Mississauga Musings

[The first article kindly submitted by "Anonymous" on March 22, 2008 12:42]

Fort Erie stirring again...

Pamphlet stirs up closed-session controversy at Town hall

Posted By Kris Dubé

Who would have thought a small informational pamphlet would stir up so much controversy?

At Monday night's council-in-committee meeting, Ward 6 Coun. Anne-Marie Noyes motioned to go into a closed session meeting, while council discussed a tabloid prepared by Town staff, which may end up in your mail in the near future. The tabloid-sized brochure has been designed to highlight some of the Town of Fort Erie's crowning achievements in 2007, and some of its plans up until 2010. Noyes made the motion, that was later denied, because of a certain developer that is quoted in the piece of literature, as she felt his name should not be printed. She also feels that going into closed session over this issue should have been granted because there was a closed session meeting a week before on Mar. 10, at the regular council meeting. The closed session meeting that was held a week before regarded Margaret Neubauer, director of corporate services, and the fact that she will be leaving the Town of Fort Erie for a job with the City of Guelph.

"I was just asking for the same consideration," said Noyes.

"I think if the rest of council reflects on how this is exactly what we did with Margaret Neubauer, and that my request was not unreasonable and that it should have been granted," said Noyes.

She said that her motion should have been approved because discussing the practices of another person who is not in attendance at a council meeting is unfair to that individual.

"If you have questions or comments regarding an individual and they're not there to defend themselves or are able to react, you want to make sure you don't do it in a public forum," said Noyes.

Fort Erie Mayor Doug Martin disagrees with Noyes' belief that going into closed session on Monday is similar to the one that was held the previous week.

He said when council does go into closed session, there is enough notification prior to the meeting as to what will be discussed to all council members and Town staff.

"It was significantly different in the fact that we let all members of council know that there is going to be a closed session meeting in advance," said Martin.

At the start of the year, it became law that all municipalities are eligible for scrutiny from Ontario ombudsman André Marin, about what was discussed at a meeting if a complaint is registered from a citizen. The Town of Fort Erie was the first municipality to be examined under the new law, when a complaint was filed about a closed-session meeting on Jan. 7. Marin concluded that there were no matters of Town business discussed and that the meeting was conducted purely for training purposes.

Martin said that with this new law in place, the Town of Fort Erie needs to be careful, and only go into a closed-session meeting if all the proper information and details about the issue at hand are brought to council's attention before the cameras and recorders are turned off.

"I think we have to be vigilant on the fact that if we're going to go into closed session, we must have some sort of indication as to what it's going to be about, and we received none of that," said Martin.

The report has been tabled until next week's regular council meeting. In the meantime, Noyes will be sending out a confidential memo to all members of council detailing her concerns.

Courtesty 2008 Fort Erie Times - A Division of Osprey Media.

[Second article kindly submitted by "Anonymous" posted on March 24, 2008 18:36 in yesterday's Blog]

Now that Easter break with all the niceties it brings on blogs all over the internet world is over, let's get back to business. Now THIS is an interesting development. Now why would council want to revert back to the Ombudsman in this case? is it because now they have a real important issue that deserves a real investigation? Uuummm....

Local News
Niagara Falls Review
Home News Local News Councillors allege closed-door meeting improper

Councillors allege closed-door meeting improper

City headed toward first test of investigator powers

Posted By Corey Larocque

By COREY LAROCQUE
Review Staff Writer

Four city councillors plan to file a complaint against their colleagues for holding what they say was an “illegal” private meeting last week. It would be the city’s first experience with a new rule aimed at preventing politicians from holding improper closed-door sessions. Politicians who went to the meeting say it was above-board and the others knowingly passed it over.

“As far as I’m concerned, this was an illegal meeting,” said Coun. Janice Wing.

Wing, Carolynn Ioannoni, Shirley Fisher and Wayne Thomson say other councillors were wrong to continue an in-camera session at 1:30 a.m., last Tuesday to discuss a report they said was shelved for two weeks.

“They can’t overrule a majority vote of council to defer an in-camera item,” Ioannoni said. “It’s not the subject they were dealing with. It was the procedure they followed.”

They’re going to use a recent change to the Municipal Act to ask for an investigation of the meeting, they said Monday, a week after the incident.

But filing a complaint would be “inappropriate,” said Mayor Ted Salci because it would be abusing a legal process to undo a political decision.

A new law took effect Jan. 1, giving citizens the right to call an investigator when they believe municipal councils have improperly conducted business behind closed doors.

