Burlington Council Receives Closed Session Meeting Investigation Report by Aird & Berlis LLP
At our May 17 Council meeting, we received the Closed Session Meeting Investigation report conduct by an independent closed meeting investigator, Aird & Berlis LLP -- a fulsome discussion on the report took place at our May 4 Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability (CSSRA) Committee meeting.You can watch a recording of the discussion at committee here.
- Staff report: CL-17-22 – Closed Session Meeting Investigation – Aird & Berlis
- Appendices:
This has been a learning experience for everyone on Council and at the City.There are appropriate ways to raise concerns that anyone has regarding our closed session reports and meetings -- that includes asking a Closed Meeting Investigator to review and make recommendations. This tool is available to Council, City staff, the public and media -- everyone.I asked for review of the two meetings that led to the leak of confidential information and several others where there was one member of Council voting not to discuss in closed session.This independent report and its findings should put to rest any concerns about our closed session meetings. The investigator found that we were properly in closed and we protected the public interest by doing so — that’s critically important to note.Directly from the CMI report: “We conclude that all meetings of the committee and council under consideration were in compliance with the Municipal Act and procedure bylaw."A salient section from report: "While there is certainly a desire to inform the public about these topics, there is an even stronger imperative to protect sensitive information that could compromise the overall public interest in these matters."Also important to note are the differences between reports and meetings.City staff make the decision about what reports are deemed “confidential.” If Council wishes to change that or any information in that, we need to vote -- together -- on a motion to waive privilege. Separately, we can discuss a confidential report in closed session if we have questions, but we don’t always do if no one has questions, comments or changes. We record the amount of time we spent in discussions in closed and the percentage hasn’t changed over time -- about less than 10% of the time.What we also heard from the CMI is that it is improper for a single member of Council to act unilaterally.Finally, we as a council and City staff are committed to public transparency, accountability -- and always have been -- and we are also all committed to continuous improvement.Before the Integrity Commissioner's (IC) report and this CMI report, Council had already voted unanimously to seek a review and recommendations of our closed session meetings, and we will get that report in June 2022.There are some recommendations in the CMI report for improving the “report out” provisions. We also heard that in the IC report -- and we welcome the recommendation and opportunity for enhancements.It's important to note that these recommendations from the IC and CMI doesn't mean we’ve been doing it wrong all along -- just that we are always looking for ways to do better. And we will, together.I want to thank the CMI for their thorough report. This is Council is absolutely committed to transparency and its responsibility to the public and public interest -- and we heard from the CMI that sometimes we have to keep items and discussions confidential to protect the public interest.BACKGROUND:I know many questions have been raised concerning closed, confidential meetings happening at the City’s committee and Council meetings — most recently, around meetings dealing with the purchase of Robert Bateman High School, and a Committee of Adjustment matter on Balmoral Ave.These were the subject of a recent independent Integrity Commissioner investigation and report.During that process, claims were made that this Council is inappropriately going into closed session and that the number of closed session meetings have increased. No evidence has been presented to support either of these claims.However, there is a formal process available to the public, Council members or staff, to seek an independent ruling on any concerns about closed session meetings from our Closed Meeting Investigator.Council is committed to continuous improvement in everything we do, and part of that is to look into concerns about closed session meetings.In February, I asked our independent Closed Meeting Investigator to look into these meetings, and several others, to advise us if we were, in fact, properly in closed session, and further to advise if our “report out” resolution that passed following each closed session complied with our Procedure Bylaw.I think it’s important for us to get an answer either way and if something is found that needs improvement, we’ll improve it.The report by Aird & Berlis LLP is now complete and on the public agenda for Wednesday’s (May 4) Corporate Services, Risk & Accountability (CSSRA) Committee meeting.
- Staff report: CL-17-22 – Closed Session Meeting Investigation – Aird & Berlis
- Appendices:
In short, the Closed Meeting Investigator found we were properly discussing the items we did in closed session and “the City did not contravene subsection 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 or the Procedure Bylaw.”This Council is committed to transparency and accountability, and continuous improvement in all our activities. To that end, we unanimously approved a report from the City Manager to review and update our Code of Good Governance, as well as conduct a review of closed meeting procedures and recommend any improvements. We will have that report in June 2022.I also invite residents to familiarize themselves with the tools available to hold Council members and staff to account, especially between elections. These are: the Office of the Ombudsman; Integrity Commissioner; and Closed Meeting Investigator.RELATED LINKS: