County council must ensure transparency

It seems controversy is never far behind these days when it comes to activities at Kings County council and when issues of public transparency arise, there is cause for concern.

The recent controversy surrounding discussion about a proposed 50-unit long-term care facility in Greenwich to be built by Shannex in response to a provincial request for proposals could easily have been avoided. It started when municipal staff suggested the matter should be discussed in-camera.

However, when the area councillor questioned the validity of holding the discussion privately, the municipal solicitor said it didn’t meet criteria, which are spelled out specifically in the Municipal Government Act.

The chief administrator said the reasoning behind the recommendation to hold the discussion in-camera was that information had been given to the municipality in confidence involving other organizations and there could be sensitivities. However, he said council could hold the discussion openly if that was the desire. Council decided to hold the discussion openly, but had other matters that did qualify for an in-camera session that evening and held the private session first.

When council came out of the in-camera session, it was late in the evening and no one from the public was present to hear the Shannex discussion. Due to an oversight, no electronic audio recording was made, either, as is the usual practice.

We’re not suggesting that council or municipal staff tried to hide anything or deliberately held discussions of public planning matters behind closed doors, but it would be easy to get that impression if you’re on the outside looking in.

We understand staff not wanting to create controversy by discussing another organization or municipality openly, but by suggesting the discussion should be held in-camera when it didn’t qualify could certainly cause some eyebrows to go up. Some councillors expressed a concern that a bad precedent would be set and we agree.

We understand there’s a need to get the municipal process underway because of a timeline for the project dictated by the province, but the matter can’t be seen to be leap-frogging other planning matters already in the works.

People make mistakes, but not recording council’s discussion of the Shannex proposal adds fuel to the fire. Although we understand it was an error, it’s also seemingly convenient.

Another point for councillors and staff to consider is they circumvented their own policy for holding evening meetings when they came back into open session for the Shannex discussion. When the decision was made to begin holding regular monthly sessions in the evening, it was specified that the sessions were not to go past 9:30 p.m. All accounts suggest that the Shannex discussion didn’t wrap up until 11 p.m. or later.

With this being an election year and the clock ticking on the current term, it’s important for councillors to keep public perception in mind. Situations such as those noted do nothing to promote credibility.

Councillors and staff members must be vigilant when it comes to following the Municipal Government Act and their own policy when conducting business. Many eyes are upon them and the expectation is great.