Posts
In the meantime, The Supreme Court of Canada made a recent ruling about secrecy-prone municipalities holding these types of meetings, which violate the law (except in narrowly defined circumstances).
In a 7-0 ruling, the top court has ruled that the city of London, Ont., violated a provincial ruling limiting in-camera council meetings when it met twice behind closed doors to impose a controversial freeze on a local development project.
Read the article on The Supreme Court of Canada ruling here.
Here is a partial list of our council's "in-camera" sessions as compiled by a commenter on Dean Ward's blog:
2 Oct 2012 – 8:35 pm. . .. 9:30 pm.
4 Sep 2012 – 7:55 pm. ... 8:53 pm.
21 Aug 2012 – 8:00 pm. .. 8:50 pm.
7 Aug 2012 – 8:00 pm. ... 9:12 pm.
17 Jul 2012 – 8:25 pm. ... 8:46 pm.
19 Jun 2012 – 4:00 pm. ... 4:45 pm.
19 Jun 2012 – 8:00 pm. ... 9:14 pm.
15 May 2012 – 8:22 pm. ... 9:00 pm.
15 May 2012 – 4:15 pm. ... 5:35 pm
1 May 2012 – 8:48 pm. .... 10:06 pm.
17 Apr 2012 – 8:48 pm. ... 9:25 pm.
10 Apr 2012 – 7:05 pm. ... 7:40 pm.
5 Apr 2012 – 4:25 pm. ... 5:15 pm.
3 Apr 2012 - 8:50 pm. ... 9:28 pm.
27 Mar 2012 – 8:55 pm. ... 10:06 pm.
20 Mar 2012 – 8:22 pm. ... 9:25 pm.
15 Mar 2012 – 3:57 pm. ... 5:00 pm.
6 Mar 2012 – 9:18 pm. ... 10:03 pm.
1 Mar 2012 – 3:47 pm. ... 5:25 pm.
21 Feb 2012 - 8:27 pm. ... 9:15 pm.
7 Feb 2012 – 9:19 pm. ... 9:37 pm.
24 Jan 2012 – 4:00 pm. ... 4:33 pm.
24 Jan 2012 – 7:53 pm. ... 9:10 pm.
10 Jan 2012 - 8:10 pm ... 9:55 pm
13 Dec 2011 – 7:50 pm. ... 9:20 pm
6 Dec 2011 – 8:54 pm. ... 8:05 pm.
8 Nov 2011 – 8:35 pm. ... 9:12 pm.
27 Oct 2011 – 2:05 pm. ... 3:15 pm.
18 Oct 2011 – 8:32 pm. ... 9:29 pm
11 Oct 2011 NO MOTION. 10:29 pm
4 Oct 2011 – 7:40 pm. ... 8:35 pm
6 Sep 2011 – 1:55 pm. ... 5:42 pm. <--- br="br"> 20 Sep 2011 – 8:10 pm. ... 10:05 pm.
23 Aug 2011 – 8:05 pm ... 9:40 pm
12 Jul 2011 – NO MOTION. 10:25 pm.
14 Jun 2011 - 8:20 pm ... 9:17 pm
7 Jun 2011 - 8:50 pm ... 9:40 pm
30 Jun 2011 – 10:10 am. ... 12:00 pm.
14 Jun 2011 – 6:03 pm. ... 6:20 pm.
11 May 2011 – 1:50 pm. ... 2:45 pm.
6 May 2011 – 8:20 pm. ... 8:40 pm.
8 Mar 2011 – 7:50 pm. ... 9:25 pm.
1 Mar 2011 – 7:55 pm. ... 9:00 pm.
19 Apr 2011 - 8:20 pm. ... 9:25 pm.
8 Feb 2011 – 7:54 pm. ... 9:10 pm.
4 Jan 2011 – 7:55 pm. ... 8:50 pm.
9 Nov 2010 – 8:25 pm. ... 9:40 pm.
2 Nov 2010 – 8:15 pm ... 9:15 pm.
Comment:
Some of my readers may remember how some members of the previous council (the four horsemen) were raked over the coals for meeting together outside council chambers. Well, last Tuesday at the G&P meeting of council, Dean Ward and I were sitting together when it occurred to me during this meeting that council's schedule is that after their late afternoon sessions of their G&P meetings regular council meetings also takes place that same day in the early evening commencing at 7:00 p.m. I asked Dean, "do these guys after their G&P meetings get together over dinner, let's say, prior to having their council meetings, to possibly discuss council business beforehand?" Dean said, "I don't know?"
