MUNICIPALITY OF ST.-CHARLES
Investigation into the closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles on April 3, 2019
Paul Dubé Ombudsman de l’Ontario
SUMMARY
The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in closed session on April 3, 2019, to discuss documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances. The Ombudsman determined that the committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, when it went in camera to discuss the steps necessary to rectify errors and discrepancies in its accounting software. This discussion did not fit within the exception for personal matters, or any exception, to the open meeting requirements.
COMPLAINT
1In April 2019, my Office received a complaint about the April 3, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles (the municipality). The complaint alleged that during this meeting, council discussed documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.
OMBUDSMAN JURISDICTION
2Under the Municipal Act, 2001 (the Act)1, all meetings of council, local boards, and committees of council must be open to the public, unless they fall within prescribed exceptions.
3As of January 1, 2008, the Act gives citizens the right to request an investigation into whether a municipality has complied with the Act in closing a meeting to the public. Municipalities may appoint their own investigator or use the services of the Ontario Ombudsman. The Act designates the Ombudsman as the default investigator for municipalities that have not appointed their own.
4The Ombudsman is the closed meeting investigator for the Municipality of St.-Charles.
5When investigating closed meeting complaints, we consider whether the open meeting requirements of the Act and the municipality’s procedure by-law have been observed.
6To assist municipal councils, staff, and citizens, we have developed an online digest of open meeting decisions that contains summaries of the Ombudsman’s open meeting cases. This searchable repository was created to provide interested parties with easy access to the Ombudsman’s past decisions on, and interpretations of, the open meeting rules. Council members and staff can consult the digest to inform their discussions and decisions on whether a matter should or may be discussed in closed session, as well as issues related to open meeting procedure. Summaries of all previous Ombudsman decisions may be consulted in the digest at www.ombudsman.on.ca/digest.
COUNCIL PROCEDURES
7The municipality’s procedural by-law (By-law 2018-46) provides that the Committee of the Whole is a committee composed of all members of council. The by-law further indicates that all council and committee meetings must be open to the public except as provided by the Act.
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS
8On May 31, 2019, we advised the Municipality of St-.Charles of our intent to investigate this complaint.
9Members of my Office reviewed relevant portions of the municipality’s procedure by-law and the Act, as well as the agenda, minutes, and meeting materials relevant to the closed session discussion. In addition, we listened to the audio recording of the closed meeting. Audio and video recordings provide the most accurate and complete record of a meeting and we commend the municipality for adopting the practice of audio recording its council meetings.
10To understand the background and context of the closed session discussion, we interviewed the then-Clerk, Mayor, and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the Treasurer/Director of Finance and a councillor.
11We received full co-operation with our investigation.
APRIL 3, 2019 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
12On April 3, 2019, council met for a Committee of the Whole meeting at 6:00 p.m. in council chambers.
13After the meeting convened in open session, council passed a resolution to proceed into closed session at 6:33 p.m. to discuss:
- personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, as authorized under Section 239 (2) (b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended;
- labour relations or employee negotiations, as authorized under Section 239 (2) (d) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended;
Topic: Building Department; Treasury Department
14Prior to passing this resolution, Councillor Jackie Lafleur publicly cautioned council that the matter noted on the resolution to proceed in closed session, related to the Treasury Department, might not be appropriate for closed session discussion, as the subject to be discussed was similar to a management letter. She indicated that the Ombudsman’s Office had previously found that management letters were not appropriate for closed session discussion.
15Despite this caution, however, council proceeded in camera.
16Our review of the meeting minutes indicates that the resolution did not specify which closed meeting exception was applicable to each agenda topic. However, during interviews we were told that the personal matters exception related to the Treasury Department matter, while the labour relations or employee negotiations exception related to the Building Department matter. As a best practice, the municipality should ensure that the resolution to proceed in camera clearly identifies which closed meeting exception(s) it is relying on to discuss each matter in camera.
Council discussion
17Once in closed session, council considered a detailed report from a financial consultant who had been retained by the municipality to assist in identifying and rectifying errors and discrepancies in the municipality’s accounting software. The report contained a watermark indicating that it was “supplied in confidence” to the municipality and contained numerous recommendations to correct or improve the municipality’s financial practices. We