New Tec council cleared of in camera breach

New Tecumseth Free Press February 11, 2013

New Tecumseth councillors are 1-0 in fighting off allegations of improper in camera meetings, after the Town’s Closed Meeting Investigator ruled that they “exercised reasonable discretion” in discussing proposed employee wage increases in private, last month.

The incident in question happened on Jan. 7, during the first working session of the 2013 draft budget process. Council moved in camera to discuss what turned out to be a proposal to implement 1.5 per cent COLA increases for Town staff.

On January 15, a complaint was made to John G. Maddox, JGM Consulting, who investigates on behalf of New Tecumseth, matters related to in camera meetings.

In this instance, “The complaint suggests Council went into closed session to discuss a “Cost of Living Allowance” increase which the complainant suggests is inappropriate and contrary to Section 239 of the Municipal Act.”

In explaining how he arrived at his decision, included on tonight’s council agenda, Mr. Maddox examined “copies of relevant background material such as agenda, minutes and any other material relevant to this matter. I was also provided with a brief verbal background to this matter.”

“I can confirm that the January 7th, 2013 meeting did take place and in fact during the course of the Committee of the whole session the Council did adjourn to closed session using Section 239 2(d) which provides that a meeting may be closed if the matter pertains to “labour relations or employee negotiation,” according to the report. “The Municipal Officials contend that clearly the subject matter does qualify as a labour relation or employee negotiation matter. In my review of this matter I have examined the relevant documents, had further discussion around the circumstances with senior staff, and I am satisfied that the Municipality exercised reasonable discretion in the use of Section 239 2(d) so as to insure adequate resolution of this matter. There was clearly some discussion on this matter that I believe would fall under the definition of Section 239 2(d). I believe this matter was appropriately dealt with and in my opinion the use of Section 239 2(d) was justified.”