Council divided on in-camera decision

Troy Shantz Members of Sarnia City Council were divided on the issue of whether or not to begin audio recording closed session meetings, a motion that passed following a 5-4 vote last week.

Troy Shantz

Members of Sarnia City Council were divided on the issue of whether or not to begin audio recording closed session meetings, a motion that passed following a 5-4 vote last week.

“It’s just about accountability and openness,” said Mayor Mike Bradley, who supported the motion to ensure all in-camera or closed meetings be audio recorded, and archived in a secure location. “How can anyone be opposed to that?”

Sarnia joins the ranks of about 3% of Ontario municipalities currently following this procedure, according to a city staff report.

The Ombudsman’s office recommends closed sessions be recorded – for the sake of future investigations – but doesn’t make it mandatory.

Anyone can request the recordings through a Freedom of Information request.

In–camera or closed-session meetings typically deal in sensitive civic matters, such as identifying individuals’ identities or matters of litigation.

Bradley said he thinks the move will keep participants on topic, focused solely on the matters at hand.

“Some of the feedback that I received from different sources indicated there were things being said and done (during closed session meetings), that just weren’t appropriate; that’s what led to this being brought forward,” he said.

When asked if he believes the move would have affected the outcomes of two recent workplace investigations surrounding his behaviour in office, he was unsure.

“This is for the future, not the past,” he said, adding that he’s simply in favour of accountability and transparency for government.

But Coun. Cindy Scholten balked at the idea that in-camera meeting participants might take opportunities to have non-agenda-related discussions.

“We don’t break the law,” she told The Journal, noting that it’s illegal to veer off topic. “They’re quick, we cover the subject, and we’re out.”

Scholten led the charge against the motion and the Jan. 15 meeting.

“If we do start recording, it does pose a risk and a threat that we never had before because now we’re holding corporate records of those meetings,” she said, adding that, unless the province is mandating it, there’s no point in rushing into it.

Coun. Bev MacDougall agreed, pointing to the minutes as the most important record of closed meetings.

“When it’s about identifiable people or very delicate issues, or things that are in litigation, to me, care needs to be taken,” she said. “To me, that’s just good governance.

“I’m not afraid of anything I’ve said in an in camera meeting,” she added. “I’m not afraid of anything I’ve said at an open meeting.”

Councillors Matt Mitro and Anne Marie Gillis joined MacDougall and Scholten, voting against the motion.

Along with the mayor, Councillors Mike Kelch, Andy Bruziewicz, Brian White and Dave Boushy voted in favour.