Meeting behind closed doors
Privacy, commercial sensitivity and allowing free and frank discussion are just some of the reasons the Timaru District Council has given for discussing agenda items behind closed doors.
Discussion around more than 25 per cent of Timaru District Council’s main agenda items took place in public-excluded committee sessions in the past six months, according to a council report – which has been described as ‘‘very high’’ by the Taxpayers’ Union.
The council’s six monthly report reveals it had a target for 90 per cent of agenda items to be held in open council meetings.
The report says reasons for excluding the public included to protect a person’s privacy, prevent use of the information for improper gain or advantage, to enable commercial or industrial negotiations and to allow free and expression of opinions.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke said, based on his experience with getting information from councils across the country, 25 per cent was ‘‘a very high proportion of time to exclude the public’’.
‘‘On the face of it, it suggests a culture of secrecy,’’ Houlbrooke said.
‘‘Too often, councils exclude the public from meetings when they know they’re doing something unpopular. Just recently we saw the example of Palmerston North City Council using secret meetings to grant $391,000 to the headquarters of Toyota, to help the company expand its warehouse.’’
‘‘This kind of information can usually be obtained through official information requests, but that’s a slow and costly process. Wherever possible, councils should be up front about sensitive decisions. It’s actually the safe option politically – in our frank experience, it’s often the coverup that embarrasses councils more than the original decision.’’
Odey said he completely rejected any suggestion there was a culture of secrecy at the council.
‘‘That perception of secrecy is completely incorrect,’’ Odey said.
‘‘A lot of the time we go into public excluded to go over previous minutes from council meetings. And most of the decisions made in public excluded eventually get released in the open at the next meeting.’’
Odey said the 90 per cent goal was not a statutory target, but a guideline for council managers when putting together reports.
‘‘We have that target to remind managers we want to be as open and transparent as possible in our decisionmaking.’’
‘‘At times we have to go into public excluded to protect people’s personal and commercial interests,’’ Odey said.
‘‘Imagine, if say, the council was discussing a property purchase which was still in the negotiation phase and we ended up having that splashed on the front page of the newspaper before the purchase even took place. That wouldn’t be fair.’’
‘‘On other occasions, we could be discussing a grant application and someone’s personal attributes might be commented on.’’
A Local Government New Zealand spokesman said the organisation didn’t set any targets for councils for open meetings.
‘‘It’s up to them to make those decisions,’’ he said.
According to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, there are several reasons councils can use to exclude the public or withhold information. These include incidents where it was necessary to allow for the ‘‘free and frank expression of opinions’’, ‘‘maintain legal professional privilege’’, and ensuring commercial and industrial negotiations can take place ‘‘without prejudice’’.