Sticking to it

Mig is definitely on track here. It would not be against the FOIPPA to reveal how each member voted, only the discussions that led to the vote. What’s going on here is all too common in government: Hiding behind the FOIPPA.

Ok, well I see your point MiG. You are right that council does have the individual right to let the public know how they voted. And I do sympathize with your point that the deliberations would be interesting for the public to know and would help inform them of how their councilors operate. I guess my point is that the substance of these discussions could hurt the reputation of the potential employee or give a competing bidder on a contract the ability to underscore their opponents weakness.

Whether any of that would be useful to the public, I suppose it would. I just find that in camera meetings on the whole seem to show a contempt for the person who ends up paying the bill – us (sort of like the kids deciding where dinners going to be without input from mom and dad).

It is complicated but to me the central issue is the FOIPPA and its need to be revamped to protect the interest of the public over the interest of council and bidders.   

Just to clarify, I wouldn’t want to know the substance of the conversations.  I’m ok with personnel matters having private components.  That’s what FOIPPA protects.

But the fact is that a vote was held behind closed doors, and it was reported publicly that the vote was held.  If that isn’t against FOIPPA, then neither would reporting how each councilor voted.  FOIPPA protects the substance of the discussion, not the vote itself.

There’s nothing stopping Anna or any of the other councilors from saying “I abstained” or “I voted yes” or whatever.  In fact, this may be something that some journalist may want to take on.  A point blank question to each of the councilors asking how they voted.

I’m curious about FOIPPA requests as well.  How does one formally place a request?  Or should I just e-mail each councilor and ask them how they voted?

Two points

  1. The mayor and each councilor must either vote yes or no…under the Municipal Act
    they cannot abstain.
    2.Once the decision is made,an individual councilor’s voice becomes the voice of the whole council. The individual councilor has their say during discussion,but once the decision is made the individual councilor is obligated to speak in support of the decision regardless of
    he or she voted.

I thought the mayor only voted if there was a tie.  I may be wrong, but this is my understanding.  :neutral_face:

btw, this is not an effort in Forum Trolling.

It was always my understanding too, I don’t remember previous mayors voting, but a good chair if he’s done his homework he shouldn’t have to.

The mayor and each councilor has an equal vote.
If a vote is not indicated then it automatically becomes registered as an affirmative vote.

I don’t mind saying that I am a former city councilor
Council operates with a modified Roberts Rules of Order as set out by the Municipal Act

r40345, what would the rules be around continuously bringing up an issue? Can a Councillor make the same motion an unlimited number of times if they want?

I think they could,but other than being a pain in the ass, what would be the point?

I still don’t recall many mayors verbally casting their vote

Was this the first in camera meeting with a vote or was this the first in camera meeting with a contentious vote?  If the above quote is correct then the answer to our problem is simple.  The vote of an in camera council meeting is considered unanimous unless a councillor feels strongly enough to say that he/she opposed the vote. 

Of course that may lead to journalists and others asking why?  A simple “I am sorry but I am bound by FOIPPA not to divulge information” would have to be accepted.

I think Mr. Howie is smart enough to know that Anna didn’t and probably wouldn’t support him, but this is part of the problem of publicizing votes.  Councillors are free to speak against and vote against motions in camera.  However, they should also have the right to accept the decision and go along with the majority.  That is why the councillor would have to feel very strongly about an issue before publicly stating their opposition.

How this suggestion jives with the legalities of FOIPPA is best left to the lawyers.

Of course council has a duty to ensure that private or other privileged information is protected but why would they think this applies to their vote. Closed meetings (in-camera) have been and continue to be used as a catch all for anything and everything that our city  council does not wish the public to know. The Act is clear enough for anyone who has read it. All council has to do is to do us the service and educate themselves on what is the proper process. THEY need to remind themselves that that one vote they have represents US not their personal views. No vote should be during a closed meeting and I would challenge any councillor to explain why that would be needed.

Councillors, have your deliberations behind closed doors when required but you have no reason to keep any vote a secret. Shame on you all.

Here’s a question:

Assuming that Council is allowed to reveal the vote, what do we as the electorate gain from seeing it this one time? What do we gain that’s important enough to remove some of the privacy of an employee?

How does knowing how a counselor voted “remove some of the privacy of an employee”?

[quote=“eccentric”]
Assuming that Council is allowed to reveal the vote, what do we as the electorate gain from seeing it this one time? What do we gain that’s important enough to remove some of the privacy of an employee?[/quote]

Openness.  Why are they hiding?  What privacy would they be removing?  We already know there was a vote, don’t we? 

The only way the voting record would be protected under FOIPPA is if it revealed something about the deliberations, or something private about the employee.  Which it wouldn’t.

I’m glad you’ve stopped saying that Anna broke the rules, though.

But as you say, we already know there was a vote, and we know what the end result was. What does openness grant us that privacy doesn’t? It doesn’t change anything at all.

Way to duck the question.  You said “What do we gain that’s important enough to remove some of the privacy of an employee?” 

I’ll restate the question for you:  What privacy of the employee would be removed?

As for “What does openness grant us that privacy doesn’t?”  It lets us know how the councillors voted, so we can hold them accountable for their votes.  If you don’t think we need to know how individual councillors voted in this matter, then why should we know how they vote in any matter?  I don’t think you get democracy.

[quote=“eccentric”]
But as you say, we already know there was a vote, and we know what the end result was.[/quote]

Oh, how do we know there was a vote, by the way?  Remember you insisted that everything that happened in camera was secret.  How do you know there was a vote?

Here’s what you said earlier:

Then you went on to state that Anna broke the rules, and that it was like a basketball game, etc etc.

Now you’re saying that you know there was a vote?  How can that be?  Were you wrong?

I did as North Coast suggested and went to the legislation and gave it a read, admittedly a very fast read (actually I scanned it) but I saw nothing in any of the sections that related to the protection of votes in an in camera meeting.
I then went to the website of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission.  Again I just scanned, but found this paragraph interesting.

“The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate
democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic
process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry….”

Knowing how politicians vote on issues is important and forces them to be accountable. 

However, I can still understand why someone may not wish to have a negative vote made public, especially in our particular case where working relations are involved.  Suppose somebody had reservations about Mr. Howie and voted against his retention. Having lost the vote, the person may wish to keep those feelings private to ensure that working relations within city hall are not damaged or that public confidence is not compromised.  That does not mean a gag order on the councillor.  If they feel strongly enough, they have the right to make those feelings known.

Which brings me to another question.  When a decision is made in camera, how is that made public knowledge.  Is there a motion to accept the decision of the in camera session?  I am hoping there is.  At that point the councillor goes on record.  If they didn’t like the decision but can live with it, they can vote to accept.  Or if they are still upset, the can go on public record by voting against acceptance.