‘Grey area’
Councillors question whether armoury presentation should have been in-camera
Summerside city councillors are second-guessing a decision recently to hold a discussion behind closed doors.
The issue came up during a recent council meeting, prior to a motion that saw council approve $10,000 in funding to hire a company to do a scope of work report for the historic Summerside armoury. The document could influence whether or not council decides to spend significantly more money to renovate and repurpose the building into an interpretive centre.
Prior to the vote on the motion, Coun. Brent Gallant criticized the fact that the initial presentation and discussion about the armoury project was held ‘in-camera’ following a previous council meeting. Coun. Gordie Whitlock also expressed concerns regarding that decision.
“These types of discussions should be done in public and not behind closed doors. In this particular case I didn’t see any reason why it had to be (in-camera),” said Whitlock.
Other councillors also questioned why the discussion had been held in-camera or acknowledged that an argument could have been made to have it in public. In-camera sessions are council meetings that are not accessible to the public. Council is allowed by law to go in-camera to discuss topics under three categories: personnel, property and legal matters.
Personnel usually pertains to human resource matters and can include city staff’s private information and legal can run a gamut from litigation the municipality is involved in to contract negotiations. Property usually pertains to the purchase or sale of property. Regardless of whether the discussion is in-camera or not, council is bound to vote on motions in public.
Mayor Bill Martin said after the recent meeting that he too had questions regarding this particular in-camera discussion. He added staff had recommended it be presented as such so he deferred to their judgment.
“It was grey, it could have gone either way,” said Martin. “When the recommendation came to put it in committee of the whole (in camera), I asked why and I was given some rationale for it – it’s land, it’s legal – and that’s where it ended up. It could have gone into a public session of council just as easily.”
Martin went on to say that in-camera discussion are relatively rare and that council is committed to being as open and transparent as possible.
Gallant said he hopes the next time a similar situation arises, a different decision will be made.
“In the future, I hope we can consider these put out in the public for debate,” he said.