Open and Transparent?

Early Wednesday morning, city staff and London Police Service moved into Victoria Park and dismantled tents and other structures that belonged to participants in the local occupy movement.  While many others have talked about the legitimacy and whether this action was right or wrong, I feel a far more disturbing action happened several hours earlier on Tuesday night.

Council met in camera to discuss “a legal matter pertaining to advice re the occupy movement”  During this meeting a vote was taken to have the park cleared. We don’t know the result of this vote as it was done in-camera. We do know raised voices were heard from outside council chambers and Mayor Fontana did say he had overwhelming support but not unanimous.

The purpose of in-camera meetings are described in the municipal act quite clearly.

A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,

(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;

(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board;

(d) labour relations or employee negotiations;

(e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board;

(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;

(g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (2).

In this situation council may have had this meeting behind close doors without a valid reason. The only exception I can see this in-camera meeting a shred of validity is section F. As I have stated before transparency is very important, if you are not willing to go on the record for a vote because you feel it will be not popular then don’t run for office.

Most intelligent voters realize they will not agree with a politician on every issue, but most people will have far more respect for someone who is honest and transparent. I will respect someone who is more open who I don’t agree with on some issues far more then someone who bends the rules to only release ‘good’ news. This is why some people are puzzled when I say I have the respect of some politicians that I don’t agree with most of the time.

As Patrick Maloney pointed out in his London Free Press article, Council could be opening themselves to a legal can or worms. In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada warned London that municipal affairs can not be done in secret. That particular adventure cost the city $300,000 in legal fees.

The Ontario Ombudsman’s office has received two formal complaints about this ‘secret’ meeting so it will be interesting to see what happens with this going forward.

I would love to see a motion to release the minutes of this meeting and the voting results. Not to play the blame game but for the nature of open and transparent government. However that would involve a 2/3 majority to achieve, which would not be that likely given that some on Council don’t want the public to know how they voted. Considering there was a push for Citizen engagement by the city recently, this is very disappointing

Update: Several people have commented that section a could also apply in this instance.  That is true but IMHO still a stretch and doesn’t address my original issue of an unnecessary secret vote.

Moving on

One thing that has come out with the death of Jack Layton that is there are many Canadian’s of all political stripes that do want a better society and a better Canada.

It’s good to see all the outpouring of support in particular at Toronto City Hall where Jack got his political start. Seeing the message written in chalk at Nathan Phillips square is particularly inspiring. While watching this video, one message in particular stuck a chord with me. “Jack Layton was the reason I started voting”  This also shows that people are not alone in their grief or their beliefs for a better country.

If you haven’t already it’s worth reading Stephen Lewis’s eulogy of Jack Layton. Beside the fact the Stephen Lewis is one of the finest orators I know this eulogy really shows what Jack Layton was like.

Many speakers spoke of trying to have a better Canada. To have a manifesto for a more social democracy. Many people both in and out of politics forget the purpose of government is to serve and help the people. Not the people who donate to the parties; not the people who come out and work for the campaigns; but all the people. The young; the old; single; married; sick, First Nations and others; all the people.

Like others have said, I can’t agree with everything he stood for but I find his passion and approach to be something we should all aspire towards.

Election Day, Be a part of it.

Today millions of Canadians will be enjoy a right that many in the world do not have. Canadians will have heard from all the campaigns, the media and hopefully will have made an informed decision.

No matter what please take the time today to learn about the candidates and then go and vote. If you don’t vote you can’t complain.

Standing Behind Your Comments

At Wednesday nights Committee of the Whole meeting one of the items was delegations of groups requesting funding from the city.  In most cases this is usually a fairly civil affair with no much controversy.  However during the meeting this night, Ward 14 council Sandy White made the following comment.

“I just want to state I have a pet peeve about the fact some of the (non-profit) leaders in this city and certainly we’re entitled to free speech but the way that they conduct themselves, and yet we’re handing them money from the city, you know they’re in the paper, they’re on their blog. I mean they’re, you know, after councilors, they’re after you Mr. Mayor. I mean these kind of professional, ah non-professional behavior needs to be addressed. I mean it is the taxpayers’ money we’re giving out, and yet this kind of behavior is acceptable? These are some of the things in terms of professionalism that we look at and I don’t want to be accused of whining it’s just a fact. If I did that at my job they would say, you know, there’s the door what’s your hurry, here’s your pink slip and don’t look back, we’ll get you a box and see you later. These are some of the issues we need to address in terms of the standards that we set in our non-profit sector in London. Thank you.”

(Thanks to Greg Fowler and Phil McLeod for the video (12:15 in) and transcript.)

Many in the gallery were rather surprised by that statement and several likened it to that she was suggesting that nonprofits who receive funding from the city be not allowed to criticize members of Council. Several people posted their concerns on Twitter which led to Councilor White denying this suggestion. One person replied back that she has a communication challenge and should maybe consider a post on her blog to address the issue. At this time no post on this issue has appeared on her blog.

There are several council members that currently have blogs (and I’ve been told at least one more is coming) and a social media presence.  One of the most important things to learn is that you have to be open and honest in social media. Not have a two way conversation in the social media space will burn you every time. Based on Councilor White’s past experience it is hoped that this was just a case of what she wanted to say vs. what was said.