Georgina defends 2 closed-door council meetings

Yorkregion.com
Oct. 27, 2016
By Heidi Riedner

How open and accountable are decisions when some council meetings are closed to the public?

That was the question, in addition to any potential breaches of the Municipal Act, posed to the town regarding the appointment of a temporary two-year human resources position in Georgina after an in-camera meeting of Vaughan council was determined “illegal” by a third-party investigator last month.

A council resolution directing Georgina’s CAO to appoint a temporary human resources program development specialist in 2015, on the heels of the second of two closed sessions, was the first public reference to the new position.

It stemmed from discussions regarding the town’s corporate work plan, which were closed to the public under the Municipal Act’s exceptions regarding “personal matters about an identifiable individual”.

While there were 130 job postings for the town in 2015, the temporary position was created and filled without a competitive hiring process prior to open-session 2016 budget discussions - including potential new hires for 2016.

Georgina’s communications manager, Ken Turriff, said there is no legislative requirement to post positions and added the subject was “appropriately presented in closed council session”, when asked by The Advocate if Georgina may have erred in similar fashion to Vaughan when the latter created and appointed a deputy city manager behind closed doors.

“The discussions concerning the corporate work plan encompassed discussion concerning more than one identifiable individual, which is different than the facts as they are set out in the Vaughan report.”

He added the direction to bring about the corporate work plan and “address a specific organizational gap” was made in open session via the council resolution and subsequently considered in detail through the ensuing budget process.

Rulings against other municipalities by council watchdogs in the past year consistently reiterate substantive decisions cannot be made in a closed session of council, even if those decisions are subject to future public input, in order to ensure openness, transparency and public accountability.

Furthermore, experts in municipal law contend municipal restructuring, which adds brand new positions to the corporation’s structure, is not a matter which attracts the exception to the open meetings rules.

The creation of a two-year position, (with a six-figure wage and benefits), is not an organization restructuring, Turriff said, adding the rationale and business case behind the need for temporary HR assistance was appropriately presented in closed council session and that in instances when appointments are made versus a competitive hiring process, a well thought out needs analysis is undertaken with appropriate approvals.

One year into the two-year contract, however, the position has been merged with a vacant manager’s position in the division, which, until last month, was part of the CAO’s office.

The new director’s position heads a recently created stand-alone HR department under a corporate restructuring, recommended in a staff report and approved by council last month.

Council, in a consolidated statement, said it is not concerned about closed-door meetings creating any conflicts surrounding accountability and transparency as it has conducted all meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act.

“We appropriately advertise any topics to be discussed in camera, we report out and ensure decisions are made in open session, all meetings are live-streamed and most meetings are broadcast on Rogers, (and) this council has been very proactive in minimizing closed session discussion.”