5. CLOSED MEETINGS AND MEETINGS INVESTIGATOR RÉUNIONS À HUIT
CLOS ET ENQUÊTEUR AUX RÉUNIONS |
Committee Recommendations
That Council
approve that:
1. The Procedure
By-law be amended to incorporate the Notice provisions for City Council
meetings, in accordance with the requirements of Municipal Act, 2001 as
outlined in Appendix D;
2. The City appoint a
Meetings Investigator for the City of Ottawa pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal
Act, 2001;
3. The City Solicitor be
delegated the authority to hire the Meetings Investigator in accordance with
the criteria outlined in this report, and prepare an appointment by-law and
agreement; and
4. The interim process
for accepting and investigating complaints outlined in this report be adopted
and publicized pending the development of a formal process to be brought
forward by the Meetings Investigator in early 2008.
Recommandations du comité
Que le Conseil
approuve :
1. que le Règlement de procédure soit
modifié de façon à inclure les dispositions d’avis pour les réunions du Conseil
municipal, conformément aux exigences de la Loi sur les municipalités de
2001, tel que décrit au document D;
2. que la Ville nomme un enquêteur pour
les réunions pour la Ville d’Ottawa conformément à l’article 239 de la Loi
sur les municipalités de 2001;
3. que l’on délègue au chef du contentieux
le pouvoir d’embaucher l’enquêteur pour les réunions conformément aux critères
énoncés dans le présent rapport et de préparer une entente et un règlement sur
les nominations; et
4. que le processus intérimaire pour
accepter et étudier les plaintes énoncé dans le présent rapport soit adopté et
rendu public en attendant l’établissement d’un processus officiel qui sera
présenté par l’enquêteur pour les réunions au début de 2008.
Documentation
1. City Clerk’s and City Solicitor’s joint
report dated 9 November 2007 (ACS2007-CMR-CCB-0020).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 19 November 2007.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels
et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
9 November 2007 / le 9 novembre 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Pierre Pagé, City Clerk/Greffier municipal
and
M. Rick O'Connor, City
Solicitor/Procureur de la ville
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Leslie Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk/ Greffière adjointe
City Clerk’s Branch/Direction du greffe
(613) 580-2424 x28857,
Leslie.Donnelly@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve that:
1. The
Procedure By-law be amended to incorporate the Notice provisions for
City Council meetings, in accordance with the requirements of Municipal Act,
2001 as outlined in Appendix D;
2. The
City appoint a Meetings Investigator for the City of Ottawa pursuant to Section
239 of the Municipal Act, 2001;
3. The
City Solicitor be delegated the authority to hire the Meetings Investigator in
accordance with the criteria outlined in this report, and prepare an appointment
by-law and agreement; and
4. The
interim process for accepting and investigating complaints outlined in this
report be adopted and publicized pending the development of a formal process to
be brought forward by the Meetings Investigator in early 2008.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité des
services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil
d’approuver :
1.
que
le Règlement de procédure soit modifié de façon à inclure les dispositions
d’avis pour les réunions du Conseil municipal, conformément aux exigences de la
Loi sur les municipalités de 2001, tel que décrit au document D;
2.
que
la Ville nomme un enquêteur pour les réunions pour la Ville d’Ottawa
conformément à l’article 239 de la Loi sur les municipalités de 2001;
3.
que
l’on délègue au chef du contentieux le pouvoir d’embaucher l’enquêteur pour les
réunions conformément aux critères énoncés dans le présent rapport et de
préparer une entente et un règlement sur les nominations; et
4.
que
le processus intérimaire pour accepter et étudier les plaintes énoncé dans le
présent rapport soit adopté et rendu public en attendant l’établissement d’un
processus officiel qui sera présenté par l’enquêteur pour les réunions au début
de 2008.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 made numerous amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 designed to improve accountability and transparency at the municipal level. One of the Bill 130 accountability measures, specifically the amended Section 239, deals explicitly with issues of closed meetings. It outlines the specific criteria for which a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public. Further, Section 239 of the amended Municipal Act, 2001 provides that an individual may ask for an investigation into the propriety of a closed meeting either through an investigator appointed by the municipality or, in the event the municipality does not appoint an investigator, through the Provincial Ombudsman.
The City of Ottawa is a leader in the province in open meetings, and already has many best-practice open meetings procedures in place (such as advertising meetings, disclosing reasons for moving in camera, and providing reporting out dates for in camera reports and decisions). This report recommends a ‘housekeeping’ amendment to the Procedure By-law that will enshrine the public notice provisions already in place through the Notice By-law in the Procedure By-law as well (a new requirement under the Bill 130 amendments).
