Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-06-003 - In-Camera Protocol & Procedural AmendmentsReport To: Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair, and Members of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee Date of Meeting: January 9, 2006 Submitted By: G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk Prepared By: G. Sosnoski Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: December 20, 2005 Report No.: CRPS-06-003 Subject: IN-CAMERA PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDATION: None at this time -information submitted at the request of Council for discussion purposes. BACKGROUND: Council, at its November 28, 2005 meeting, agreed to a request from Councillor B. Vrbanovic for additional information regarding further initiatives pertaining to the conduct of in-camera meetings. Additional information was also requested concerning the position of Integrity Commissioner recently established by the City of Toronto. This report constitutes an addendum to the earlier report of G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk, relating to the in-camera provisions of Bill 123, and potential Municipal Act amendments presented to the Finance and Corporate Services Committee on November 21, 2005. REPORT: Proposed Administrative Policy Councillor Vrbanovic questioned whether it would be possible to frame the existing in-camera meeting protocol for submitting items for in-camera discussion as an administrative policy statement. There has been discussion by the Corporate Management Team involving the creation of an Administrative Policy Manual as distinct from the current Council Policy Manual. Subject to determining a suitable format, there is nothing to prevent the existing caucus protocol from being restated as an administrative policy /procedure. In-Camera Meeting Notice A question was raised as to the feasibility of placing a notification on the agenda reminding Council that individual members have an opportunity to question or debate the appropriateness of a particular item being considered in-camera. This can be easily accommodated, with direction as to whether the notice should appear on the special Council agenda, the in-camera agenda or both. Council is free to debate the appropriateness of any item listed for discussion on the in-camera agenda either at the time Council authorizes discussion of the item at the open public meeting (special Council} or at the beginning of the in-camera meeting. Such discussion at the open, special Council meeting can become problematic as it is difficult to argue or hear reasons in support of in-camera discussion without specific reference to the individual item. However, if carefully worded this can be done without compromising confidentiality. Alternatively, Council could resolve itself into caucus and the first order of in-camera business could be a debate regarding the appropriateness of a particular item. This is already outlined in the current protocol and is an option which has been exercised by individual members of Council from time to time. If Council wishes, the minutes of the next public meeting following the caucus meeting could reflect where a member of Council objected to in-camera discussion of a particular item in whole or in part. However the details as to the specific item could not be reflected in the public minutes. In addition, each in-camera report is now prefaced with a description of why it is necessary to discuss the item in a closed meeting. Procedural By-law Amendment Councillor Vrbanovic questioned whether Council's Procedural By-law could be amended to require a 2/3 majority of Council to authorize in-camera discussion. There is nothing to prevent Council from making this change if it is felt this is necessary and / or appropriate. However, it is suggested that any such reference require a 2/3 vote of the Council members present in order to avoid the necessity of all members of Council being in attendance before in-camera discussion can take place. This is a purely practical consideration given that from time-to-time a member of Council will be absent due to illness or other business. Integrity Commissioner -City of Toronto Information was requested concerning the background and rationale around the creation of this position by the City of Toronto. The creation of a full-time Integrity Commission formed one of the recommendations of Madam Justice Denise Bellamy of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice following a 2002 inquiry into the leasing of computer equipment by the City of Toronto from MFP Financial Services. Various irregularities regarding the lease arrangement and related transactions were alleged and former City Councillor Tom Jakobek, the City's budget chief at the time of the contracts, was implicated with allegations made as to an alleged improper financial relationship between MFP's lead salesman and Mr. Jakobek. A subsequent inquiry (Toronto External Contracts Inquiry) was also conducted in regard to a number of City consulting contracts. The Integrity Commissioner position, which is an officer of Council and reports directly to Council, has four distinct roles: • Advisory -providing written and oral advice to individual members of Council about their own situation respecting the Code of Conduct and other by-laws and policies governing the ethical behaviour of members; • Complaint investigation -assessing and investigating complaints against elected officials from members of the public, City staff and Councillors or on reference from the whole Council; • Complaint adjudication -determining whether a member of Council has violated a City protocol, by-law or policy governing their ethical behaviour. In these instances Council would hear the evidence and make the final decision as to whether any penalty recommended by the Commissioner would be imposed on the member found in contravention; • Educational -publishing an annual report, and providing outreach programs to members of Council and staff emphasizing the importance of ethics for public confidence in municipal government. The Integrity Commissioner exercises his l her authority only with respect to elected officials and appointees to City agencies, boards and commissions who are subject to a Code of Conduct. The Integrity Commissioner's authority under the protocol is confined to elected officials, and he /she has no authority over City Council staff or other Corporate employees. Complaints concerning City employees are referred to the employee's manager. G. Sosnoski General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk