Community Corner: Closed Door Meetings

A reader sent in the following comment. It is published unchanged.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of the AURORA CITIZEN.

I found an interesting item on the Council agenda for the October 14/08 meeting. Could you please open this as a topic of discussion? I think it's quite suspicious that two councillors are fighting for transparency and the other are fighting against it. This was a fantastic suggestion by Mrakas. How is one to "investigate" a closed session meeting if there is no record?

6. Motion from Councillor Collins-Mrakas
Re: Audio Recording of Closed-Session Meetings
(Notice was provided to Council on Tuesday September 9, 2008)

Moved by Councillor Collins-Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Buck

WHEREAS the closed session meetings and attendant proceedings of Council are subject to investigation at anytime should a member of the public feel it is warranted; and

WHEREAS the accuracy of the records and/or documentation kept in regards to the closed session meetings and proceedings of Council is therefore vital; and

WHEREAS currently only minutes are taken and there is no verbatim – written or audio-recorded record of the closed session proceedings of Council; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, if permitted under relevant legislation, all future closed session meetings of Council shall be audio-recorded.

DEFEATED

--------------

An interesting question. A very small number of topics are allowed in-camera because the discussion may be harmful to people or the town if discussed in open Council.

Examples would be an interest to sell/purchase real estate, talk about someones performance and possible dismissal or a legal matter. One can easily see that some matters should be discussed behind closed doors.

However, no decisions are to be made in-camera. All items must be presented in open council for a decision to be made (obviously all the details are not shared).

However, there has been concern expressed by the Mayor and certain members of council that inappropriate behaviour is taking place behind these closed doors. Public accusations can be made about something said and the accused has no defence.

Similarly, discussions take place that lead to a decision and the public have a right to know the basis for the decision -- for example on a real estate matter.

Having a recording that can be released when the item becomes public would help us all understand what took place.

Clearly personal information needs to be withheld, but the comments that it doesn't allow for a free discussion is nonsense. What are these folks saying that they don't want the public to hear?

One might conclude it is the inappropriate behaviour that is the concern versus the release of personal information. These concerns sound more like a desire to hide their own behaviour versus concerns for privacy that can be simply solved by editing out details about a person or legal matter.

Lastly, these tapes would only be made available when an issue is raised , either by the public or a member of council, similar to requesting a transcript or recording of current meetings. So the cost is basically a tape recording hook up connected to the current recording equipment.

Seems like a simple fix. So why the problem?

Admittedly, this is a new idea. It is not practiced in other municipalities. So there is no precedence.

But one must wonder, what's the issue? Isn't it a step forward in promoting openness and transparency? Council is willing to show leadership with clotheslines, why not with openness and transparency? After all, it was the big promise from the election -- while I don't recall anything said about clotheslines.

Let us know your thoughts.

Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.