Given City Council’s demonstrated
commitment to open meetings, staff has reviewed a number of options for the
appointment of a Meetings Investigator and is recommending that City Council
appoint a City of Ottawa Meetings Investigator on retainer to ensure that
investigations are conducted as a priority (within 30 days), and to the highest
standards. As well, an interim process for receiving and investigating
complaints is being proposed until such time as the City’s Meeting Investigator
brings forward a recommended process for Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee’s and City Council’s consideration in early 2008.
Financial Implications:
Given that the City
of Ottawa has a history of openness and generally holds meetings of Committee
and Council in open session, it is anticipated that the ongoing costs of closed
meeting investigations will be minimal.
As such, the Legal Services and City Clerk’s Branches will absorb the
costs of a Meeting Investigator. A
review of the costs will be incorporated as part of any regular reporting from
the Meetings Investigator.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et
analyse :
Le projet de loi 130, Loi de
2006 modifiant des lois concernant les municipalités, a apporté de
nombreuses modifications à la Loi sur les municipalités de 2001 visant à
améliorer la reddition de comptes et la transparence au niveau municipal. Une
des mesures de reddition des comptes du projet de loi 130, en particulier
l’article 239 modifié, traite de façon explicite des questions relatives
aux réunions fermées. Il énonce les critères particuliers pour lesquels une
réunion ou une partie de celle‑ci peut être fermée au public. De plus,
l’article 239 de la Loi sur les municipalités de 2001 modifiée
stipule qu’un particulier peut demander une enquête sur le bien-fondé d’une
réunion fermée par l’intermédiaire d’un enquêteur nommé par la municipalité ou,
dans le cas où la municipalité ne nomme pas d’enquêteur, de l’Ombudsman de la
province.
La Ville d’Ottawa est un chef de
file dans la province pour ce qui est des réunions publiques et a déjà mis en
place un grand nombre de procédures exemplaires pour les réunions publiques
(comme annoncer les réunions, divulguer les raisons pour lesquelles une réunion
a lieu à huis clos et fournir les dates de compte rendu pour les
rapports et les décisions des réunions à huis clos). Le présent rapport
recommande une modification d’ordre administratif au Règlement de procédure qui
inscrira dans le Règlement de procédure les dispositions d’avis public déjà en
place dans le Règlement sur les avis (nouvelle exigence en vertu des
modifications au projet de loi 130).
Étant donné l’engagement manifeste
du Conseil municipal envers les réunions publiques, le personnel a envisagé et
évalué un certain nombre d’options pour la nomination d’un enquêteur pour les
réunions et recommande que le Conseil municipal nomme un enquêteur pour les
réunions de la Ville d’Ottawa sous contrat pour veiller à ce que les enquêtes
soient menées de façon prioritaire et selon les normes les plus élevées. De
plus, un processus intérimaire pour recevoir et étudier les plaintes est
proposé jusqu’à ce que l’enquêteur pour les réunions de la Ville propose un
processus recommandé pour examen par le Comité des services organisationnels et
du développement économique et le Conseil municipal au début de 2008.
Répercussions
financières :
Puisque la Ville d’Ottawa est reconnue pour son
ouverture d’esprit et puisque ses réunions avec le Comité et le Conseil sont en
général des réunions publiques, on prévoit que les coûts continus des enquêtes
sur les réunions fermées seront minimes. Ainsi, les Services juridiques et le
Bureau du greffier absorberont les coûts d’un enquêteur pour les réunions. Un
examen des coûts sera inclus dans tout rapport régulier provenant de
l’enquêteur pour les réunions.
Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, came into effect, with some minor exceptions, on January 1st, 2007. This omnibus bill included nearly 200 pages of revisions to the Municipal Act, 2001, and provided Ontario’s 444 municipalities with broad powers and often the discretion to determine which powers it will use to meet its own specific needs. This greater authority is balanced with increased accountability and transparency tools for municipalities.
As Bill 130 revisions are quite significant, municipalities across Ontario are just beginning to understand the potential for improved governance and service delivery that now exist. Ottawa City Council received its first report in October 2006, entitled “Bill 130 – Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act”, which outlined some of the significant amendments of the Act and staff were directed to “provide the 2006-2010 Council with an update on amendments to Bill 130 in order to enable Council, upon its enactment, to determine its strategic priorities arising from same”. Council was then provided with a series of White Papers on Bill 130 amendments during the Council Strategic Planning Sessions in May 2007. Based on recommendations and feedback from these sessions, staff is bringing forward various reports to implement the mandatory provisions in Bill 130 as well as consider the discretionary options City Council may wish to pursue.
