Comment 33821

By Tammany (anonymous) | Posted September 17, 2009 at 16:03:48

Something tells me that Council is invoking the in camera provisions of the Municipal Act in less than the best of faith.

Under s. 239

(2) A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,

a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board.
b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or board employees.
c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.
d) labour relations or employee negotiations.
e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board.
f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for the purpose.
g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act.

(3) A meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject matter relates to the consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if the council, board or other body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that act.

Obviously, in a real democracy, elected representatives would refrain from invoking in camera privilege in all but the most sensitive of matters.

Why was the discussion of the Connaught in camera? Does it fit into any of the above categories? (and don't tell me it's just because they had the city solicitor there - that's an abuse of the solicitor client relationship)

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds