Is Grand Erie District School Board being too secretive by using too many in-camera sessions?
Barred Brantford trustee Carol Ann Sloat thought so
Trustee Carol Ann Sloat said she hasn’t missed a board meeting since 2003, when she was first elected to represent Brantford on the Grand Erie District School Board (GEDSB).
That is, until a board-imposed ban initiated in May barred her from attending — and now virtually watching — meetings.
An in-camera resolution in May said Sloat was banned for breaching the code of conduct on three incidents, according to the meeting minutes.
While specifics weren’t publicly provided, the sections cited relate to respecting the views of others, keeping information discussed in closed session meetings confidential, and a responsibility to uphold majority decisions passed by the board, and acting for the best interest of the GEDSB.
“They found me guilty, and I’m fighting it in court,” Sloat told The Spectator in a recent interview.
Tensions over in camera sessions
The ban, which Sloat revealed in a Facebook post Feb. 15, comes as the trustee is in legal proceedings with the GEDSB over what she believes is an increasing use of in-camera sessions — when the board meets off the public record.
“Things happen in camera that have to happen in camera, but I just think that we’ve got to be a lot more diligent about what occurs in the public realm,” Sloat said.
The Education Act outlines five “very clear” circumstances for a board meeting to move in camera, Michael Barrett, former president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA), told The Spectator. In a broad sense, it’s matters of property, personnel, labour relations, critical components, and a legal nature, such as human rights complaints, that if discussed publicly, “may be damaging, or can interrupt a process toward, for example, the purchase of a property,” Barrett said.
In February 2022, Sloat left an in-camera meeting she believed fell outside those guidelines.
She wanted it put on the public record “that I was uncomfortable that stuff is being done in camera,” she said.
Sloat did not tell The Spectator specifically what she opposed being in camera, but gave the general example of reports that would have previously gone to the board in public.
Several months after leaving the in-camera meeting, Sloat put forward a complaint to the Ombudsman of Ontario, following a board meeting held on May 30 where a motion passed to alter the trustee code of conduct.
She alleged that the board went against the Education Act by discussing new bylaws and policies in camera, according to the ombudsman letter made public by the board.
The Office of the Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fell within solicitor-client privilege, as they were told during their review the in-camera meeting on May 30 was “to receive advice from its solicitors that was intended to be confidential,” the letter said.
Sloat said complaints were brought against her in May, October, and December, resulting in three bans.
She was barred from attending meetings until the end of September, and told she would only have public access to board proceedings.
When the ban was extended in October 2023, Sloat was additionally prevented from watching public livestreams of the meetings.
It’s baffling to Sloat, who said she doesn’t believe “there’s any reason to keep me away from attending public board meetings as a taxpaying member of the public.”
Sloat appealed the decision to the board, however, when they upheld it, she sought a judicial review, she told The Spectator.
“I respect the court’s time, but I think I need another set of eyes on the decisions that were made,” she said.
Going public
In the meantime, Sloat opened up on Facebook about her previously private battle to ask taxpayers if she should resign or stay and fight for constituents, and the response has been “overwhelmingly positive,” she told The Spectator.
“There are a group of trustees and members of the senior administration team who resent the fact that I have challenged them in my defending your right to know,” she wrote in her post.
The GEDSB released a statement the following day, calling Sloat’s post “regrettable and misleading.”
“All trustees have statutory duties that must be fulfilled, and the Board has established a Code of Conduct that governs the conduct of all its Trustees. These rules ensure the orderly operation and work of a student-focused school board. The statutory obligations and rules apply equally to us all, we can’t choose which to follow or ignore, and through the oath of office, we promise to uphold them. As a Board, we need to set this example for staff and students,” the statement reads in part.
It went on to say, “Regrettably, Trustee Sloat has repeatedly violated those rules. In each case, the Board, as authorized by the Education Act, found her to be in violation of the Code of Conduct, resulting in her being barred from Board and Committee meetings for a period of time. Trustee Sloat, through her own deliberate actions, has received sanctions which are authorized under the Education Act, to address the behaviour.”
It concluded that on legal advice, the board would not be making further statements, and when The Spectator reached out, it declined to comment.
At a special board meeting on Monday, the board determined Sloat will receive a formal public reprimand “at a date to be determined.”
A larger issue?
It’s “absolutely incorrect” that “none of us know what Carol Ann has been accused of,” Barrett told The Spectator, pointing to other school boards — York Region District School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, and Limestone District School Board — which have handled trustee transgressions and sanctions publicly.
Barrett sat with Sloat on the OPSBA for more than a decade, and described her as detail oriented.
“She knows the Education Act, she knows bylaws, she knows procedures. So when Carol Ann Sloat is questioning whether or not something should be in camera, then it probably — I would say nine times out of 10 — has legitimacy,” he said.
While Barrett said there should be methodology to ensure that people operate within the boundaries of good governance, he has concerns with “using the in-camera methodology to shut the voices of dissent down,” he said.
“Democracy dies in the darkness, and this is what we’re in, we’re in darkness,” he said.
Sloat hopes the Divisional Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice will find her in compliance with the code of conduct when they hear her case in June, she said, but in the meantime, she is removed from school board meetings until the end of May this year, and from committee meetings until the end of May 2025.
“I’ve taken a great deal of pride in the work I’ve done and the way that I’m available to people. So not being able to attend board meetings, to ask questions and bring concerns forward and have an open and honest dialogue at the table has been extremely difficult,” Sloat said.
I respect the court’s time, but I think I need another set of eyes on the decisions that were made.
CAROL ANN SLOAT TRUSTEE, GRAND ERIE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD