As councils head into the last half of their four-year term we suspect the eyes of the public will become a little more focused than they have been for the first two years.
Many councils in Wellington County are facing a hefty spending increase again this year. That remains cause for concern.
There continues to be capital projects throughout the county that also draw a suspicious glare or two, albeit short-lived and dependent on the community.
There is also a pending election in 2014, for which nominations are just one year away. The expanded nomination time frame provided under Premier McGuinty makes 2013 a critical year for ambitious types that might like to unseat incumbents or move from a councillor position to the mayor’s chair.
In this week’s Advertiser, one of our senior reporters, Patrick Raftis, has pulled together details of closed session activity this past year across Wellington. His report follows on the heels of the Ontario Ombudsman report, which was quite critical of municipal councils elsewhere in Ontario that failed to honour the very specific reasons a council might discuss an issue out of view.
Remuneration increases for councillors, planning strategies, closed budget meetings and similar sensitive issues were held behind closed doors and the Ombudsman found those to be improper.
For us the issue of closed sessions and proper conduct in Wellington remains a matter of trust. Each municipality here has experienced clerks and CAOs who recognize the long-term damage that comes about when the short-term benefit of discussing items away from the public eye is taken.
Having said that, we have no doubt that some councils walk on the razor’s edge when it comes to using personnel matters or litigation issues as an opportunity to bring up ticklish subjects.
If history is any guide, the misuse of closed door meetings will rear its head again in the next election, as ambitious types attempt to besmirch the work of others and cast a pall on the trust voters typically place on local councils.
Heck, some current council members across Wellington used that very tactic, among others, to discredit adversaries and gain a seat at the public trough. It’s turned into quite a game.
Our greater concern, however, rests with the seemingly increasing number of meetings held each year and how many of those meetings are actually accessible by the public, not just “open” to the public.
The engagement of committees or special meetings might allow for more discussion, but if that discussion is not at a sensible time when the public can attend, is it really a good format? Are these daytime get-togethers any different than abusing a closed session for purposes other than what is allowed under the Municipal Act?
Another disturbing trend is the short council meetings made possible when most of the work and recommendations come from committee and get endorsed by the whole of council. This does little to instill confidence on the part of voters, let alone provide the background reporters could share with readers to explain important decisions.
It does little for councillors either, particularly rookies that might need additional background or wish to express an opinion before putting up their hand.
Trust is something hard to recover once lost. We hope councillors remember that perception can often be as important as reality itself.
Business in open, or in secret, must be seen to be fair and honest.