Makes one wonder if this is the case because anyone who attends a council meeting knows for a fact that very little, if any, debate or discussion, never mind disagreement, ever goes on at these meetings, suggesting they are given their marching orders before-hand?
Maybe, based on the frequency of in-camera meetings as shown above, they conduct their business not in the public forum as they are suppose to but in secret? If so, then The Supreme Court of Canada has something to say about this, and they better start paying attention and take heed of this fact. For there are some residents in this community (such as the one who brought this story to light to me) who have keen eyes, and the ways and means to bring an end to this suspected abuse, because ”Municipal law was changed to require that municipal governments hold meetings that are open to the public in order to imbue municipal governments with a robust democratic legitimacy."... ”The open meeting requirement reflects a clear legislative choice for increased transparency and accountability in the decision-making process of local governments."
It should be clear to most people living here, because of the staggering number of in-camera meetings of our council, in addition to the statistical improbability of having so many "unanimous" decisions of council that more public business is being done behind closed doors than in the public arena as it is meant to be done, and as The Supreme Court of Canada states should be and must be done.
Residents here in the Pass are tired of being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed you know what, with respect to how decisions are being arrived at by council that affect our lives, and therefore want and demand transparency and accountability in the decision-making process by our elected help, as mandated by The Supreme Court of Canada.
Pass residents want their democracy back and their freedom restored. We are not mushrooms and resent being treated as such. What part of this does council not understand?
The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.
11 comments:
To answer your question John, yes without pause for second thought. The contempt for the legislative process shown by the current council is beyond
belief. A copy of the list has hopefully been forwarded to Municipal Affairs. Take care.
I agree that this is one of the biggest problems.That and councilors with no balls. A councilor told me that after a heated debate they voted on whether to cancel(oops I meant defer) TITV.The vote was 7-0.If there was a heated debate you would think that the vote would be a little different.
This council brags about how great they are at communicating.And they are very good at telling us what they have decided, the problem is we do not know how they reached these decisions. In camera or secret meetings it does not matter to me because I do not believe that you can put 7 people in a room and have them agree on everything.Why are councilors so afraid to stand up for what they beleive in?
Why do you think they shot that girl in Pakistan I know if you are not inform you won t be able to make a proper assessement and that what they are doing to confuse the public that vote in the PARASITES take care or try to
Anon @ 12:20 - You compared the Taliban shooting Malala Yousufzai in relation to this blog topic? There are no comparisons.
9.59 your TALiBAN or thier they still try to keep in the dark why there is no comparisons.Please explain same perpose just a defferent Contry
Anon.Dec 1@12:59 PM - You are one sick puppy making this Taliban comparison. Guess you also like throat slitting?
Jose
Looks like things are going off the rails here.
This post is about councils excessive use of in-camera meetings in contravention of what The Supreme Court of Canada says is a violation of democratic rights, if used to curtail transparency and accountability.
JP
In Calgary They state the subject under discussion and the sections of FOIP that justify going in camera.
"Moved by Alderman Hodges, that, in accordance with Section 197 of the Municipal Government Act, and Sections 23 (1), 24(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the SPC on Transportation and Transit now move In Camera, at 11:15 a.m. to consider a legal matter with respect to Report TT2012-0658."
I don't think this is required by provincial law (maybe it's a Calgary bylaw), but it gives a bit of transparency, at least Calgarians have some idea what their Councillors are up to.
7:10. A nice post. True tranparency, as promised by this council, would be easy to accomplish. Would it not be too much trouble to mention why council must go 'in camera'? This really makes a person think...
Something is not right? They go in camera practically every council meeting.
10:57 This may be normal in a small community with so many interconnections. Would council just state why an 'in camera' is neccessary. Conflict of interest is a common occurance in a small town; it need not be with a bit of transparency.
Post a Comment