“It would be inappropriate to ask that meeting be investigated on that basis. It was a political matter, not a procedural matter,” Salci said.

At the Mar. 17 meeting, a personnel report appointing three senior staff members to permanent positions, was approved in a private meeting at 1:30 a.m., after councillors had been meeting for more than six hours.

The late-night private portion shouldn’t have happened at all, Ioannoni said, because the report had been deferred at an earlier closed-door meeting.

“This is so blatantly a contravention of our in-camera rules plus our procedure,” said Ioannoni.

The report was on the agenda for an earlier closed-door committee meeting that began at 6:30 p.m. Politicians are allowed to meet privately to discuss personnel matters, legal issues and property transactions.

Just before 7 p.m., Ioannoni made a motion to defer the report and that motion was approved. But politicians were scrambling to leave the committee room to get into council chambers for the meeting about to start there.

There was some confusion about when discussion on the personnel report would resume. Some thought it had been shelved for two weeks, until Mar. 31.

“The reason for the deferral was there wasn’t enough time to deal with an extremely important matter,” Thomson said.

Others thought it was on hold just until the end of the council meeting.

“The motion (at 6:30) was simply to continue our in-camera after our regular council meeting,” Coun. Victor Pietrangelo said.

The confusion is rooted in what Salci called Ioannoni’s “open-ended” motion for deferral – without specifying when to resume.

At 7 p.m., they began a regular open council meeting that went six hours.

Before council adjourned, Pietrangelo reminded Salci there was one item left over from the private session.

They went into a committee room for about 15 minutes.

Salci and four councillors stayed, giving them quorum for a meeting. They talked privately until about 1:45 a.m., then publicly approved what they had discussed privately.

They voted to make the appointments of corporate services director Ken Burden and finance director Todd Harrison permanent. Burden and Harrison had held those positions on an acting basis since last year.

A third appointment made city solicitor Ken Beaman the permanent city solicitor. Beaman had been on probation since the departure of former solicitor Karen Kelly last year.

“Everybody clearly understood there was an in-camera meeting following our regular council meeting,” said Salci, who deliberately announced a two-minute break between meetings, instead of five, to prevent politicians from leaving.

But Coun. Vince Kerrio said he regretted taking part in the late-night session, knowing others wanted to discuss the report.

“My personal feeling is I wish we hadn’t have done that because I want to accommodate everyone. The issue we were dealing with could have waited,” Kerrio said.

“Would it have changed the outcome? No. Would I have liked to accommodate my other fellow councillors? Absolutely.”

A new rule came into effect Jan. 1, in Ontario, requiring all municipalities to designate an investigator who will handle any complaints about meetings that were improperly held behind closed doors.

Niagara Falls hired Local Authority Services, a company owned by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as its investigator.

Contracting that company requires a $600 retainer fee plus $1,200 a day when it’s called in to investigate. Some municipalities, including Fort Erie, opted to have Ontario’s ombudsman serve as their investigator at no cost to the municipality.

Ioannoni said they will make an attempt at the next meeting to switch the city’s investigator to the ombudsman from LAS before the first complaint is filed.

Fort Erie town council has already had its first experience with an investigation. In January, two town residents complained Fort Erie councillors held an education and training session privately at a conference room owned by the Peace Bridge.

Ombudsman Andre Marin’s report, however, said he was “satisfied that the reasons for going into closed session were justified.”

CREDIT: NIAGARA FALLS REVIEW
clarocque@nfreview.com

Loved your last entry Muse. Did you catch today's piece in the Toronto Sun? An interview with the Toronto mayor who longs for the day he gets legislative blessing to "meet in private to discuss issues before votes are taken". What gives?

Trust me!; The mayor wants more power to run T.O. -- something he says the people expect anyway.

The Toronto Sun
Tue 25 Mar 2008
Page: 9
Section: News
Byline: BY ZEN RURYK, CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

Mayor David Miller says all he wants is the power that most Toronto residents already believe he has.

He's now seeking legal advice from city lawyers on the best way to go ahead with plans to boost his ability to draft Toronto's annual budget and to implement an agenda.

At the crux of the issue is control over the city's civil service.

Currently, the bureaucracy at City Hall reports to all 45 members of city council. However, if the civilservice reported to Toronto's mayor, it would give him more control over what goes into Toronto's budget and what issues top council's agenda.

"People think today that's how it works, anyway. And so do most members of council, frankly," Miller says. "Whether they are people who traditionally vote for me or not, they always come to me and say, 'Will you solve this problem?' That's how people think it works.

