in camera

Thursday January 12, 2012

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator, Thursday January 12, 2012

Ombud knocks city council over closed-door meetings

Ontario’s ombudsman has rapped the knuckles of Hamilton councillors for wrongly debating public business behind closed doors — twice in the same day.

In two letters to the city, an ombudsman investigator weighed in on complaints filed by Hamilton Spectator columnist Andrew Dreschel about in-camera discussions by the general issues committee June 27.

In her review, Michelle Bird said councillors “improperly” debated McMaster University’s proposal for a downtown health campus in secret — even after staff warned the discussion should be public.

Bird also said councillors were offside in privately debating how to axe the board of directors for the Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc., noting the discussions “were not about the HECFI board members in their personal capacity.”

The findings should be a “wake-up call” for city politicians, said Councillor Brad Clark, who at the time publicly questioned the decision to go behind closed doors for the McMaster discussion.

“The law says we’re supposed to be as open and transparent as possible. If we go in camera, there needs to be a clear reason to do so,” he said. “For a while (last year), we were being asked to go in camera based on the slimmest of verbal assurances.”

Councillors also went in camera Monday night to discuss the ombudsman’s findings. Solicitor Peter Barkwell told councillors at the meeting he wanted to give legal advice on the matter to council, which can be done privately under the Municipal Act.

Mayor Bob Bratina said Tuesday feedback from the ombudsman on council practices is “always useful,” but added council and staff “may or may not agree” with the latest findings. He wouldn’t offer an opinion.  (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

 

Tuesday November 20, 2001

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 20, 2001

Secrecy at City Hall becoming the norm

Mayor Bob Wade just doesn’t get it. He still believes, apparently, that council members are entitled to meet in secret any time they don’t want the public, or the media, listening in or looking over their shoulders.

Councillor Marvin Caplan is beyond not getting it, but we’ll return to that in a moment. Wade has to be the focus of any discussion of council openness or the lack thereof.

Glorious architecture gallery

A recent series of five closed meetings continues a trend the mayor began even before he took office. Last November, he called a closed-door session of councillors — elected but not yet sworn in — to discuss, among other things, their own salaries. The meeting, the first time they sat down together, was in a Hamilton Place boardroom. No problem, the mayor said. They weren’t yet members of council (all but one were still sitting members of existing councils) and he wanted to give them a chance to “vent” away from staff and media.

A greater concern than any one of these questionable meetings of council members is that secret meetings are becoming business as usual at City Hall. There is a disturbing philosophy emerging: The mayor and some councillors clearly believe the public and the media get in the way of their work.

Too bad. Public accountability comes with being on the public teat.

Councillor Caplan’s take on the five closed meetings? “I think there should be more stuff in camera, not less.”

What is he thinking? What is wrong with an elected official who wants more secrecy in place of openness and transparency? Councillor Sam Merulla says the meetings should be public — but has raised no objection. So much for principle. (Hamilton Spectator)