Council’s private strategic-planning session broke rules: Ombudsman

Article content

Cornwall Mayor Justin Towndale is fond of telling crowds the strategic-planning session held on Nov. 4, 2023, likely the first to be held in private, was the best such session he’s ever attended in his years on council.

Article content

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

On Friday, Ombudsman of Ontario Paul Dubé released his report into a complaint about that closed-door meeting, ruling the entire day’s discussion should have been open and accessible to the public. The Standard-Freeholder filed the complaint in January, after council considered a report about the Nov. 4 meeting that served as a first public draft of the strategic plan adopted at a subsequent meeting.

The first details about the meeting were shared on Cornwall social-media channels in the days leading up to Nov. 4. At that point in time, the city’s intention was the meeting wasn’t going to be considered a council meeting, even though under the Municipal Act, any meeting of a majority of council members where discussions are held to advance the business of the municipality must be held as a council meeting. The city responded to an inquiry stating this wasn’t going to be a meeting, but a strategic-planning session.

Article content

Article content

Council meetings require agendas to be published ahead of time, and available to the public. Such an agenda was published in the afternoon of Nov. 3, citing eight of the clauses allowing for closed meetings in the Municipal Act and making virtually the entire meeting except for the few minutes at its beginning and end private.

Dubé’s report found council met none of the criteria required under any of the cited exceptions to open meetings, sections clerk Manon Levesque told the ombudsman’s office during its investigation she chose based on responses from council members to a survey on their strategic priorities for the term. Katherine Wells, who at the time was the city’s strategic-planning co-ordinator, was named interim clerk for the Nov. 4 meeting to comply with the Municipal Act.

Article content

The rationale was to allow, as Levesque explained to the ombudsman’s office, for “an open forum for brainstorming ideas without fear of inadvertently revealing confidential information.” In his rulings and recommendations, Dubé notes all members of council need to be vigilant to avoid straying into legitimately in-camera discussions during open meetings, and that only the specifically permitted topics be discussed in private. Meetings should be planned and conducted in a manner that keeps discussion focused on the topic at-hand, be it in public or private session.

Article content

The ombudsman also recommended only the closed-meeting exemptions specifically matching the topics planned for discussion should be cited on the agenda.

“Our review of the meeting recording did not identify any discussions that could fall under the exceptions for security of the property, personal matters, litigation or potential litigation, plans and instructions for negotiations, information supplied in confidence by another level of government, or a request under (the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act),” Dubé’s report said. “However, we considered whether small portions of the discussion would have fit within other cited exceptions.”

Two councillors asked questions and made comments on specific parcels of land, but Dubé ruled those questions and their responses didn’t meet the test required to be an in-camera discussion under proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land. Council has the right to discuss the possible sale or purchase of land, but it must centre on an actual transaction that is pending or proposed.

Similarly, Dubé found references to Cornwall’s staffing and retention challenges along with comments about increasing compensation and allowing for more remote work did not meet the test required under the labour relations or employee negotiations exemptions.

Council reviewed a preliminary version of the report on Nov. 12, and is required to pass a resolution on how it will address the report at a future meeting.

Article content