Frank Magazine behind the times

You can't really fault Frank though. He was commenting on yet another boondoggle from our beloved Mayor Peter Kelly. How can you keep up with the mishaps of a man who lead HRM's bid on the Commonwealth Games and presided over the cat law fiasco to mention just a couple of his better known disasters. Well Frank announced a new Eau de Toilette called PK one in honour of the smell of His Honour's harbour.. no sooner was his informative periodical on the stands and the Dartmouth system started to let go raising the need for PK Eau de Toilette 2. At the rate the syetems in Halifax are failing (did I say new systems) Mayor Kelly and his council will soon have a complete line of these products out equal to anything Madaonna or anybody else has. Just remember this product may, as Frank warns us, contain solids. What stinks worse then this whole fisaco is the secrecy behind it. Not unlike the HIV and HepC disasters involving the Canadian blood system nobody will ever be called to task for this. Who is responsible? The engineers who designed it? The staff engineer who deemed it acceptable? Mayor Kelly and his Council who voted for it? The company who installed it? You will never know. Unless history takes a 180 deg turn the only thing for sure is that you, the taxpayers of HRM will be paying to fix it or replace it completely if it is, in fact, usless for the size of the job. You can own one of these beautiful T Shirts, Instructions on picture. Let's all get one and wear it to council meeting.

How many by-laws in HRM would die in the Supreme Court?

Following this posting is the context of the Supreme Court decision against the Lindon Ont. City Council. As you can see the court threw out a by-law passed by the council because it was done behind closed doors. Imagine the truck load of stuff they would toss out for the HRM Council.
The Commonwealth games secrecy made Howard Hughs look like an exhibitionist. Mayor Peter Kelly the super secrecy was an agreement between all three levels of government but I have a letter signed by Peter McKay that states there was no secrecy agreement. Who clamped Mayor Kelly's and the Council's collective mouth shut. Better way to put it who is really running the city.
Tax Reform. Done behind closed doors by a selected few. "public Meetings" on it consisted of one night stands with no question and answers just posters and take it there it is.
HRM by design. By the time they got around to talking with the public at large it was already in the oven and cooked.

Here is the article on the London Ont. decision. Read it and ask yourself how many HRM Council acts and by-laws would be tossed out on these grounds. Better yet ask Mayor Kelly why the doors to Council Chambers spend so much time closed and locked against public scrutiny and, it seems , against the law.

