Council will not reopen pay issue
Vote held behind closed doors may have broken provincial laws
In a secret council meeting Wednesday, Brampton councillors shot down an attempt to reopen the issue of the hefty pay raise they gave themselves last week that sparked a furious public backlash.
The 6-4 vote against reconsidering the pay hike — meant to make up for losing a partially tax-free status councillors had previously enjoyed — was held out of the public eye, before the published 1 p.m. start time and in a different location than Wednesday’s council meeting. That may have broken provincial laws. Mayor Linda Jeffrey, who opposed the raise in last week’s vote, expressed concerns about how Wednesday’s decision was conducted.
To allow for public input and observation, municipal councils follow strict guidelines regarding time and location of meetings and the issues up for discussion. Agendas are usually released in advance, clearly listing the place and time. To change either without proper warning violates Ontario’s Municipal Act. Only certain specific matters, for example personnel issues, may be debated behind closed doors.
“I inherited this awkward way of conducting these meetings,” Jeffrey told the Star, saying the city “must do a better job” at telling the public about meetings. “And I will talk with the city clerk about how we can make this a more open and transparent model. The way it is transmitted to the public, I believe we can do better.”
City spokesperson Brian Stittle explained that council has agreed to start meeting at noon, so as “to convene closed session business first before public session convenes at 1 p.m., in accordance with council’s procedural bylaw.”
Officially, the noon meeting, where the vote was taken, begins as a public session, but it is not described that way in the published agenda, nor was the correct location listed.
Shortly after the public meeting began in council chambers at 1p.m., city clerk Peter Fay referred somewhat cryptically to an earlier failed motion about the “one-third tax-free elimination,” saying it failed to get enough votes to be added to the agenda.
Fay gave no further details on the motion, who made it or how council voted.
A Ministry of Municipal Affairs spokesman told the Star that under the Municipal Act, every city must have a procedural bylaw setting out the rules governing how, when and where meetings are called, and “must also provide for public notice of meetings.”
Any member of the public with concerns on this point can ask for a probe by a “meetings investigator” appointed by the municipality or the Ontario Ombudsman.
A spokesperson said the ombudsman wouldn’t comment on a specific incident, but provided a list of past decisions.
In a ruling earlier this year, ombudsman André Marin found that a 2014 open council meeting in Black River-Matheson violated the Municipal Act because public notice of the changed open portion of the meeting was not provided.
The decision states: “A reasonable interpretation of what constitutes adequate ‘notice’ includes the time, date and location at which a meeting will take place . . . It is also informed by the principles underpinning the open meeting laws; that is, the public’s ‘right to observe municipal government in process.’ Without notice of where the meeting will take place, the public is effectively denied this right.”
Brampton councillors had told the Star that a motion to reopen the salary issue and address the public outcry over the 7-per-cent raise and increased perks they gave themselves last week would be brought forward at Wednesday’s council meeting.
But the meeting passed with no mention of the issue until the public question period, when resident Yvonne Squires yelled at councillors who voted for the raise last week. Councillor Gurpreet Dhillon — who did not support last week’s move — then noted he had just brought forward a motion to reopen the issue, prior to council’s move to the chambers.
That came as a shock to media and members of the public who had attended in expectation of hearing a debate and had no idea what had happened or how councillors had voted.
Dhillon told Squires she should ask his colleagues why they voted down his motion.
When she realized they had taken the vote away from the public eye, Squires again yelled: “I thought this council was supposed to be transparent.”
Stittle revealed in a later email to the Star that six councillors had shot down Dhillon’s motion: Elaine Moore, Grant Gibson, Michael Palleschi, John Sprovieri, Doug Whillans and Jeff Bowman. Gael Miles, who had voted for the salary hike last week, missed the meeting.
Jeffrey supported the motion to reopen the issue and later successfully brought forward her own motion to refuse the pay raise she would have received. (Jeffrey also cut her salary by $50,000 after taking office last year.)
Municipal law expert John Mascarin told the Star that Brampton council is “trying to comply with the Municipal Act, but they don’t seem to be doing it in the most open, transparent way. The fact that they had it in a different area (than what was published) is completely wrong. It’s very misleading.”