Given the depth and breadth of the potential changes the City of Ottawa might undertake in the area of governance, particularly with respect to the new Bill 130 tools to enhance accountability and transparency and the enhanced ability to adjust the delegation of powers, staff intends to undertake a comprehensive review of these tools as part of the Mid-term Governance Review and bring forward an integrated package in 2008 following extensive consultations.
With that, however, the revised Municipal Act, 2001 requires the City of Ottawa (and all municipalities) to establish a number policies by December 31, 2007. At the present, City Council has already adopted the following four statutory policies:
The additional policies that must be adopted
are:
Another issue the municipality must resolve
by December 31, 2007 is that of the appointment of a Meetings
Investigator. Section 239.1 of the
revised Municipal Act, 2001 enables any person to “request that an
investigation of whether a municipality or local board has complied with”
either the statutory requirements for closed meetings or a procedure
by-law. This investigation is to be
undertaken by either:
The revised Municipal Act, 2001 also requires that public notice for Council and Standing Committee meetings be enshrined within the municipality’s Procedure By-law, and not just in the Notice By-law.
As well, City Council has directed staff to
look at establishing a Code of Conduct for elected officials as one of the City
Strategic Directions approved in July 2007.
Reports on these items are being brought before City Council in advance
of the Mid-term Governance Review to meet the legislated timelines where
required. They are being brought
forward together, as they are related.
This report makes recommendations regarding the Meetings Investigator and recommends an interim process for receiving and investigating complaints.
As outlined above, changes resulting from Bill 130 to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 regarding closed meetings, the requirements for a meetings investigator and related process have been proclaimed to come into force on January 1, 2008. These changes necessitate some action by the City to ensure that the required mechanisms are in place in order to adhere to the provisions of the Act.
It is important to note that the
City of Ottawa is considered to be a leader in the province for open meetings,
particularly in the areas of the motions to move in camera, in camera
minutes, and reporting out dates as part of the disposition. Moreover, City Council has gone beyond the
provisions in the Act for openness by directing staff to incorporate the
specific subject matter to be discussed in camera in addition to the
reason under Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001
(a practice which staff will
incorporate into the revised Procedure By-law that will be brought
forward with the Mid-term Governance Review).
Previously, Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 permitted closed meetings of council only to discuss the following matters:
Under Bill 130, the criteria for holding a closed meeting of council has been changed in Section 239 (3.1) to permit a closed session for educational purposes or training of members where no member “discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee.” These criteria may include such things as orientation for members of council or technical briefings.
The inclusion of the new, albeit
discretionary, factor that allows municipal councils to move into closed
session is already the subject of considerable scrutiny by a number of entities
involved in open government. Provincial
Ombudsman André Marin, in particular, has indicated that his office will take
an active and strong interest in reviewing how municipalities incorporate the
new closed meeting criteria, the development and adoption of a complaints
process and the provisions for the appointment of a meeting investigator (see
Appendix 1). Mr. Marin noted in his
2006-2007 Annual Report that his Office was already tracking closed meeting
complaints and indicated that his Office would continue to monitor closed
meeting investigations performed by individual municipalities “with a view to
ensuring that these new and important legislative provisions are applied in a
fair and consistent manner through the province.”
Also of note is the recent decision
by the Supreme Court of Canada in London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., released
in June 2007. In delivering her
decision, Justice Charron defends the principles of “open meetings” in the
following fashion:
The open meeting requirement set out in s. 239 concerns a citizen’s rights to observe municipal government in process and reflects a clear legislative choice for increased transparency and accountability in the decision-making process of local governments.
As indicated previously, the City of Ottawa
holds the vast majority of its Standing Committee and City Council meetings in
open session as a matter of course.
From January 1, 2007 to October 24, 2007, City Council resolved in
camera nine times, as set out in Appendix 2, and considered 27 in camera
reports, as set out in Appendix 3, 18 of which were confidential because of
Personal Matters about identifiable individuals; five because of Labour
Relations; one for Solicitor -Client Privilege; and three for multiple reasons
(i.e. Security of the Property; Litigation or Potential Litigation; and
Solicitor-Client Privilege). Council
only resolved in camera to discuss four of these reports; the remainder
carried on consent.
The revised Municipal Act, 2001 requires
that all municipalities give public notice of their Council and Standing
Committee meetings, and enshrine this notice within their Procedure
By-law. While the City of Ottawa
has provided public notice of its Council and Committee meetings for many
years, and these provisions are put forward in the City’s Notice By-law,
a new clause is being recommended to be added to the Procedure By-law
(see Appendix 4) to reflect current practice and meet the Bill 130
requirements.
The broadening of the closed meeting criteria to include the educational or training option necessitated the inclusion of additional provisions related to providing notice of the general nature of the closed meeting’s subject-matter by resolution and recording all decisions and other proceedings of the meeting. These changes, along with formalizing City Council’s direction to include the subject matter being discussed in camera referenced earlier, will be reflected in the City Council’s Procedure By-law as part of the Mid-term Governance Review.
