Prince Rupert City Council, with a vote of four to two, passed a motion Monday evening directing staff to give more information on agendas about closed meetings beyond what is legally required in section 90 of the Community Charter.
[quote=“TheNorthernView”]Prince Rupert City Council, with a vote of four to two, passed a motion Monday evening directing staff to give more information on agendas about closed meetings beyond what is legally required in section 90 of the Community Charter.
bclocalnews.com/bc_north/the … 70273.html[/quote]
So here’s a question that hasn’t been asked and answered yet, how much will it cost the city if they have to pass each agenda past a lawyer?
Still money well spent I guess, if it opens the doors of council a little wider for those of us gathered at the keyhole.
Not so sure that it’s going to be the demise of council the idea of being more transparent, sounds like the kind of thing you might have heard from someone working at the Politburo before Mr. Gorbachev wandered into the office.
If the whole city council is going to meet its demise because they post information about what they intend to talk about in a closed door session, then perhaps it’s time to meet its demise.
No one seems to be asking for the minutes to the meetings (though we imagine that would be instructive), just some background information on what the heck they talk about when they shut the doors to the public.
Duly noted. Time for someone to do a Kathy Bedard youtube video too. What’s her catch-phrase?
Here’s Sheila Gordon-Payne’s youtube video:
Just for clarification staff has been given approval to get legal advice to begin with, to be more clear about what can and can’t be said in terms of protection of privacy and the municipalities interests on a closed agenda, in order to protect the city from liability, however this would not be done for each agenda, but as an initial step. So, the cost should be minimal.
[quote=“AnnaA”]
Just for clarification staff has been given approval to get legal advice to begin with, to be more clear about what can and can’t be said in terms of protection of privacy and the municipalities interests on a closed agenda, in order to protect the city from liability, however this would not be done for each agenda, but as an initial step. So, the cost should be minimal.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
Best of luck with your initiative, though it would seem there is a wee bit of resistance still to be had towards the goal of more open and transparent proceedings, it will be with interest that we watch to see how this project will evolve.
Does this mean that we will know a little bit of what they intend to chat about but then we have to wonder if they did talk about it and what the outcome was? Hallelujah for that then. Pretty bad when they have to vote on whether or not to let the constituents in on what they intend to talk about for our town. Almost like knowing someone is on trial but never knowing the verdict.
I’m glad that councillor Thorkelson voted in favour of greater disclosure of information about topics for discussion at closed sessions, but this quote from her in the Northern View caught my eye: “It’s a good idea for the city to know that we’re discussing Watson Island every single closed meeting.”
Watson Island has been discussed at “every single meeting”. That’s reassuring, but the Oct 25 meeting (likewise the June 21 and March 22 meetings) wasn’t closed to discuss land matters. It was closed only to discuss personnel matters. We know from earlier reports that a bylaw enforcement letter was also discussed at the same meeting. That’s not how things are supposed to work.
The council can exclude the public when certain sensitive issues are being discussed, eg personnel, litigation, negotiations and land transactions, but they first have to vote in public that the meeting is to be closed, and that’s all they’re supposed to discuss. It appears, though, that meetings are being closed but then the council is discussing topics that were not mentioned in the notices or in the vote to exclude the public. That’s how closed meetings turn into secret meetings. That’s two examples that have come to light in recent days.
The Mayor talks about being “conservative” about these issues, but actually he seems to have allowed closed meeting practices to become rather sloppy. Hopefully that will be corrected.