In Camera/Out of the Public Eye
June 28th, 2007
by Eric Baum
The Latin term in camera (literally ‘in chambers’) is frequently, if somewhat ambiguously, used within the political context to refer to closed hearings and discussions that take place outside the purview of public scrutiny. Recognizing the value of accountable and transparent government, legislatures across Canada have taken pains to place limits on private, in camera meetings, ensuring citizens the right to watch their governments in action. Such is certainly the case in Ontario, in which municipal council and committee meetings are governed by the Municipal Act, section 239(1) of which creates a general obligation to hold municipal meetings in public.
Recently the Supreme Court of Canada considered London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., a case which helps to clarify the meaning of in camera as well as the contours of local governments’ responsibility to conduct their business openly. The outcome of the case also serves as a stern warning to municipalities across the country.
The Facts
In September of 2003, a group of residents complained to the City regarding the steady increase of university student housing in the Old North neighbourhood of London, located primarily in the area of Richmond Street between Huron and Grosvenor Streets. The City’s Planning Committee responded by resolving to study the issue.
In November, RSJ Holdings Inc., one of London’s largest developers, bought a piece of land on Richmond Street, intending to demolish the existing structure so as to make way for four individual residential units. RSJ applied to the City for all necessary permits and approvals. The City did not immediately respond to RSJ’s application.
In January of 2004 the City considered the question of student housing along the Richmond Street corridor in two closed meetings. During the first of these meetings, held on January 12, the City’s Planning Committee considered a draft interim control by-law that would freeze all development in the Richmond Street area. At the second meeting, held on January 19, the Committee of the Whole made two recommendations. First, they suggested that a land use study be undertaken. Second, that the City Council approve the interim control by-law freezing all development. Upon terminating this second closed meeting, City Council resumed its regular open session, during which 32 by-laws including the one in question were introduced, read and passed without debate or discussion. This public meeting lasted all of eight minutes.
Thus, on January 19, 2004, The City of London passed an interim control by-law creating a one-year freeze on all land development along the Richmond Street corridor between Huron and Grosvenor Streets. RSJ immediately applied for an order quashing the by-law for illegality on the basis that it was discussed and effectively decided at two closed-session meetings, contrary to the City’s statutory obligation under s. 239(1) of the Municipal Act.
Proceedings Below
RSJ’s application was initially dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on the basis that the closed meetings fell within the exceptions under s. 239(2), particularly s. 239(2)(e), which allows for closed municipal meetings in instances in which litigation or potential litigation is the subject of discussion. The application judge did not feel it necessary to consider the City’s additional argument that the closed meetings also fell under the solicitor-client privilege exemption provided for under s. 239(2)(f).
On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the City adopted the further position that the meeting was squarely authorized under another statute, s. 38 of the Planning Act , activating the exemption under s. 239(2)(g) of the Municipal Act. The Court of Appeal, however, was not swayed by any of the City’s three contentions, particularly that concerning potential litigation, and ruled to set aside the application judge’s decision.
In rendering its decision, the Court of Appeal was particularly concerned that the powerful nature of interim control laws should demand more, not less, transparency and accountability. In the words of Justice of Appeal Labrosse at paras. 22 and 27:
We observe that where the subject matter under consideration is an interim control by-law, it cannot be said that the subject matter under consideration is potential litigation simply because there is a statutory right of appeal by a person affected… The fact that there might be, or even inevitably would be, litigation arising from the interim control by-law does not make the “subject matter under consideration” potential litigation…
By virtue of s. 38(3) of the Planning Act, a municipality need not give prior notice or hold a public hearing before it passes an interim control by-law. However, the meeting in which Council is to consider and vote on the interim control by-law is to be open. In the face of the “draconian” nature of an interim control by-law and the reduction in rights of affected persons by virtue of s. 38(3) of the Planning Act, there is an even greater need that the meeting in which an interim control by-law is discussed be open to the public as required by s. 239(1) of the Act.
At the SCC
At the Supreme Court, the city of London pursued their third line of argumentation, suggesting that under the provisions of the Planning Act an interim control by-law may be passed without prior notice and without a public hearing. The City argued that since s.38 of the Planning Act permits the passing of a by-law in such a fashion, it follows that there was nothing improper with the City’s in camera sessions. Like the Court of Appeal, the SCC, was unconvinced. In the words of Justice Charron, speaking for a unanimous court at para. 44:
The City’s conduct in closing the two meetings in question was neither inadvertent nor trivial. In fact its council meeting of January 19, 2004 was conducted in a manner that is rather reminiscent of the problems reported more than 20 years ago that led to the passing of the statutory open meeting requirement. It is worth repeating the words of the Working Committee quoted earlier: “some municipal councils employ lengthy, in-camera special and committee meetings to discuss matters under debate and then ratify their decision in full council in a few minutes, with minimal discussion”. In my view, the eight-minute public session during the course of which the interim by-law was passed without debate or discussion along with 31 other by-laws did nothing to cure the defect.
Indeed, the SCC concluded that the City of London’s use of in camera sessions simply did not deserve the type of deference normally awarded to governmental decision-making. “When a municipal government improperly acts with secrecy, this undermines the democratic legitimacy of its decision, and such decisions, even when intra vires, are less worthy of deference” (para. 38). If nothing else, the decision serves as a warning to Canadian municipal governments that the democratic legitimacy of government operations does not rest in the electoral process alone, but also from a “decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law” (para. 38).