council business were discussed – in fact, the Ombudsman found nothing discussed could be appropriately described as “education or training.”
…Our investigation in the Town of Midland also revealed that councillors voted informally and illegally in several closed meetings in late 2011 and early 2012 – including to address their own salaries and benefits.
…Our Town of Midland investigation found council’s closed meeting minutes did not accurately record what had occurred and lacked any information about directions given to staff during these sessions.
…We investigated three complaints about multiple closed meetings in Midland between December 2011 and March 2012 and found council had improperly used the “education or training” and “personal matters about an identifiable individual” exceptions to discuss items that should have been considered in public. We also found that the council routinely voted illegally behind closed doors.
Our investigation also revealed the town was following several problematic practices, including giving insufficient notice of closed sessions, not keeping adequate records of closed meetings, and failing to report back publicly about closed meetings. The Ombudsman issued eight recommendations to help the town improve its practices, including that it should make audio or video recordings of closed meetings.
Leave a Reply