Comments?

princerupert.com

NorthCoast's Regional Information Site

NATURE

Sea, land, river

PLACE

Books+

REALTY

Coming soon

Is city council too secretive?
Most of their ‘meetings’ are non-public. Even public meetings almost always end in-camera.

There are 2 contrasting reasons given me:

1) There is nothing to discuss

2) We can’t talk about pulp mill’ or city jobs ‘in public’ as too sensitive/controversial

COUNCIL WATCH #1

Playing fast with the rules?

What is on Council agenda?

An email MS Word Doc of AGENDA is sent kindly around to public the Friday before a meeting. Just ask? Try here)

_________________
ONLY 2 council approved minutes are available on WWW

(site framed, can’t link to single item)

Aug 27 2001
Sept 11 2001

_______________

Council Contacts

Phone #s etc and committees on— Luddites? only 2of 7 list email addresses which may explain why so little available on WWW

EXAMPLES

1) No public differences in opinion?
“We will be discussing SCI, but that is covered by ‘personnel issues’” And we wouldn’t dare talk about laying people off, or increasing taxes in public

2)

SQCRD VOTE

Last vote on SQCRD representative done in closed meeting and then ‘made legal’ in a regular meeting. (2 councilors told me same story)

Rationale: it is a personnel issue
Oh Yah?!

So what does the Act say?

The NDP made amendments to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT to cover ”closed meetings”. There are a limited number of reasons one can legally conduct City business and exclude the public. ‘Personnel’ is not one of them. It is too broad: a list of topics is provided, choose one (or more) e.g. personal information about a named employee; if what is to be discussed isn’t there it means it should not be discussed

Terrace example: section 242.2(1)(a) of the local government act

Terrace does this quite well

In-Camera Committee of the Whole Component, August 31, 2001 ---- 1. IN-CAMERA ITEM [UNDER SECTION 242.2(1)(a) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT] – CLOSURE OF SCI & FORMATION OF FORESTRY TASK FORCE There were no recommendations forthcoming at this time. In-Camera Special Reports: TEDA – Skeena Cellulose Inc. (SCI) Task Force Proposal MOVED/SECONDED that the Terrace Economic Development authority – “Skeena Cellulose Inc. (SCI) Task Force Proposal” regarding the formation of a task force to research and recommend options that maximize the community’s interest in the pending corporate restructuring of SCI, be released from In- Camera Status.

Terrace much more open and 21^st century on WWW

Main council page/ minutes (multi-year); and bylaws online

WHAT about SCI??	“We need confidentiality”
	This becomes a Trojan Horse I am told business (contracts signed) is being done even without Council’s knowledge; they can’t complain too loudly as they have been circumventing the rules themselves.

Again Terrace is doing it right
MOVED/SECONDED that the October 31st, 2001 In- Camera Committee of the Whole Report be adopted, and that the entire report remain In-Camera under Section 242.2(1)(e) of the Local Government Act. Carried.

3)

“Management meetings” or ‘non-meetings’

Are these Legal? Necessary?

Started during Jack Mussallem’s term; these bi-weekly Monday evening non-meetings were a chance for senior city managers and council to exchange information in a less formal, ‘off the record’ environment.
Given the ex-mayors background as City Clerk, it was understandable, even laudable.

Laudable? Yes, the city was being run well and ‘don’t fix what ain’t broken’ worked, mainly because the city administrator was/ is very competent.

But should this ‘friendly’ arrangement be used when major changes are being considered?

I think not. (I am told it hasn’t met since last Spring).
One suspects SCI closed meetings have pushed everything else off the calendar.

If I have made any mistakes or misinterpretations please contact me and I will correct them