GUELPH – It won’t be for several months, but the County of Wellington may be on its way to livestreaming its council and committee meetings.
“Every local municipality in the county broadcasts their meetings … and many of them archive them on their websites as well,” consultant Nigel Bellchamber told council on Sept. 26.
“I think it’s time for county council to consider that for council, and I think, depending on where you hold your standing committees, for standing committees as well.”
Bellchamber, of N.G. Bellchamber and Associates, was presenting a report on “opportunities to enhance transparency of council decision making.”
The report was the result of a decision by council to review the transparency of county council decision making, and followed individual telephone interviews with all but one of the councillors, as well as conversations with the CAO and clerk.
The recommendation that the county broadcast its meetings was just one of 10 recommendations included in Bellchamber’s report.
The consultant, who is a former county CAO and has also served as closed meeting investigator and integrity commissioner, argued that if much of the discussion that influences council decision making happens at the committee level, “perhaps the public’s ability to observe that should be considered as well.”
Councillor Campbell Cork stood up to speak in favour of the recommendation.
“I think it’s a terrific idea,” Cork said.
He called the county building where council meetings are held “generally inaccessible to the public,” citing its location – an hour away from the northern end of the county – and parking as issues that might make it difficult for people to attend meetings in person.
Bellchamber’s report was accompanied by a motion by Warden Andy Lennox that council endorse the report’s proposed recommendations and request they be implemented according to a schedule.
For livestreaming, that schedule involves including implementation costs in the 2025 budget, with full implementation no later than March 31, 2025.
Other recommendations
Some of Bellchamber’s other recommendations related to transparency require less work to implement.
When it comes to the reports to committees and council, he recommended the reports be signed by the person who prepared them as well as the department head, and also the county treasurer if there is a budget amendment proposed.
A report’s recommendations, he said, should be listed at the beginning of the report, so readers can immediately understand the direction it is taking.
If oral reports are presented at committee or significant additional information is presented during the meeting, that oral information should be included in an amended report or addendum to the minutes.
These three recommendations, as well as Bellchamber’s suggestion that doors be kept open at committee meetings unless there was a resolution to exclude the public, were to be implemented immediately.
“This is optics,” said Bellchamber. “If you’re going to hold a meeting that’s open to the public, regardless of what you put on the door, some members of the public could be intimidated into not attending” if they are met with a closed door.
Some meetings are closed to the public, and Bellchamber recommended that resolutions by council or committee to exclude the public should cite the relevant provision in the legislation justifying the exclusion, but should also disclose the general nature of the business to be discussed.
This recommendation is also to be implemented right away.
Bellchamber also recommended the quality of reports to committee and council be considered in formal performance evaluations – a recommendation that was to be referred to the administration, finance and human resources committee for further review.
When it comes to committee meetings, Bellchamber said the county’s solicitor or closed meeting investigator should be consulted about the participation of non-members of committee who are also members of council taking part in discussions or decision making at these meetings.
“There is precedent for a municipal council decision being overturned at the Supreme Court of Canada when a decision was deemed to have been made outside of the public council meeting,” his report stated.
Lennox’s motion asked that staff pursue consultation on this recommendation and report back to council in 2024.
Bellchamber’s final two recommendations were that county council eliminate the use of committee of the whole during a council meeting as an unnecessary layer to the process that adds nothing to transparency, and that the county’s transparency process be reviewed in light of changes in the technological environment since 2008.
These were to be implemented upon revision of council’s procedure bylaw, no later than March 31, 2025.
Council did not vote on the implementation schedule, but instead voted in favour of deferring and referring the motion to the administration, finance and human resources committee for further discussion.
