THE SURVEY - OMBUDSMAN
OVERVIEW
Because this issue was part of a 5-topic survey which we conducted in November 2012, a few of the paragraphs on this page may seem familiar, since they also appear on the corresponding pages associated with each of the other four topics. However, the majority of what appears on this page is specific to the topic of the Ombudsman. So please take the time to look through all of the material.
In the summer of 2012, we started to become unsettled by some of the things we saw Council doing. It became apparent to us that they had become disconnected from the very people who elected them to their positions. They were deliberating in isolation - assuming that they knew what residents really wanted. Once we realized what was going on, we got ourselves organized and undertook the considerable effort to conduct a 5-topic survey/petition, which we subsequently presented to Council (on November 26th, 2012).
The issue of the Ombudsman was the fifth topic on our 5-part survey. Did you know that Councils are actually free to choose who they want to use as an Ombudsman, to handle complaints about closed meetings? It's true - the Municipal Act really does allow it.
Below is what we provided as background information about the Ombudsman when we went door-to-door, seeking residents' opinions. We've also included Council's official written response.
If you're interested in all of the technical and logistical aspects of the the survey, look in the section entitled Resources and Supporting Materials at the bottom of this page, for links to pertinent details. It was a relatively sophisticated approach and the results are very defensible.
[Click] to go (back) to our primary page on this topic.
In the summer of 2012, we started to become unsettled by some of the things we saw Council doing. It became apparent to us that they had become disconnected from the very people who elected them to their positions. They were deliberating in isolation - assuming that they knew what residents really wanted. Once we realized what was going on, we got ourselves organized and undertook the considerable effort to conduct a 5-topic survey/petition, which we subsequently presented to Council (on November 26th, 2012).
The issue of the Ombudsman was the fifth topic on our 5-part survey. Did you know that Councils are actually free to choose who they want to use as an Ombudsman, to handle complaints about closed meetings? It's true - the Municipal Act really does allow it.
Below is what we provided as background information about the Ombudsman when we went door-to-door, seeking residents' opinions. We've also included Council's official written response.
If you're interested in all of the technical and logistical aspects of the the survey, look in the section entitled Resources and Supporting Materials at the bottom of this page, for links to pertinent details. It was a relatively sophisticated approach and the results are very defensible.
[Click] to go (back) to our primary page on this topic.
BACKGROUND INFO
Topic #5 from our November 2012 Survey
If you follow the news at all, you no doubt will know that the Ontario Ombudsman (the Province’s “watchdog”) recently released a very telling report on the state of municipal affairs in Ontario. It seems that many Councils are holding meetings behind closed doors when they shouldn’t be … or holding meetings under otherwise questionable circumstances … or, just in general, conducting themselves in a way that it not transparent or accountable.
Some of the Ombudsman’s investigations have taken place pretty close to home – the Township of Edwardsburg Cardinal, and the Township of Leeds and Thousand Islands. If you think the Council for Elizabethtown Kitely escaped his crosshairs because they are more open about the way they conduct their affairs, think again. There are other reasons.
Did you know that, even if the Ombudsman’s office received a complaint about Elizabethtown Kitley, he would not be able to investigate it? Why? Because Elizabethtown Kitley has already named a 3rd party as their designated investigator - something which Ontario’s Municipal Act does give them the opportunity to do. This 3rd party is LAS (Local Authority Services), a branch of AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario), which - despite what its name sounds like - is not a Provincial body.
AMO is essentially a lobby group, or advocacy group, working on behalf of its member Municipalities, against (though they say “with”) the Provincial government. Make no mistake … since AMO (and LAS) services its members, its vested interest lies in keeping the Municipalities happy - not necessarily the Province, and certainly not the Public.
Here’s something else you may not know … there is no cost - to the complainant, or the Township in question - when the Ombudsman is the one to conduct an investigation. But in the case of most 3rd party investigators (including the LAS), there is a retainer fee which is paid by the Township (i.e. regardless of whether or their services are actually used in any given year), as well as a per-incident cost.
Think about that for a moment. Since the Township was perfectly at liberty to leave the status quo (i.e. allow investigations, if any arise, to be carried out by the Ombudsman - at no cost), why do you suppose Council would choose to incur the expense of naming LAS as their investigator instead? Aren’t they constantly crying foul about trying to control costs at every end and turn? Draw your own conclusions.