Under the previous Municipal Act, when any individual or group objected to the propriety of the closed meeting of a municipal council or local board, the sole option was to challenge the matter in court.
Now, Section 239.1 of the revised Municipal Act, 2001 enables any person to “request that an investigation of whether a municipality or local board has complied with” either the statutory requirements for closed meetings or a procedure by-law, beginning January 1, 2008.
Section 239.2 of the revised Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes a municipality to appoint an investigator to investigate, in an independent manner, complaints with respect to non-compliance with open meeting requirements. In the event that a municipality chooses not to appoint such an investigator, the Provincial Ombudsman would then have the authority to undertake the investigation. As previously mentioned, this section will come into force on January 1, 2008 at which point it is recommended that the City of Ottawa have a meeting investigator appointed to receive such complaints.
Under Bill 130, there are a number
of principles councils must have regard for when appointing a Meetings
Investigator:
1.
The
Investigator’s independence and impartiality;
2.
Confidentiality
with respect to the investigator’s activities; and
3.
The
credibility of the investigator’s investigative process.
In considering the appointment of a
Meetings Investigator, staff recommend that the successful candidate possess:
·
Previous
municipal government experience (i.e. former Clerk, CAO, municipal lawyer);
·
Knowledge
of municipal government and the closed meeting provisions of the Municipal
Act, 2001;
·
Understanding
of Council operations and policies;
·
Credibility
with City Council, staff, public, and media;
·
The
ability to receive complaints and conduct an investigation in both official
languages; and
·
No
specific connection or interest with the City.
As part of the preparation of this report, staff investigated various of the options Ontario municipalities are pursuing for a Meetings Investigator. As a result of this investigation, staff is recommending that the City of Ottawa appoint its own Meetings Investigator. The appointment of a City of Ottawa Meetings Investigator on retainer will:
§ Allow the municipality to set the standard for a responsive, timely and thorough investigation and reporting process (i.e. 30 calendar day turnaround time, own standards for reporting rather than others, no potential for delays from ‘waiting in line’ as may occur with Provincial Ombudsman);
§ Ensure the Meetings Investigator remains completely independent and arms-length from the City (i.e. not a City staff person with an office and staff, not a consultant/contractor with other dealings with the City); and,
§ Keep costs low (i.e. on a retainer rather than creating a permanent office/staff at City Hall; no hotel/transportation costs in addition to daily rate) and allows the municipality to conduct the investigations at no cost to the complainant.
The other options investigated are set out below.
Enrol
in AMO/LAS Closed Meeting Investigator Program
In April/May 2007, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (“AMO”) Local Authority Service (“LAS”) conducted a survey of Ontario municipalities to gauge interest in access to an Investigator Program. The program would provide access to a team of trained municipal experts who would respond to requests for an investigation as they arose locally. Due to the positive response, LAS has developed a program to provide access to a team who would respond to requests for an investigation as they arose locally.
AMO released details of the program at its annual Conference in August 2007. Enrolment in the program will require a municipality to enter into a 2-year agreement with automatic renewal with a term retainer fee of $600. In the event that the municipality receives a complaint, a fee of $1,250 per day (8 hours/day) will be applied in addition to reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the investigator. Fees may be billed on an hourly basis where only part of a day is required. It is anticipated that an investigation process will require a minimum of a half-day’s time once referred to an Investigator even if the request is withdrawn or deemed vexatious.
After reviewing the components of the LAS Meeting Investigator Program, staff determined that the program would not be advantageous for the City of Ottawa for a number of reasons. Foremost, the program lacks consistency with respect to the assignment of Investigators who may be retained from various locations in Ontario. This factor could contribute to higher transportation, hotel, meals and out-of-pocket expenses. Further, the City of Ottawa has a tradition of conducting the majority of business in open session and is looking to further reduce the occasions for which Council would actually go in camera. This practice is not necessarily customary for all municipalities in Ontario, and a local Meetings Investigator would measure us against the Municipal Act as well as our own procedural standards, rather than by the Act and the current norm amongst municipalities.
However,
staff do believe the notion of hiring the Meetings Investigator on retainer and
paying an hourly rate for any investigations provides for both independent and
arms-length review while being cost-effective, and are recommending this
approach be taken for the City of Ottawa Meetings Investigator.
