Closed meeting investigator John Maddox has found that a Jan. 19 in-camera session of Erin council was “reasonable” and “appropriate”.
He conducted an investigation into the meeting – held to discuss a bylaw enforcement officer position to be shared with Guelph-Eramosa – after receiving two complaints alleging at least part of the meeting should have been held in open discussion.
The Advertiser accepts the decision, but as one of the parties that filed a complaint, we respectfully disagree with it. We maintain that any details about the new staff position itself – justification, where the staff member will be posted, the cost, etc. – should have been discussed in open session from the outset, as it was by Guelph-Eramosa council. But that did not happen in Erin.
Quite simply, Erin officials mishandled this matter from the start.
At least some of the blame rests with staff, as several councillors seemed puzzled on Jan. 13 to learn the town was considering a shared position without ever discussing it and without receiving a report on bylaw enforcement that was requested by a councillor four months prior.
CAO Kathryn Ironmonger insisted at the Jan. 13 meeting that she could not even disclose the municipality with which Erin would share the position (though Guelph-Eramosa officials had no problem sharing the information the same day).
Unfortunately for those of us seeking answers, Maddox’s investigation is limited to the Jan. 19 closed meeting itself and not the municipality’s bungling of the overall process.
However, Maddox’s report does contain several puzzling components. For starters, it relies almost solely on input from Erin’s CAO and clerk. It’s no surprise the very individuals who advised council to keep the discussion in closed session in the first place would reiterate the need for privacy to the investigator.
Maddox’s findings also support the town’s position that the closed meeting was necessary in order to discuss the town’s current bylaw enforcement officer. “The incumbent is entitled to a certain level of privacy and consideration,” Maddox states in his report.
Yet the day after the closed session Mayor Allan Alls told an Advertiser reporter exactly what would happen with that staff member. So it seems odd the town would use staff privacy as justification for the closed meeting.
Whether an innocent mistake or calculated deception, this situation is a very common yet completely avoidable one that arises in municipalities across the province.
What happens is, when a council/staff is faced with two related issues to discuss – one that should be in open session and another that should be in closed session – council will simply take both matters into closed session.
Of course, it’s done under the guise of erring on the side of caution, but it’s also the easy way out – and could be viewed as a convenient way to withhold information from the public. While that may not be what happened in Erin, we believe it happens more often than people think.
At the very least, Maddox’s report has highlighted some closed meeting agenda/procedural changes that Erin staff and council seem to have already implemented in order to “minimize confusion and increase transparency” – two steps desperately needed under the current regime in Erin.
The Advertiser is encouraged by that development and will continue to question any decisions or processes it feels are not transparent.
In the grand scheme of things, the bylaw enforcement position in Erin is quite a routine matter. But it begs the question: if Erin officials were this secretive about something so trivial, what else could they be hiding?
