HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-09-133 - Meeting Investigator 2010REPORT
REPORT TO:
Chair B. Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate
Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
October 5, 2009
SUBMITTED BY:
R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk
PREPARED BY:
R. Gosse ext. 2801
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
n/a
DATE OF REPORT: September 29, 2009
REPORT NO.: CRPS-09-133
SUBJECT:
MEETING INVESTIGATOR 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
That the service agreement with Local Authority Services Ltd. to provide closed meeting
investigations pursuant to Section 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, be
terminated effective December 31, 2009.
BACKGROUND:
Section 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows any person to request an investigation of
compliance by the City with respect to the closed meeting provisions of the Act. The
investigation would be undertaken by an appointed investigator or, if an investigator hasn’t been
appointed, by the Ontario Ombudsman.
In November 2007, Council adopted the recommendation of the Accountability and
Transparency Committee to appoint Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as the City’s meeting investigator.
REPORT:
The agreement between the City and LAS commenced January 1, 2008 for a two year term at a
cost of $600 retainer for the two years and $1250 per day for any required investigations. During
this period, no investigations were undertaken therefore the total cost to date is $600.
At the time when this change to the Municipal Act was taking place there was no data or best
practices on which the A&T Committee could rely on in making its recommendation as to a
meeting investigator. It was felt there was a real possibility that the City along with many other
municipalities would receive multiple requests for investigations as people tested this new
section of the Act. This may have resulted in the Ombudsman’s office being unable to meet the
demands from municipalities for investigations. There were also concerns regarding the types of
investigations that would be held by both LAS and the Ombudsman’s office being this was new
ground and the meeting section had yet to be tested. In the end the A&T committee
recommended the appointment of LAS due to low costs and to ensure access to an investigator.
ë ó ï
As it stands today, approximately 50% of Ontario municipalities have not made the appointment
of a meeting investigator choosing to rely on the Ombudsman’s office as stipulated in the Act.
Over the past two years, throughout Ontario both LAS and the Ombudsman’s office have each
completed approximately 10 formal reports. Their methods of investigation and reporting are
similar in nature and many times they have both been successful in dealing with requests
through a more informal process.
Since January 2008, there have not been any requests to the City for closed meeting
investigations. Since the changes in the Municipal Act, the City has taken steps to become more
transparent including the practice of providing as much information as possible to the public with
respect to items being discussed in closed meetings.
With the steps taken by the City to ensure the closed meeting requirements of the Municipal Act
are met, the evidence of sound and efficient investigations by both LAS and the Ombudsman’s
Office and evidence that anyone wishing to have an investigation of a closed meeting will have
access to the Ombudsman’s Office, it is being recommended that the agreement with LAS not
be renewed and the City rely on the Ontario Ombudsman to undertake any investigations in this
regard.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There will be a known savings of $300/annum and an unknown savings should there be a
request for an investigation.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Troy Speck, General Manager Corporate Services
ë ó î