Audit meeting should have been open
Complaints about election expenses
… the committee’s discussion did not fall within any … closed meeting exceptions.
The provincial Ombudsman has ruled Hamilton’s election compliance audit committee wrongly deliberated behind closed doors last year.
The committee, which only meets to consider complaints about municipal election candidate expenses, held a private meeting July 15, 2015, to consider an unspecified number of applications seeking audits.
Complaints about the election expenses of six different city councillors were heard in public two days earlier, but the committee of citizen volunteers put off any decisions.
The provincial Ombudsman was asked to investigate the private deliberation, and recently posted a decision online, which will also go to city council at its Aug. 8 meeting.
Ombudsman Paul Dube disagreed with the city’s contention the citizen committee doesn’t qualify as a local board under the jurisdiction of opening meeting provisions of the Municipal Act.
“Notice of the meeting was not provided, no procedure was followed to close the meeting to the public, and even if this procedure had been followed, the committee’s discussion did not fall within any … closed meeting exceptions,” he wrote in his decision.
Dube made procedural recommendations designed to “enhance the transparency of (city) meetings” and ensure the citizen committee follows the law on open meetings.
City solicitor Janice AtwoodPetkovski emailed councillors to say a staff report on “any options available to council” regarding the Ombudsman decision will go to the Aug. 8 meeting.