Post by M on Jun 15, 2008 16:28:15 GMT -3
City mum on hydro board meeting
Legal opinion tells them minutes of May 28 meeting can be kept secret
Posted By BY DENIS ST. PIERRE, THE SUDBURY STAR
Posted 1 day ago
Barely one month after being castigated by the provincial ombudsman for a secret meeting that did not pass "the smell test," city council has held another private session without notifying the public beforehand or opening the proceedings to scrutiny.
Furthermore, minutes recounting details of the recent meeting -- during which council decided to increase financial stipends for some of its members -- are being withheld from the public, city officials say.
On May 28, before a regular public meeting, council met in camera in its capacity as the shareholder of Greater Sudbury Utilities.
The GSU is run as a private municipal corporation, wholly owned by city taxpayers, with council acting on behalf of taxpayers as the utility's sole shareholder.
The private May 28 meeting was categorized as the "annual general meeting of the shareholder of Greater Sudbury Utilities (council)," according to the agenda's cover sheet.
The one-page cover sheet from the agenda was obtained by The Star on Friday following several requests made over a three-day period to city and GSU officials.
However, accompanying information provided to council along with the agenda will be kept from public scrutiny, as well minutes of the meeting, said Mark Mieto, the city's chief administrative officer.
"We got a legal opinion this afternoon and it (the GSU) is a private corporation and the minutes don't have to be released," Mieto said Friday.
Although the GSU is wholly owned by city taxpayers, it is required under provincial legislation to have its own board of directors, separate from city council.
The legislation also allows the utility's board of directors to keep its board meetings closed from the public. City and GSU officials appear to be relying on that legislation to justify the closed-door nature of the May 28 meeting.
However, the May 28 meeting was not a meeting of the GSU board of directors; it was a meeting of city council, acting on behalf of taxpayers as the utility's shareholder. City council meetings -- even in-camera sessions -- must be publicly advertised before they are held.
Advertisement
And council can only hold in-camera discussions for specific reasons defined under provincial legislation.
Legal interpretations aside, sources inside and outside city hall say the May 28 private meeting violates the spirit, if not the letter, of council's obligations and supposed commitment to be open, transparent and accountable.
"There's no way it should have been kept secret," said a highly placed city source.
"The public should have been aware of it. Most of (the meeting's contents) should be public information ... and if there was anything sensitive, they could have discussed that part in-camera."
A former chairman of the GSU board of directors said he was surprised to learn the city council/shareholder meeting was kept from public scrutiny.
"Aren't the 160,000 residents of Greater Sudbury the real shareholders?" asked Paul Marleau. "That was part of the whole idea of talking of transparency and openness," by the new mayor and council elected in 2006.
Marleau said he also was surprised to learn the GSU board has ended the practice of having its meetings routinely open to the media and public.
Although it falls under different legislation than city council, he noted, the GSU board can operate as openly as council if it wants.
The May 28 private council meeting came less than five weeks after Ontario Ombudsman André Marin criticized council for having held a secret meeting earlier this year to discuss the Elton John concert ticket fiasco.
After investigating council's actions, the ombudsman concluded the politicians came "close to the legal line," but did not technically violate provincial legislation governing closed-door meetings.
Still, councillors' behaviour "didn't pass the smell test," the ombudsman said in a report released in late April.
Curiously, one of the
issues debated -- and approved -- by council during its private meeting of May 28 was increasing the pay of members of the Greater Sudbury Utilities board of directors.
The pay increase comes one year after Mayor John Rodriguez mounted a sustained campaign to reduce the stipends paid to GSU board members -- a proposal that rankled some city councillors.
The campaign ended with a compromise resolution when council agreed to reduce the pay of GSU board members, but not as drastically as initially proposed by Rodriguez.
However, at its May 28 meeting, council decided behind closed doors to introduce a $200-per-day stipend for GSU board members. The new stipend will be paid to board members attending any committee meeting, conference, seminar, etc., other than the regular, monthly GSU board meeting.
The seven-member GSU board of directors includes three members of city council -- the mayor, Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig and Ward 10 Coun. Frances Caldarelli.
Council was near unanimous in approving the pay increase on May 28, said Craig, who serves as chairman of the GSU board.
Craig said he could not recall the margin of approval for the pay increase, given that council's vote consisted of a show of hands, rather than a recorded vote.
However, the mayor did not speak against the pay increase, Craig said.
"He was silent on it." Rodriguez could not be
reached for comment Friday. However, the mayor has waived all payments to which he is entitled as a member of the GSU board.
The pay increase for the GSU board is needed to encourage the members to take more time from their regular schedules to attend committee meetings and conferences, Craig said.
"We're finding a year into the new board ... we're having a helluva time getting quorum sometimes and finding people to sit on some of the sub-committees and do some of the sub-committee work," he said.
"This way, hopefully, will allow us to operate a little more effectively and efficiently. I don't think it's untoward or a large change."
The increased stipends are projected to cost an additional $12,000 annually, Craig said.