"When people elected me on a really clear mandate, they expect I am going to do everything I can to implement it," he adds. "This is really making the system work the way that people think it does anyway."

A blue-ribbon panel, which examined how to better manage the city and its finances, concluded last month that the current practice of having the city's top bureaucrat report to all members of council is unwieldy and waters down the accountability of top decision-makers. The panel endorsed the idea of having the city's bureaucracy report to the mayor.

Miller also wants his hand-picked executive committee to operate more like a provincial cabinet -- one that can meet in private to discuss issues before votes are taken. Executive committee members are not now allowed to do that.

Provincial regulatory changes are required to boost the powers of Miller and his executive committee. Premier Dalton McGuinty has been supportive of a stronger mayoral system in Toronto.

"This is an issue that is independent of personalities or political leanings," McGuinty says. "It's all about ensuring that we have an effective governance model to help lead an exciting, large urban centre, here in North America at the beginning of the 21st century.

"I don't think we have the model in place that's going to allow them do that."

In noting the shortcomings of the current system, Miller points to how -- without his knowledge -- civilservants incorporated a controversial fee increase for ice time at rinks in this year's budget.

While the budget committee eventually killed the proposed hike, Miller says he did not have the "legal or moral authority" to do away with the measure.

Councillor Cliff Jenkins dismisses the need to beef up Miller's powers, saying he's doing just fine under the current model of governance.

"The powers of the mayor are now strong enough for him to get through his entire agenda and he has been successfully doing that," he says. "So, there is no need for any additional power for the mayor."

Jenkins notes the mayor now has the power to appoint members to the influential executive committee and has demonstrated that he wants their votes on key issues.

The mayor also has the ability to ensure a majority of councillors vote his way "via just influence" on pretty well any issue, Jenkins says.

http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/UploadFiles/File/SudburyMar26release.pdf

Just dropping by a couple of more news tidbits...

More ticket fiasco fallout
Sudbury Star (ON)
Thu 27 Mar 2008
Page: A1
Section: Front
Byline: Denis St. Pierre
Source: The Sudbury Star

The Ontario government's ombudsman is investigating allegations that Greater Sudbury city councillors and staff held a secret, closed-door meeting last month to discuss how to deal with the Elton John concert ticket controversy.

Following weeks of rumours that such an inappropriate meeting was held at city hall, Ombudsman Andr Marin notified the municipality Wednesday that his office is investigating the matter.

"The complaint concerns allegations that city councillors met inappropriately behind closed doors to discuss the recent Elton John concert in the city," stated a news release issued by Marin's office.

"The issue of Sudbury councillors receiving tickets to that concert has been of great public interest," Marin said in the release.

"This complaint involves allegations about a lack of transparency that we are taking very seriously."

Under changes to the Municipal Act that came into effect Jan. 1, all meetings of municipal councils and committees must be open to the public, with a few exceptions, such as legal and property acquisition matters.

City staff had little comment about the investigation at Wednesday's council meeting.

"I really believe that you should contact the ombudsman's office," city chief administrative officer Mark Mieto said when asked about the issue. "At this time, we don't have a comment."

"The ombudsman conducts the investigation," said Caroline Hallsworth, the city's executive director of administrative services. "We will be co-operating fully with that investigation.

"Our understanding is, it's as councillors were leaving (after its Feb. 20 meeting), gathering their belongings and leaving, that there were some informal discussions.

"That is what the ombudsman is investigating."

This will be the provincial ombudsman's second investigation under the new law. The first, involving a meeting in Fort Erie that turned out to be in compliance with the legislation, was completed in two weeks.

Details of the Greater Sudbury investigation, including the complainant's identity, will be kept confidential, the ombudsman's office said.

The complaint relates to an alleged private meeting following a city council meeting on Feb. 20.

If the allegations are confirmed it will be particularly ironic, if not disturbing, that city politicians would have held an inappropriate closed-door meeting that night. Earlier in the evening, during the regular council meeting, the politicians received a detailed report from city staff about the new rules dictating when private meetings can and cannot be held.

Nevertheless, sources have told The Star there was an impromptu, closed-door meeting following the Feb. 20 council meeting, to discuss the concert ticket controversy. Two days after that council meeting, city councillors returned 71 of the 120 tickets they had purchased to the concert.

The alleged private meeting featured a number of politicians and the city's two senior administrators - chief administrative officer Mark Mieto and general manager of community development Catherine Matheson, sources said.