Provincial
Ombudsman Investigates
Section 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that, in the event that a municipality has not appointed an investigator and a complaint is lodged against the municipality, the Provincial Ombudsman shall have the authority to investigate. The Ontario Ombudsman recently announced that complaints would be investigated at no charge to the municipality or complainant and dealt with according to procedures set out in the Ombudsman Act. However, no further details of the process have been disclosed to date and, given that investigations will be treated in the same fashion as other complaints received by the Ombudsman, the time required to complete such an investigation may be longer than if the review was undertaken by a local meetings investigator. Further, resource allocations within the Office of the Ombudsman remain unclear and subject to annual budget approval of the Provincial Legislature. This means a possibility of a future charge should meetings investigations place a significant strain on the resources of the Office.
While City staff does not recommend using the Provincial Ombudsman to investigate complaints, staff is recommending that the City of Ottawa complaints be investigated at no charge to the complainant.
Appoint
a Joint Meetings Investigator
Some municipalities in Ontario have decided to appoint a Joint Meetings Investigator in conjunction with neighbouring municipalities in order to share the cost. While this option might potentially lower the cost of retaining a full-time Meetings Investigator (and staff for the office), staff believes that the City of Ottawa would be best served by an independent, arms-length Investigator who will have specific regard for City of Ottawa standards for open meetings. Further, it is anticipated that the number of complaints with respect to closed meetings would not justify a full-time position in the City of Ottawa in any case.
Municipal
Ombudsman
As previously discussed, Bill 130 includes the discretionary authority to appoint a number of public officials with respect to accountability and transparency. Particularly, Bill 130 provides the authority to appoint a municipal Ombudsman to investigate complaints and whose duties could extend to investigating meeting complaints.
The City of Toronto has appointed an
interim Meetings Investigator whose duties are intended to be assigned to the
City Ombudsman when the statutory office is established in late 2007.
At this point, the City has not made a determination of the establishment of an Ombudsman for Ottawa. Should City Council decide in the future to establish this office, they may wish to look at incorporating the duties of the Meetings Investigator into this office at that time.
Section 239.2 authorizes the City to appoint a
Meetings Investigator and to assign him/her duties required by position. Specifically, it is recommended that the
Meetings Investigator be giving the authority to:
Under Section 239.1, the Investigator position
is subject to Section 223.13 (6) and Sections 223.14 to 223.18 of the Municipal
Act, 2001, which delineate the powers of the municipal ombudsman. As such, the following are powers of the Investigator:
Interim
Process
Staff recommends that once a Meeting Investigator has been appointed, s/he be directed to establish the process for submitting a complaint, determine the validity of a complaint, launch an investigation, and disclose the results of the investigation.
In the interim, staff proposes that complaints regarding the propriety of closed meetings of Council and its local boards be dealt with in a similar fashion to requests for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”). Further, it is recommended that this process be facilitated by the City Clerk’s Office in the same fashion and that investigations be performed at no cost to the complainant. Specifically, the interim process of submitting a complaint would proceed as follows:
1. A Request for Investigation would be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office.
2. Request would be logged and forwarded to the Meetings Investigator. An initial collection of Council/Committee information (i.e. resolution to move in camera) would take place in order to assist the Meeting Investigator in assessing the validity of the complaint.
3. The Meeting Investigator would then review the request and determine whether the request warranted further investigation.
4. In the case that the Investigator decides to pursue the request, he/she would then inform City Council via a memo (as per the current MFIPPA process) and launch an investigation and collect all the relevant information required.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigator would report to Council and/or local board with his/her findings and recommendations.
6. The investigation would be completed and reported on with 30 calendar days of the initial complaint.
In addition to the interim process above, staff is recommending that the term of the Meetings Investigator be set at one year, with a review brought forward to Council in conjunction with the Mid-term Governance Review.
Hiring a Meetings Investigator
As both the City Clerk’s
Office and City Council are likely to be directly involved in many of the Closed
Meetings complaints, it is recommended that the City Solicitor be delegated the
authority to hire the City of Ottawa’s Meetings Investigator in accordance with
the criteria established in this report.
This is to further enhance the independent, arms-length relationship of
the Meetings Investigator.
CONSULTATION
City Council was presented with information on the new provisions of the revised Municipal Act, 2001 as part of the Governance package for the Council Strategic Priority Setting sessions. As well, consultations were undertaken with the Regional and Single-Tier Clerks group as well as the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.
Furthermore, upon the public release of this report, staff will forward same to the Office of the Provincial Ombudsman for his ongoing information.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
In consultation with the Legal Services Branch, it is recommended that the Meetings Investigator be hired at the following rates:
$600 Annual Retainer;
$175 Hourly Rate, to a maximum of $1250 per day; and
Mileage and Reasonable Expenses
It is anticipated
that the financial impact of closed meeting investigations will likely be well
under $25,000 annually and, as such, the Legal and City Clerk’s Branches will
absorb the costs of a Meeting Investigator in their existing budgets.
