Lifting the veil of secrecy

Nov 28, 2007

In the New Year, as most people are thinking about taking down the Christmas tree and other festive decorations the Ontario Government will be enacting its own piece of window dressing.

It was passed some time ago in the ever-changing Municipal Act that regulates the administration of local government, but is only about to take affect now.

Citizens across the province will soon be able to request an official investigation into the goings-on of closed meetings and ask whether or not what was discussed there should have been under a veil of secrecy.

Seems like a good idea. Having another way to hold elected officials accountable is rarely a bad thing.

Councils are now determining whether or not they will, a. do nothing and have the Ontario Ombudson’s office do the job of investigating for free; b. pay the Association of Municipalities of Ontario an arm and a leg for the same job; or c. appoint their own local investigator to look into closed session complaints.

Of the three choices at hand, the obvious answer would be for councillors to sit on their hands. By doing so they incur no cost to their ratepayers and can never be questioned about the competence or bias of the investigator.

But the point is rather moot.

First it must be pointed out that no matter who does the investigation, just how does one investigate what was discussed at a closed-door meeting? Minutes are kept during these affairs, but they do not have to outline in anyway the nature of the discussions. And if the desire was to keep the discussion secret, wouldn’t those taking part keep the discussion secret?

As well, the investigator only has the power to look into in-camera sessions. They do not have the power to look into e-mails, phone calls, or bumping into of council members at the coffee shop or even the town office.

While, of course, it is more than desirable to have all discussions of our public affairs done in a public forum, it is not reality.

There are more ways than a stick can be shook at that debate happens in private, away from the public eye.

And while most of these ways are innocent, there are surely some that deprive the ratepayers of knowing what or why things are being done. Unfortunately, the new closed session complaints investigator is going to do little to stop this.

The only thing that will truly put a dent in the shield of secrecy is the vigilance of the ratepayers and the council they elect. This should start by insisting that the topics for closed-door discussions be included on council’s agenda, rather than the generic blanket excuses currently employed.

And council members have a role to play in this. The only way we see the investigator being successful is if councillors themselves take issue with closed session subjects.

In the past we have heard councillors complain that a matter should not have been discussed behind closed doors. However, the matter was discussed in closed session so they couldn’t talk about it. That, thankfully, has changed.

But, the bottom line still comes down to the ballot box and choosing people who will leave the public interest in the public forum.

And, if you see your council doing anything other than nothing on this matter, ask why.