When is Confidential Information Not.

I  had the conversation before. Not because I needed it explained. Just to see if there is anything I haven't heard before.

The Municipal Act is  clear about what a Council can discuss behind closed doors. One is the privacy of an identifiable individual.  Another is the obligation to protect the interests of the municipality. The third is union contract  negotiations.

Privacy and union  negotiations need no clarification. .

Protection of the municipality's interest is not hard to comprehend either.

Real estate  negotiations either in buying or selling are a given.

When a deal is done, information is made  public. Regulations require decisions to be reported out.

But they don't give a time limit.

I guess they don't expect another legislative body  to be looking for ways to dodge  regulations.
 
Litigation in process is also  confidential. There can be liability  for  considerable amounts if a court battle is lost.

A Councillor  who  provides  information to assist an   opposing party in  litigation  against the town  is in   Breach of Trust and  can be prosecuted.

When litigation is over, information  is a matter of public record. 

When  there are no time limits on  an action that can be taken against a municipality,  some things can never be spoken about. .

All that said and besides,  a Councillor has the right to  exercise  judgement about which matters are required to be  confidential within the meaning of the Municipal Act.  

For example, when a majority of Council decided to go behind closed doors to  devise a strategy to silence criticism of majority decisions.

Or  plot  to destroy the reputation of a colleague  or anybody else for that matter.

I don't think that's right.

If politicians can't fight their battles in public without lawyers to support them, what good are they? 

During the August meeting of Council, David Tsubouchi,  in response to the contention that his report should have been received in camera because it related to the privacy of an individual had this to say;

Elected representatives put themselves forward into the public arena. They do not have the same right to privacy.

In other words, , Mr. Tsubouchi ,the Solicitor Integrity Commissioner appointed by The Six, contends   elected representatives forfeit their right to privacy. 

In September, an anonymous  critical comment  about  the Mayor which had  appeared  in the Aurora Citizen Blog was copied and later circulated  at the Council table by the Mayor. It was a last minute add-on to the  agenda of an  in- camera meeting.

Despite the matter  was not  town business. Nor entitled to be discussed as such    in or out of  an in camera meeting. Nor was it a matter of individual privacy.  Nevertheless, it was discussed.

Staff were directed  to retain external legal counsel to pursue the matter.

Our hands went  into  taxpayers pockets  for legal bills once again.

Even as we exercise our right to choose our next Council the  current ones continue to wreak havoc.