Ontario ombudsman André Marin says the province must put “some teeth” into its government transparency legislation by penalizing municipal councils which break open meeting laws.Saying “shocking secrecy” exists in some of Ontario’s 444 municipalities, Marin said the government should consider prosecuting councillors and making them face fines or jail time for holding secret meetings.
“Right now, municipal councils — some of them at least — play loose with the rules because there are no consequences,” he said. “If there was a consequence, such as a fine or imprisonment, councillors would think twice about breaking those rules.”
On Tuesday, Marin released his first annual report detailing his office’s investigations into violations of the so-called “Sunshine law” — provincial legislation requiring municipalities to hold open meetings except in select circumstances.
Since 2008, any Ontario citizen has been able to request a probe into a meeting believed to have been improperly closed to the public. Marin’s office — which has jurisdiction in 191 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities — has received more than 500 complaints.
His office found 45 violations between April 2011 and September 2012, including in Hamilton, Amherstburg, Midland and Elliot Lake.
Marin does not have jurisdiction in Toronto, because the city has its own ombudsman, Fiona Crean.
Marin cited the “egregious” example of council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands which attempted to hide discussion of a 60-per-cent raise for its members.
“That’s the kind of thing you just can’t make up,” he said.
The office also investigated a complaint that three Hamilton councillors from the city’s NHL proposal committee violated the open meeting rules when they met for breakfast with a local hockey coach and the president of the Edmonton Oilers in January 2011.
While ruling the meeting did not break any laws, councillors should “be cautious about such gatherings, because they naturally attract suspicion and conjecture,” says the report.
Some of the worst offenders were also “defiant in the face of public complaints,” Marin said. London councillors, for example, were “obsessed” with obtaining the names of complainants so they could “face their accusers,” he said.
In Sudbury, only three of 13 councillors agreed to be interviewed by the office about secret meetings. The remaining said they wouldn’t proceed without the city’s solicitor.
“It was the worst failure to co-operate I have seen,” Marin says in the report.
Asked to respond to the pushback seen in Toronto against ombudsman Crean and other city watchdogs, Marin said the city was at an important “juncture.”
It will either have to “learn to work with its ombudsman office or explore other options,” such as outsourcing to his office, though he said he was not advocating for that,
“But of course, we’re located across from city hall . . . this would be a stone’s throw. If city council were to ask me to consider it, I’d certainly consider it.”
MPP Michael Prue agreed there must be some consequence for law-breaking councils.
But he noted it was “bizarre” to be talking about transparency when the legislature is prorogued.
“I find this a little strange that we’re here talking about councils not doing all the right things in order to be public and open when we have a legislature that’s shut down.”
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Wendy Gillis
No comments:
Post a Comment