Legal opinion tells them minutes of May 28 meeting can be kept secret
Posted By BY DENIS ST. PIERRE, THE SUDBURY STAR
Posted 1 day ago
Barely one month after being castigated by the provincial ombudsman for a secret meeting that did not pass "the smell test," city council has held another private session without notifying the public beforehand or opening the proceedings to scrutiny.
Furthermore, minutes recounting details of the recent meeting -- during which council decided to increase financial stipends for some of its members -- are being withheld from the public, city officials say.
On May 28, before a regular public meeting, council met in camera in its capacity as the shareholder of Greater Sudbury Utilities.
The GSU is run as a private municipal corporation, wholly owned by city taxpayers, with council acting on behalf of taxpayers as the utility's sole shareholder.
The private May 28 meeting was categorized as the "annual general meeting of the shareholder of Greater Sudbury Utilities (council)," according to the agenda's cover sheet.
The one-page cover sheet from the agenda was obtained by The Star on Friday following several requests made over a three-day period to city and GSU officials.
However, accompanying information provided to council along with the agenda will be kept from public scrutiny, as well minutes of the meeting, said Mark Mieto, the city's chief administrative officer.
"We got a legal opinion this afternoon and it (the GSU) is a private corporation and the minutes don't have to be released," Mieto said Friday.
Although the GSU is wholly owned by city taxpayers, it is required under provincial legislation to have its own board of directors, separate from city council.
The legislation also allows the utility's board of directors to keep its board meetings closed from the public. City and GSU officials appear to be relying on that legislation to justify the closed-door nature of the May 28 meeting.
However, the May 28 meeting was not a meeting of the GSU board of directors; it was a meeting of city council, acting on behalf of taxpayers as the utility's shareholder. City council meetings -- even in-camera sessions -- must be publicly advertised before they are held.
Advertisement
And council can only hold in-camera discussions for specific reasons defined under provincial legislation.
Legal interpretations aside, sources inside and outside city hall say the May 28 private meeting violates the spirit, if not the letter, of council's obligations and supposed commitment to be open, transparent and accountable.
"There's no way it should have been kept secret," said a highly placed city source.
"The public should have been aware of it. Most of (the meeting's contents) should be public information ... and if there was anything sensitive, they could have discussed that part in-camera."
A former chairman of the GSU board of directors said he was surprised to learn the city council/shareholder meeting was kept from public scrutiny.
"Aren't the 160,000 residents of Greater Sudbury the real shareholders?" asked Paul Marleau. "That was part of the whole idea of talking of transparency and openness," by the new mayor and council elected in 2006.
Marleau said he also was surprised to learn the GSU board has ended the practice of having its meetings routinely open to the media and public.
Although it falls under different legislation than city council, he noted, the GSU board can operate as openly as council if it wants.
The May 28 private council meeting came less than five weeks after Ontario Ombudsman André Marin criticized council for having held a secret meeting earlier this year to discuss the Elton John concert ticket fiasco.
After investigating council's actions, the ombudsman concluded the politicians came "close to the legal line," but did not technically violate provincial legislation governing closed-door meetings.
Still, councillors' behaviour "didn't pass the smell test," the ombudsman said in a report released in late April.
Curiously, one of the
issues debated -- and approved -- by council during its private meeting of May 28 was increasing the pay of members of the Greater Sudbury Utilities board of directors.
The pay increase comes one year after Mayor John Rodriguez mounted a sustained campaign to reduce the stipends paid to GSU board members -- a proposal that rankled some city councillors.
The campaign ended with a compromise resolution when council agreed to reduce the pay of GSU board members, but not as drastically as initially proposed by Rodriguez.
However, at its May 28 meeting, council decided behind closed doors to introduce a $200-per-day stipend for GSU board members. The new stipend will be paid to board members attending any committee meeting, conference, seminar, etc., other than the regular, monthly GSU board meeting.
The seven-member GSU board of directors includes three members of city council -- the mayor, Ward 9 Coun. Doug Craig and Ward 10 Coun. Frances Caldarelli.
Council was near unanimous in approving the pay increase on May 28, said Craig, who serves as chairman of the GSU board.
Craig said he could not recall the margin of approval for the pay increase, given that council's vote consisted of a show of hands, rather than a recorded vote.
However, the mayor did not speak against the pay increase, Craig said.
"He was silent on it." Rodriguez could not be
reached for comment Friday. However, the mayor has waived all payments to which he is entitled as a member of the GSU board.
The pay increase for the GSU board is needed to encourage the members to take more time from their regular schedules to attend committee meetings and conferences, Craig said.
"We're finding a year into the new board ... we're having a helluva time getting quorum sometimes and finding people to sit on some of the sub-committees and do some of the sub-committee work," he said.
"This way, hopefully, will allow us to operate a little more effectively and efficiently. I don't think it's untoward or a large change."
The increased stipends are projected to cost an additional $12,000 annually, Craig said.