But wait, there’s more. Council has recently begun looking at revamping its own Policies, Procedures, and/or By-Laws to extend, enhance, and/or otherwise modify the circumstances under which it can hold “closed door” meetings. Whether or not the Municipal Act actually allows them to do this is, as yet, unclear. But that won’t stop them from trying it on for size - if they can get away with it.
Do you sense a theme here? Recall that Council wants to dismantle most of the Township’s traditional Committees (which have members of the public), and replace them with a “Committee of the Whole” system (which does not have the same public participation/oversight). And now they’re trying to muck around with the way they hold closed meetings. Are you comfortable with all of that?
[Click] to go (back) to our primary page on this topic.
If you follow the news at all, you no doubt will know that the Ontario Ombudsman (the Province’s “watchdog”) recently released a very telling report on the state of municipal affairs in Ontario. It seems that many Councils are holding meetings behind closed doors when they shouldn’t be … or holding meetings under otherwise questionable circumstances … or, just in general, conducting themselves in a way that it not transparent or accountable.
Some of the Ombudsman’s investigations have taken place pretty close to home – the Township of Edwardsburg Cardinal, and the Township of Leeds and Thousand Islands. If you think the Council for Elizabethtown Kitely escaped his crosshairs because they are more open about the way they conduct their affairs, think again. There are other reasons.
Did you know that, even if the Ombudsman’s office received a complaint about Elizabethtown Kitley, he would not be able to investigate it? Why? Because Elizabethtown Kitley has already named a 3rd party as their designated investigator - something which Ontario’s Municipal Act does give them the opportunity to do. This 3rd party is LAS (Local Authority Services), a branch of AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario), which - despite what its name sounds like - is not a Provincial body.
AMO is essentially a lobby group, or advocacy group, working on behalf of its member Municipalities, against (though they say “with”) the Provincial government. Make no mistake … since AMO (and LAS) services its members, its vested interest lies in keeping the Municipalities happy - not necessarily the Province, and certainly not the Public.
Here’s something else you may not know … there is no cost - to the complainant, or the Township in question - when the Ombudsman is the one to conduct an investigation. But in the case of most 3rd party investigators (including the LAS), there is a retainer fee which is paid by the Township (i.e. regardless of whether or their services are actually used in any given year), as well as a per-incident cost.
Think about that for a moment. Since the Township was perfectly at liberty to leave the status quo (i.e. allow investigations, if any arise, to be carried out by the Ombudsman - at no cost), why do you suppose Council would choose to incur the expense of naming LAS as their investigator instead? Aren’t they constantly crying foul about trying to control costs at every end and turn? Draw your own conclusions.
But wait, there’s more. Council has recently begun looking at revamping its own Policies, Procedures, and/or By-Laws to extend, enhance, and/or otherwise modify the circumstances under which it can hold “closed door” meetings. Whether or not the Municipal Act actually allows them to do this is, as yet, unclear. But that won’t stop them from trying it on for size - if they can get away with it.
Do you sense a theme here? Recall that Council wants to dismantle most of the Township’s traditional Committees (which have members of the public), and replace them with a “Committee of the Whole” system (which does not have the same public participation/oversight). And now they’re trying to muck around with the way they hold closed meetings. Are you comfortable with all of that?
[Click] to go (back) to our primary page on this topic.
COUNCIL'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE
Mailed out February 2013 to the 300+ participants
Not only is the Township mandated to be accountable and transparent, it does strive to be so. The Township has adopted an accountability and transparency policy on February 11, 2008 under By-law 08-11 which states
Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that enhance public trust. They are achieved through the municipality adopting measures ensuring, to the best of its ability, that all activities and services are undertaken utilizing a process that is open and accessible to its stakeholders. In addition, wherever possible, the municipality will engage its stakeholders throughout the decision making process which will be open, visible and transparent to the public
With this in mind, Council had adopted various by-laws to ensure that it allows for openness and transparency such as the procedural by-law which governs the proceedings of Council, land sale by-law which sets out the procedure to be followed if municipal land is to be sold and the procurement by-law that establishes the Township’s purchasing regulations. Each of these by-laws ensures that the public are advised of what is going on, public notification being prominent in each case. As noted, these are just three examples of Council by-laws that speak to openness and transparency
As well, Council strives to remain in compliance with the closed meeting provisions contained within the Municipal Act, 2001. All meetings of Council must be open to the public with a few exceptions such as a personal matter about an identifiable individual, property matters, receive legal advice, etc. The Township has established procedures to be followed by Council when entering into a closed meeting and returning to an open meeting. A copy of the Closed Meeting Policy is available through the Township office.