The appointment of a Meetings Investigator
supports the implementation of Strategic Direction G6, “Establish clarity
around conflict of interest and code of conduct policies for elected
representatives”.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendix A – Letter from the Provincial Ombudsman
Appendix B – Ottawa City Council In Camera Sessions
Appendix C – Ottawa City Council In Camera Reports
Appendix D – Procedure By-law Excerpt
DISPOSITION
Upon Council approval, the City Solicitor will initiate a recruitment process for a Meeting Investigator and prepare a draft appointment by-law for Committee and Council approval. Staff will provide this report to all local boards subject to the Meetings Investigator and direct that they provide to him/her copies of their procedure by-laws and other relevant documents with respect to their open and closed meetings. Further, this report and all documents related to the appointment of the Meetings Investigator and the Closed Meeting Complaints process will be forwarded to the Provincial Ombudsman and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in response to their requests.
That City Council resolve In Camera
pursuant to Procedure By-law 2006-462, Subsections 13. (1):
(b) personal matters about an identifiable
individual, including staff; and,
(f) the receiving of advice that is subject
to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that
purpose;
with respect to the North-South
Light Rail Transit Project and a personnel matter.
That City
Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Procedure By-law 2006-462,
Subsections 13. (1):
(e) litigation
or potential litigation, affecting the City, including matters before
administrative tribunals;
(f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;
respecting the cancelled Light Rail
Transit Project.
That City Council resolve In Camera to consider:
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Report 4A, In Camera, Item 1 Appointments to the Rural Issues Advisory
Committee - Personal Matters About Identifiable Individuals and Item 2 -
Commemorative Naming Application - Stuart Holmes Arena - Personal Matters About
An Identifiable Individual
pursuant to Subsection 13. (1):
(b) personal
matters about an identifiable individual, including staff.
And that the Rules of
Procedure be waived to consider, In Camera, the Judicial Review of the
Health Tax Award with the A.T.U.
pursuant to
Subsection 13. (1):
(d) labour relations or employee
negotiations;
(e) litigation
or potential litigation affecting the City, including matters before
administrative tribunals; and
(f) the
receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose.
of Procedure By-law 2006-462.
That City Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsections13. (1) (a), the security of the property of the City; (d) labour relations or employee negotiations; and (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, of Procedure By-law 2006-462 -respecting Community and Protective Services Committee Report 6, Items 1 and 2, namely Ray Friel Recreation Complex - Operating Agreement; and, Ottawa Community Ice Partners - Sensplex.
That City Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsection13. (1) (e) litigation or potential litigation, and (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications for that purpose affecting the City, including matters before administrative tribunals, with regard to the North-South Light Rail Transit Project Agreement.
That the rules of procedure be
waived and that, in accordance with Procedure By-law 2006-462, City Council
resolve In Camera pursuant
to:
· Subsection 13. (1) (a) the security of the property of the City with respect to Lynx Stadium;
·
Subsections 13.
(1) (e) litigation or potential litigation, affecting the City, including
matters before administrative tribunals, and (f) the receiving of advice that
is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary
for that purpose, with regards to litigation with the Ottawa Lynx; and
·
Subsection 13 (1) (b) personal matters about an
identifiable individual, including staff with respect to the Urbandale LRT
proposal.
That City Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsection13. (1) (e) litigation or potential litigation, and (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications for that purpose affecting the City, including matters before administrative tribunals, with regard to the ongoing Light Rail Transit litigation including the recent claim by St. Lawrence Cement Inc.
That the Rules Of Procedure be waived to consider the following two matters:
That, in accordance with Procedure By-law 2006-462, City Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsections 13. (1) (e) litigation or potential litigation, affecting the City, including matters before administrative tribunals, and (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with regards to:
a) litigation with the Ottawa Lynx; and
b) The School of Dance.
That the Rules Of Procedure be waived to consider the following matter:
That, in accordance with
Procedure By-law 2006-462, City Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsections 13.
(1) (e) litigation or potential litigation, affecting the City, including
matters before administrative tribunals, and (f) the receiving of advice that
is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary
for that purpose, with regards to litigation with the Ottawa Lynx.