"Right after the meeting, other staff was asked to leave, other than Catherine Matheson and Mark Mieto," said one source.

The city resident who filed a complaint with the ombudsman's office said Wednesday he was pleased to hear there will be an investigation.

"I'm glad they're investigating, because it is an important issue," the complainant said, adding he knows many people at city hall and is concerned about many of the things he has heard from them in recent months.

"Initially, I really didn't care about what was happening at city hall. Then I started hearing about things that were happening that ... shouldn't be happening."

In a recent interview with The Star, Mayor John Rodriguez was asked about the rumours of the private meeting in February. The interview was conducted over the telephone, with Rodriguez and Mieto at the other end of the line.

"I know nothing of that (alleged meeting)," Rodriguez told The Star. "I know nothing of any meeting. No (such) meeting can take place ... The act is very clear."

Rodriguez then was asked when the decision was made for council to return some of its concert tickets.

"That was made, uh, Wednesday, at council meeting, following council," the mayor said, referring to the February council meeting.

Then after a voice - presumably Mieto's - was heard in the background, the mayor added, "ah, yep, through the day, it was decided ..."

On Wednesday, another city official indicated the ombudsman's investigation refers to "when city councillors met on Feb. 20," before revising his words to state the investigation relates to council's "discussions on Feb. 20."

With files from Rachel Punch dstpierre@thesuddburystar.com

NEXT:

Ontario Ombudsman probes concert scandal; Sudbury Council
National Post
Thu 27 Mar 2008
Page: A2
Section: News
Byline: Allison Hanes
Source: National Post

Nearly a month after an Elton John concert in Sudbury ignited a furor when city councillors were given first dibs on tickets, Ontario's Ombudsman is using his new powers to investigate whether a meeting related to the surrounding controversy was inappropriately held in secret.

Andre Marin yesterday put the northern Ontario nickel-mining city on notice that his office will be probing a complaint, the latest flare-up in the scandal that hasn't died in the weeks since the curtain fell on Mr. John's March 2 performance.

"The allegation is that there was a closed meeting to discuss matters related to the Elton John concert being held in the city," Mr. Marin said in an interview yesterday. "We will be investigating first to see if a meeting was held behind closed doors and secondly, if there was a meeting, whether it violated the narrow terms of the act."

Jocelyn Lamothe, a spokesman for Sudbury's chief administrative officer, confirmed last night that officials in the legal department and clerk's office had been contacted by the Ombudsman about events that took place on Feb. 20.

"There is a subcomittee of city council called the priorities committee [on which all 12 councillors and the Mayor sit]. My understanding is the complaint is surrounding a discussion that occurred after the meeting when certain members of city council met after the meeting," said Mr. Lamothe, who emphasized he does not speak for the city's elected representatives and was not in attendance.

He added that the priorities committee met from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. that night and the hearing was open to the public.

Mr. Marin's office will now conduct interviews with all of Sudbury's councillors, as well as any officials or witnesses to the alleged incident. He can also demand any documentation from the municipality that may aid in his probe.

This is only the second investigation of an in camera meeting the Ontario Ombudsman has conducted since his office was invested on Jan. 1 with new powers to improve transparency among municipal governments. The first, which examined the legality of a meeting in Fort Erie, found no impropriety.

Under the new legislation, municipalities can only hold closed-door sessions in specific circumstances: if they are conducting training, if they are dealing with personnel matters or if they are considering legal affairs. In camera meetings also must be announced prior to being held.

"The whole act is to make sure that no city business is conducted in secret," he said.

If a meeting is deemed illegal, municipal councils can be forced to revisit decisions taken behind closed doors in view of the public, or face public censure. The revelation that city councillors had the chance to advance purchase 120 tickets for the concert while some fans lined up in the cold overnight and came away empty-handed, enraged locals, prompted an angry backlash against Sudbury council and attracted widespread media attention.

Although 71 of the 120 tickets were eventually returned, it took some council members weeks to divulge how many they had purchased.

One councillor, Janet Gasparini, bought 22 tickets, although she sold six of them to her colleagues, the Sudbury Star discovered after filing an access to information request.

An investigation by the local newspaper also revealed that council spent $14,000 to hire an outside public relations firm to help them navigate the controversy.

Repeated calls since Monday by the National Post to Mayor John Rodriguez went unreturned. City councillors also did not respond to messages about a complaint to the Ombudsman's office. Doug Craig, a councillor who was reached by the Post on Monday, said he had no knowledge of any secret meeting where the ticket matter was discussed.

"There are in camera sessions twice a month prior to our council meeting," he said. "I don't have a recollection of that being on the agenda."

Mr. Craig added that Sudbury councillors were aware of the Ombudsman's new powers and the rules for meeting behind closed doors.

Hey there, "Anonymous",

Sorry about not being on here for a couple of days. Modem crapped out on us --so we've been offline.

You wrote:

"Did you catch today's piece in the Toronto Sun? An interview with the Toronto mayor who longs for the day he gets legislative blessing to "meet in private to discuss issues before votes are taken". What gives?"

I actually figured it out. That's one of the good things of sometimes being kicked off the Net. It gives you time to think and consolidate.

When you think of how many former mayors and councillors that have now infested our provincial legislature (ie. The Bill 130 Minister of Municipal Affairs, Gerretsen was a former mayor. His parliamentary assistant, Brad Duguid, a former Toronto councillor. They guided and duped us with Bill 130. And of course they're going to give municipalities more power. And the ILLUSION of "accountability".

A SCAM, son.

And it'll only get worse. I'm a liberal but I'm with Flaherty. You give Ontario municipalities $$money$$ and you might as well flick the bucks down the BIG BLACK HOLE of WTF?!

Signed,
The (I LOATHE BIG BROTHER) Mississauga Muse

Welcome back online. Here's some analysis of Sudburygate by the Star:

City under big magnifying glass

The decision by Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin to look into whether city councillors met inappropriately in-camera in February will help to make clearer what can and can't be discussed behind closed doors, but the investigation is embarrassing for city council regardless of the outcome.

This is the fellow who issued a devastating report two years ago on the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. that resulted in the provincial government ordering property tax assessments frozen until the organization cleaned up its act. Marin also skewered the lethargic bureaucracy in the Family Responsibility Office and unveiled lackadaisical oversight at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. that allowed retailers to steal $100 million in winnings. He's also looking into the Special Investigations Unit - the body that oversees investigations into certain police activities in Ontario - and he's seeking authority to investigate the province's Children's Aid societies.

In short, Marin's investigations are serious business and they carry a good deal of heft.

Changes to the municipal act last year required municipalities to publicly advertise in-camera meetings, to identify the types of issues to be addressed and to record minutes.

Municipalities were also required to name an adjudicator of complaints regarding in-camera meetings, which are held outside of public scrutiny. In January, the city announced it had chosen Marin. One month later, city councillors are alleged to have secretly decided to return 71 of 120 tickets they purchased to the March 2 Elton John concert in Sudbury.

This was in the midst of an outcry over councillors' purchasing tickets ahead of the public and more tickets - eight - than the six tickets individual members of the public could purchase.

The complaint to the Ombudsman, made by a private citizen, alleges a meeting was held outside of the public realm in violation of the Municipal Act. When Sudbury Star reporter Denis St. Pierre recently asked Mayor John Rodriguez whether such a meeting took place, the mayor replied: "I know nothing of that (alleged meeting). ... No (such) meeting can take place ... The act is very clear."

It is by no means clear that city councillors violated the Municipal Act, but Marin will find out.

In choosing the Ombudsman as the arbitrator earlier this year, Coun. Doug Craig - who would later purchase 10 tickets for the concert and return none because he was out of the country when the alleged Feb. 20 meeting took place - said at the time: "He's the most colourful ombudsman I've been involved with and certainly a force to be reckoned with."

Marin has investigated one complaint in the province regarding in-camera meetings in Fort Erie. The municipality was cleared.

Said Marin in choosing to probe council's actions: "The issue of Sudbury councillors receiving tickets to that concert has been of great public interest. This complaint involves allegations about a lack of transparency that we are taking very seriously."

That was always the case in the whole ticket fiasco: whether or not one agreed with the manner in which councillors purchased tickets, simple transparency evaded them throughout the process.

Even if Marin determines that city councillors did not violate the Municipal Act, they were certainly aware of the public interest in the issue, so any discussions should have taken place in public.

And they have no excuse for spending what we now know is more than $14,000 on consultants to seek advice on how to find a way out of a fiasco of their own creation.

All they had to do was tell the whole story - for free.

What do you think? Visit the Sudbury Star's website at www.thesudburystar.com after 9:30 a.m. and add your voice to the discussion. Or send us your opinion in a Letter to the Editor at 33 MacKenzie St., Sudbury, P3C 4Y1, or fax it to 674-6834 or e-mail it to letters@thesudburystar.com

The Sudbury Star