The Ombudsman is the investigator for 191 of the 444 municipalities in Ontario. LAS, through Amberly Gavel, is another popular option. Some municipalities have appointed another third party, whether that is a retired municipal employee or a local solicitor.
When considering the number of Council and committee meetings held in the Province of Ontario in one year, the number of reported investigations is quite low. Over the past 4 years, since the legislation came into force, 74 municipalities have been investigated for possible breach of the closed meeting legislation. These 74 municipalities could have held 592 meetings (2 meetings per month over 4 years). There have been 74 violations found between LAS and the Ombudsman, or 12% of the meetings were in violation. When taken with the number of municipalities, estimating that LAS is representing half of the remaining Ontario municipalities (126), this would result in 74 meeting over 2,546 meetings (191 + 126 = 317 municipalities at 2 meeting per month = 634 meetings over 4 years = 2,536), or 2.91% of meeting were in violation.
The Ombudsman investigated 45 municipalities, 23.56% of those represented by them. Of the number of meeting that could have been held by the 191 municipalities over the four year period (18,336), only 45 violations were found (0.24%).
LAS represents approximately 126 municipalities (12,096 possible meetings over 4 years) with 29 violations found (0.24% of meetings).
Given these statistics, it would appear that the majority of municipalities are following the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal was investigated by the Ombudsman for possible breach of legislation. The investigation resulted in no violations nor any suggestions for best practices. Considering this, the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley has adopted the operational procedure followed by Edwardsburgh/Cardinal to ensure that closed meetings follow a proven procedure so that the Township remains in compliance with the legislation at all times.
On the other hand, Leeds and the 1000 islands hosted three investigations which resulted in 2 violations and 1 suggested best practice over a potential 96 meetings.
In 2007, with the changes in the Municipal Act 2001 coming into force and effect as of January 1, 2008 including the requirement to appoint a closed meeting investigator, Council received a staff report including three possible options for appointment.
The Ombudsman’s Office was suggested as it was cost efficient. The downside of using the Ombudsman was that his office tends to sensationalize investigations and continues to do so. The Greater City of Sudbury is a prime example of how the Ombudsman tends to put a negative swing on investigations, even though the City was found to be in compliance with Iegislation. The investigators were aggressive enough that members of Council were requesting that they be represented by legal counsel during meetings with the investigator. The City is considering appointing another investigator as a result of their experience with the Ombudsman's Office, even though the City was found to be in compliance
A Counties Investigator was considered but there was a concern that there would be a perception that the investigator could be too close to the issues or people. The benefit of a local investigator would be that they would have had local knowledge.
The final option was for the appointment of LAS as the meeting investigator at the cost of just over $300 00 per year as a retainer. Although this is a cost to the municipality, it would be a neutral outside body, with no affiliation to either party involved in an investigation. It has been suggested that having to pay a nominal fee for a retainer and the costs of a full investigation could make Council more diligent in deciding whether or not to go into a closed meeting as the municipality would have to pay, making councillors more accountable. It should be noted that the LAS investigator would review each complaint on an individual basis and if the initial review indicates that there is no substance to the accusation, no investigation is held and the municipality would not be charged any fee for investigation.
[Click] to go (back) to our primary page on this topic.
Not only is the Township mandated to be accountable and transparent, it does strive to be so. The Township has adopted an accountability and transparency policy on February 11, 2008 under By-law 08-11 which states
Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that enhance public trust. They are achieved through the municipality adopting measures ensuring, to the best of its ability, that all activities and services are undertaken utilizing a process that is open and accessible to its stakeholders. In addition, wherever possible, the municipality will engage its stakeholders throughout the decision making process which will be open, visible and transparent to the public
With this in mind, Council had adopted various by-laws to ensure that it allows for openness and transparency such as the procedural by-law which governs the proceedings of Council, land sale by-law which sets out the procedure to be followed if municipal land is to be sold and the procurement by-law that establishes the Township’s purchasing regulations. Each of these by-laws ensures that the public are advised of what is going on, public notification being prominent in each case. As noted, these are just three examples of Council by-laws that speak to openness and transparency
As well, Council strives to remain in compliance with the closed meeting provisions contained within the Municipal Act, 2001. All meetings of Council must be open to the public with a few exceptions such as a personal matter about an identifiable individual, property matters, receive legal advice, etc. The Township has established procedures to be followed by Council when entering into a closed meeting and returning to an open meeting. A copy of the Closed Meeting Policy is available through the Township office.