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 1A(IN
CAMERA)
APPOINTMENTS TO THE OTTAWA PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD – IN
CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS
REPORTING OUT DATE: 24
JANUARY 2007
(Carried on Consent)
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 2A(IN
CAMERA)
APPOINTMENTS TO THE RURAL PANEL OF THE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT: IN-CAMERA- PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE
INDIVIDUALS – REPORTING OUT DATE: AFTER COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 2A(IN
CAMERA)
Ontario
heritage TRUST – Nominations for the heritage community recognition program
2006 – In-camera – Personal matters about identifiable individualS
(Carried on Consent)
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 4A (IN
CAMERA)
APPOINTMENTS TO THE RURAL ISSUES ADVISORY COMMITTEE – IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS – REPORTING OUT DATE: AFTER COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Resolved In Camera to discuss)
COMMEMORATIVE NAMING APPLICATION – STUART HOLMES ARENA - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL. REPORTING OUT DATE: MARCH 28, 2007
(Resolved In Camera to discuss )
CORPORATE
SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 4A (IN CAMERA)
APPOINTMENTS
TO THE PINEVIEW MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE BOARD - in camera - Personal
matters about identifiable individuals - REPORTING OUT DATE, UPON COUNCIL
APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
CITIZEN APPOINTMENT to the city of ottawa police services board - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL
(Carried on Consent)
COMMUNITY
AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 5A (IN CAMERA)
APPOINTMENT
TO THE SENIORS ADVISORY COMMITTEE – IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL – REPORTING OUT DATE, UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
APPOINTMENTS
TO THE CUMBERLAND HERITAGE VILLAGE MUSEUM BOARD – in camera - Personal matters
about identifiable individuals – REPORTING OUT DATE, UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
TAXI
advisory committee – appointmentS (IN CAMERA – PERSONAL MATTER ABOUT
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS) REPORTING OUT
DATE: UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 6 (IN CAMERA)
RAY FRIEL
RECREATION COMPLEX - OPERATING AGREEMENT – reporting out date: not to be
reported out until follow-up report is approved by council. (Security of
Property, labour relations, solicitor client privileg)
(Resolved In Camera to discuss)
Ottawa
community ice partners - sensplex – REPORTING OUT DATE: UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Security of Property, labour relations, solicitor client privileg)
(Resolved In Camera to discuss)
CORPORATE SERVICES AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
REPORT 7A (IN CAMERA)
LONG TERM DISABILITY CAP - IN
CAMERA - LABOUR RELATIONS OR EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS - REPORTING OUT
DATE: FOLLOWING COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
1119
WALKLEY ROAD – VITHORN PLAZA – ACCESS ISSUES – IN CAMERA – SOLICITOR-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE-REPORTING OUT DATE: SIX
MONTHS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT
(Carried
on Consent)
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 9A (IN CAMERA)
APPOINTMENTS
TO THE SOUTH NATION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -
in camera - Personal matters about identifiable individuals -
reporting out date: after council approval
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 11A (IN CAMERA)
COMMEMORATIVE
NAMING APPLICATION – DaVID IRELAND SOCCER FIELD - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL
MATTERS ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL - REPORTING OUT DATE: UPON COUNCIL
APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
canterbury
community association – program management agreement- In-Camera- SECURITY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY; LABOUR RELATIONS
OR EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS; AND THE RECEIVING OF ADVICE THAT IS SUBJECT TO
SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS NECESSARY FOR THAT
PURPOSE. REPORTING OUT DATE: SEPTEMBER
30, 2007
(Carried on Consent)
CORPORATE SERVICES AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 10A
(IN CAMERA)
COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING - THE CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 503, PART-TIME RECREATION AND CULTURE - IN CAMERA - LABOUR
RELATIONS OR EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS.
REPORTING OUT DATE: Upon
approval by City CounciL
(Carried on Consent)
FUNDING
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT - OTTAWA PUBLIC LIBRARY AND
CUPE LOCAL 503 LIBRARY GROUP - IN CAMERA - LABOUR RELATIONS OR EMPLOYEE
NEGOTIATIONS. REPORTING OUT DATE: UPON APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL
(Carried on Consent)
VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTER base honorarium and COST OF LIVING Adjustment - In Camera - Labour
RELATIONS OR EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS. rEPORTING OUT DATE: FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL
(Carried on Consent)
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 10 (IN CAMERA)
COMMEMORATIVE
NAMING APPLICATION – FERGUSON PRATT PARK - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS
ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL.
REPORTING OUT DATE: AUGUST 30, 2007
(Carried on Consent)
HYDRO OTTAWA HOLDING
INC.
