An investigator has ruled that a joint closed-door meeting of all local councils in Grey County held in August 2024 followed the rules of the municipal act, contrary to a complaining that alleged otherwise.
At its meeting on Feb. 13, Grey County council received a report from Meaghan Barrett of Aird and Berlis LLP. Barrett is the county’s closed meeting investigator.
Her report dealt with a meeting Grey County hosted on Aug. 8, 2024 that included all of the lower-tier municipal councils, as well as staff from lower tier municipalities. The vast majority of the meeting was conducted in closed session and was held to discuss the possibility of the county and the local municipalities teaming up to form a joint planning department.
Following the meeting, former county councillor and Town of The Blue Mountains Mayor Alar Soever, filed a complaint requesting an investigation into the meeting as he believed it should not have been a closed session.
The county said the meeting was held in closed session due to labour relations or employee negotiations and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
In his complaint statement, Soever argued that every choice a local or county council makes has some impact on the staff of that municipality. He said the concept of a joint planning department between the county and lower-tier municipalities should have been discussed in open session.
“As every decision of council affects a municipality’s employees to some degree, if Grey County’s position is allowed to stand, then there would be no further need for any public meetings of council, as all one would need to do is say it affects employees and invite the corporate lawyer so one can claim legal advice. This would set a dangerous precedent,” Soever said in his complaint.
Soever also argued that the county was ignoring its own processes and policies by hosting a meeting about a joint planning department without going through its collaborative decision-making framework. Soever said the county established the framework in March 2013 in order to have a formal process and procedure in place to guide how new ideas would be considered by county council.
The former mayor said by bypassing the framework process, county council was ignoring its own bylaws.
Barrett’s report outlined the material she reviewed, including the minutes of the meeting for both the open and closed portions and the agendas for both sessions. Barrett also directly interviewed county clerk Tara Warder and Jenn Moreau, the county’s director of human resources. Her full report can be found online here.
“We have determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 and did not hold an improper meeting. Council was entitled to consider the report in closed session pursuant to the closed meeting exceptions in clauses 239(2)(d) and (f) and to give direction to staff based on that report,” Barrett said in the report.
On the matter of the collaborative decision-making framework, Barrett did not make a ruling and said that aspect of Soever’s complaint was outside of her jurisdiction as a closed meeting investigator.
County council received the report without comment. After the meeting in a phone interview, Soever said he wasn’t surprised by the report and the county’s reaction.
“It’s disappointing and it’s about what I expected. I didn’t expect much,” he said.
Soever said he found it “distressing” that the report “seems to give licence” for county council to go into closed session to discuss items that shouldn’t be discussed in closed session.
“That’s terrible,” he said. “Way too many things are being done behind closed doors. It’s time councils are held accountable instead of giving excuses.”