The Ombudsman is the investigator for 191 of the 444 municipalities in Ontario. LAS, through Amberly Gavel, is another popular option. Some municipalities have appointed another third party, whether that is a retired municipal employee or a local solicitor.
When considering the number of Council and committee meetings held in the Province of Ontario in one year, the number of reported investigations is quite low. Over the past 4 years, since the legislation came into force, 74 municipalities have been investigated for possible breach of the closed meeting legislation. These 74 municipalities could have held 592 meetings (2 meetings per month over 4 years). There have been 74 violations found between LAS and the Ombudsman, or 12% of the meetings were in violation. When taken with the number of municipalities, estimating that LAS is representing half of the remaining Ontario municipalities (126), this would result in 74 meeting over 2,546 meetings (191 + 126 = 317 municipalities at 2 meeting per month = 634 meetings over 4 years = 2,536), or 2.91% of meeting were in violation.
The Ombudsman investigated 45 municipalities, 23.56% of those represented by them. Of the number of meeting that could have been held by the 191 municipalities over the four year period (18,336), only 45 violations were found (0.24%).
LAS represents approximately 126 municipalities (12,096 possible meetings over 4 years) with 29 violations found (0.24% of meetings).
Given these statistics, it would appear that the majority of municipalities are following the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal was investigated by the Ombudsman for possible breach of legislation. The investigation resulted in no violations nor any suggestions for best practices. Considering this, the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley has adopted the operational procedure followed by Edwardsburgh/Cardinal to ensure that closed meetings follow a proven procedure so that the Township remains in compliance with the legislation at all times.
On the other hand, Leeds and the 1000 islands hosted three investigations which resulted in 2 violations and 1 suggested best practice over a potential 96 meetings.
In 2007, with the changes in the Municipal Act 2001 coming into force and effect as of January 1, 2008 including the requirement to appoint a closed meeting investigator, Council received a staff report including three possible options for appointment.
The Ombudsman’s Office was suggested as it was cost efficient. The downside of using the Ombudsman was that his office tends to sensationalize investigations and continues to do so. The Greater City of Sudbury is a prime example of how the Ombudsman tends to put a negative swing on investigations, even though the City was found to be in compliance with Iegislation. The investigators were aggressive enough that members of Council were requesting that they be represented by legal counsel during meetings with the investigator. The City is considering appointing another investigator as a result of their experience with the Ombudsman's Office, even though the City was found to be in compliance
A Counties Investigator was considered but there was a concern that there would be a perception that the investigator could be too close to the issues or people. The benefit of a local investigator would be that they would have had local knowledge.
The final option was for the appointment of LAS as the meeting investigator at the cost of just over $300 00 per year as a retainer. Although this is a cost to the municipality, it would be a neutral outside body, with no affiliation to either party involved in an investigation. It has been suggested that having to pay a nominal fee for a retainer and the costs of a full investigation could make Council more diligent in deciding whether or not to go into a closed meeting as the municipality would have to pay, making councillors more accountable. It should be noted that the LAS investigator would review each complaint on an individual basis and if the initial review indicates that there is no substance to the accusation, no investigation is held and the municipality would not be charged any fee for investigation.
[Click] to go (back) to our primary page on this topic.
RESOURCES and SUPPORTING MATERIALS
Under construction. We are busy preparing
the substantiating resources (documents, newspaper articles, etc.) to
publish in this section. Please check back in a little while, or link
up with our Facebook page to be notified of updates.
PLEASE ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS
The clearest, most effective message you can send to Council, is to attend their meetings. So long as the public gallery is empty, they will get the impression that no one cares.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.
It would be hypocritical to hold Council responsible for the outcome of all things if we are perpetually absent from the process, ourselves.
Typically, Council meetings are held on Mondays. [Click] to open the Township's official calendar in a new window.