HYDRO OTTAWA HOLDING INC. –
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL. REPORTING OUT
DATE: FOLLOWING COUNCIL APPROVAL
(Carried on Consent)
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
REPORT 11A (IN CAMERA)
APPOINTMENT
TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE – in camera – Personal matters about
identifiable individualS - REPORTING OUT DATE: ONCE THE appointment HAS BEEN
CONFIRMED BY CITY COUNCIL
(Carried on Consent)
COMMEMORATIVE
NAMING APPLICATION – Murray Thompson Volunteer Lounge - IN CAMERA -
PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUAL. REPORTING OUT DATE: Upon approval by City
CounciL
(Carried on Consent)
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
REPORT 14A (IN CAMERA)
MORTGAGE
GUARANTEE for THE cRICHTON CULTURAL COMMUNitY CENTRE - in-camera -
SECURITY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY; LITIGATION OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
AFFECTING THE CITY; THE RECEIVING OF ADVICE THAT IS SUBJECT TO SOLICITOR-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE - reporting out date: october 15, 2007
(Resolved In Camera to discuss)
COMMUNITY AND
PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 15 (IN CAMERA)
NOMINATION FOR THE 2007 HERITAGE COMMUNITY RECOGNITION
PROGRAM OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE TRUST – IN-CAMERA – PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT
IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS REPORTING OUT
DATE: ONCE NOMINEES ARE APPROVED BY COUNCIL AND CONFIRMED BY THE ONTARIO
HERITAGE TRUST
(Carried on Consent)
DIRECTOR, SOLID WASTE
SERVICES – (IN CAMERA – PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE
INDIVIDUAL INCLUDING MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES) – REPORTING OUT DATE: IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OBLIGATIONS
AS SET OUT IN MFIPPA, THIS REPORT CANNOT BE REPORTED OUT
(Carried on Consent)
33.1 (1) Notice of a regular meeting of Council shall be given by publication in a daily newspaper no later than the Friday immediately prior to the meeting.
(2) Notice of a special meeting of Council shall, where time permits, be given by publication in a daily newspaper no later than the Friday immediately prior to the meeting.
(3) Notice of a special meeting of Council shall be given at least three hours prior to the meeting by the issuance of a Public Service Announcement to all local media.
(4) Prior notice of a special meeting held pursuant to subsection 14(6) is not required but notice of the meeting having occurred shall be published in a daily newspaper as soon as possible thereafter.
77.1 (1) Notice of a regular meeting of a Standing Committee shall be given by publication in a daily newspaper no later than the Friday immediately prior to the meeting.
(2) Notice of a special meeting of a Standing Committee shall, where time permits, be given by publication in a daily newspaper no later than the Friday immediately prior to the meeting.
(3) Notice of a special meeting of a Standing Committee shall be given at least three hours prior to the meeting by the issuance of a Public Service Announcement to all local media.
(4) Prior notice of a special meeting held pursuant to subsection 82(6) is not required but notice of the meeting having occurred shall be published in a daily newspaper as soon as possible thereafter.
Clause 2(14) of the Procedure
By-law is amended by repealing the expression “Interpretation
Act, R.S.O.
1990, Chapter I.11, as amended” and substituting therefore the expression
“Legislation Act, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched F, as amended”.
By-law
No. 2002-522 entitled “A by-law of the City of Ottawa respecting public notice
pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001”, as amended, is further amending by
repealing the following row in Schedule “A”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee Report 17 28 november 2007 |
|
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique rapport 17 le 28 novembre 2007 |
|
|
|
Extract
of draft Minutes 18 19 november 2007 |
|
Extrait de l’ébauche du procès-verbal 18 – le 19 novembre 2007 |
CLOSED MEETINGS AND MEETINGS INVESTIGATOR
RÉUNIONS À HUIT CLOS ET ENQUÊTEUR AUX RÉUNIONS
ACS2007-CMR-CCB-0020 CITY-WIDE / À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Responding to questions from
Councillor Wilkinson with respect to criteria for the Meetings Investigator,
Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, noted that as part of the process and
procedure to ensure the integrity and the arms length of this position, the
report set out statutory criteria to which Council had to have regard when
appointing a Meetings Investigator. In
addition, staff had set out a number of bullets, which they felt would be
important criteria for Council to also include in this hiring process. He confirmed that a candidate could be a
legal mind, though it could also be someone who had experience in dealing with
procedural and statutory issues, such as a former municipal clerk.
In reply to a question from Councillor Jellett, Ms. Donnelly expressed staff’s belief that the $25,000 budget outlined in the report was an over-estimate given this City’s history of open meetings.
Following this brief exchange, Committee voted unanimously in support of the report recommendations.
That the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee recommend Council approve that:
1. The Procedure By-law be amended to
incorporate the Notice provisions for City Council meetings, in accordance with
the requirements of Municipal Act, 2001 as outlined in Appendex D;
2. The City appoint a Meetings
Investigator for the City of Ottawa pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal
Act, 2001;
3. The City Solicitor be delegated the
authority to hire the Meetings Investigator in accordance with the criteria
outlined in this report, and prepare an appointment by-law and agreement; and
4. The interim process for accepting and
investigating complaints outlined in this report be adopted and publicized
pending the development of a formal process to be brought forward by the
Meetings Investigator in early 2008.
CARRIED