The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet. Council closed a meeting to discuss matters under, among other exceptions, the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council added an item to the in camera agenda with respect to a consulting firm’s bid to conduct an organizational study of the municipality. The individuals working at the firm and their qualifications were identified in the proposal documents. However, the Ombudsman found that the personal matters exception did not apply in the circumstances because the discussion was in the context of a proposed professional relationship with the township.
Township of Alfred and Plantagenet, May 10, 2017
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet. Council closed a meeting to discuss matters under two exceptions: acquisition or disposition of land, and personal matters about an identifiable individual. During the meeting, a vote was taken that was neither procedural nor a direction to staff. In addition, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the cited exceptions. Therefore, the vote was not permissible.
The Ombudsman reviewed a series of emails sent by council members for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to each other. Individual members of council provided their approval over email to proceed with a contribution in support of a grant application. The Ombudsman found that the emails constituted a meeting of council and the indications of support from council constituted a vote. Since this email chain constituted an illegal closed meeting of council, and the vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff, the vote was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to discuss matters under the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land and personal matters about an identifiable individual. While the resolution identified the exceptions, it did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed during the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the township ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issue to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to discuss various matters, including a proposed organizational study. The township’s procedure by-law states that the presiding officer of a closed meeting may, after its adjournment, report to council the decisions made at the meeting. During the closed portion of the meeting in question, council for the township passed a resolution to retain a consultant to conduct an organizational study of the municipality. The open meeting minutes did not record any reporting back of the in camera proceedings, other than a resolution that the “meeting be reopened to the public.” The Ombudsman found that the township’s practice of not reporting back failed to provide even a general idea of what was discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the township report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera.
Council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet participated in working sessions with a consultant with respect to a proposed organizational study. The Ombudsman reviewed the working sessions. A council member described these sessions as being confidential, akin to solicitor-client privilege. The Ombudsman found that the Municipal Act, 2001 does not contain any exceptions to protect confidential discussions with consultants who are not solicitors representing a municipality. As council did not receive advice from a solicitor during the working sessions, the solicitor-client privilege exception could not apply.