Council looks at ways to avoid unnecessary closed meetings
The city will be taking steps to ensure councillors aren’t seen to be discussing matters in closed session that should be discussed in public, says a new city staff report.
The report comes more than four months after an investigator found that councillors held a discussion about the future casino location, in a closed session in Nov. 2015, when the matter should have been talked about in public.
The firm Amberley Gavel investigated after a citizen complained.
The firm released a report in January that found councillors shouldn’t have discussed the casino location in private.
Amberley Gave l reported that councillors met in private in November 2015 to discuss the possibility of land annexation with Cavan Monaghan Township.
But they also talked about the future location of the casino, says Amberley Gavel – and then directed staff to start rezoning the property on Crawford Dr.
The public only heard the Crawford Dr. site had been selected six months later.
On Monday, councillors will discuss a new city staff report outlining what can be done to ensure closedsession meetings stick to a narrow set of topics.
For example, city staff says it will be more specific, in meeting agendas meant for the public, in explaining why certain topics will be discussed in private session.
City staff will also review the investigator’s report and develop a new summary of the “narrowly defined matters that are allowed to be dealt with in closed meetings.”
Staff will do this, they say – even if they don’t necessarily think councillors did anything wrong in the first place.
“While staff may not agree with all of the investigator’s findings, staff respects the process and will continue to be vigilant in regard to closed meetings,” states the report from city solicitor Patricia Lester.
At least one city councillor also thinks the private discussion was justified.
Coun. Andrew Beamer, who chaired that closed-session meeting in 2015, told The Examiner recently that councillors were advised by a provincial mediator to keep any discussion of land acquisition private.
The casino location and the land negotiations were two “intertwined” topics, Beamer said, since the township was potentially losing its casino to Peterborough; it’s difficult to broach one topic without mentioning the other.
“It is incorrect for anyone to call it an illegal meeting,” Beamer said. “Amberley Gavel gave an opinion, and we respect that. However, it is just an opinion.”
Meanwhile the city may be facing a lawsuit regarding the matter.
Roy Brady, a vocal opponent of the planned new casino, has filed an application for a court order quashing council’s rezoning of the property on Crawford Dr. for the casino.
Brady is also seeking an interim injunction to keep the city from allowing the project to go any further.
It means that if the developer/operator of the casino, Great Canadian Gaming Corp., begins construction later this summer, they might have to stop.
Brady’s court application says the casino plans should be halted because city staff was directed to begin the rezoning process after that closedsession meeting in November 2015 – described in the court document as “an illegal meeting”.
The application seeks a judicial review in court in Oshawa. As of this week, no court date had been set.