As a part of THE EQUITY’s ongoing coverage of the monthly behind-closed-doors meetings of the Council of Mayors, we asked the mayors where they stood on the issue. THE EQUITY managed to contact nine mayors, half of the total, and asked them for their views on whether the monthly plenary meetings should remain private or be opened up to the public.

Of the mayors we spoke to, all of them agreed that they . . .

need some level of official privacy to discuss certain issues that require confidentiality. However, there was a diverse range of opinions on the extent to which these meetings should be open to the public, or whether they should be open at all.

A few mayors spoke in defense of the current system.

Sandra Armstrong, mayor of Mansfield et Pontefract and pro-warden of the MRC said that the public meetings a week after the plenary meetings are sufficient for transparency, as everything discussed at plenary is made public anyway at the public meetings.

Armstrong compared the plenary meetings of the mayors to an executive board of a company, saying they served as a venue for an important work meeting that were required to work through the issues.

“[The public] have a right to know [what public officials are deciding],‘’ said Armstrong. “It’s their money we’re spending and each mayor sitting on that table is supposed to protect their taxpayers. But there are things privately that we cannot do in public, like names or ongoing projects to be decided on.”

She went further to say that you would need the entire council to agree to change the plenary meetings in order for her to be in favour of a change.

Doris Ranger, mayor of Sheenboro, is also in favour of plenary meetings staying as they are. She said private plenary meetings are important as they allow mayors to speak their mind and work through new issues.

“That’s where you hang out your dirty laundry,” said Ranger. “That’s where we bring out all our stuff. And then we put it all together, we come up with the best idea. And that’s what we think is good for our region.”

Ranger stated that Quebec Municipal Code required plenary caucus meetings to be held privately. However, based on THE EQUITY’s research, while private plenary committee meetings are allowed, they are not required by law.

Colleen Larivière, mayor of Litchfield, who prior to being mayor was the director general of Campbell’s Bay said she while she’s not in favour of the council abandoning the private plenaries (working sessions), she does believe there needs to be a lot more transparency on how the Council of Mayors reaches decisions.

“We always had an hour and a half working session before a meeting, just to make sure that everybody understood the files and so on and so forth,” said Larivière. “We need working sessions, that’s a definite, but I agree more information needs to be given out during the public meetings.”

“I’m sure it gives the impression that we’re all sitting there agreeing on everything but that’s not the way it is,” said Larivière about the public meetings. “ There’s always a lot of discussion [at the plenary].

Larivière said that public plenary meetings would face a logistical obstacle due to their length. She said the MRC needs to hold public meetings in the evening in order to give a reasonable chance for the public to attend, but due to the length of plenary meetings they would likely often carry over into the early morning. Other mayors also commented that the length of the plenary sessions are already a problem, and opening up to the public would add to that.

“It’s definitely the public’s right to know and our obligation to make sure they do know what’s going on,” said Larivière.

Odette Godin, mayor of Waltham, said that while transparency is important, she has not been involved in the process long enough to have a firm stance on whether the plenary meeting should be reformed.

“It’s not because there’s any scheming or anything like that, but it’s more so that mayors feel comfortable saying what they think without being worried about somebody being offended in the moment,” said Godin. “I don’t think the public needs to know any infighting or any personality clashes.”

Godin emphasised that being a new mayor, she may become in favour of reform once she gets more experience sitting at council.

Likewise, Edward Walsh, the mayor of Clarendon, also felt he was too inexperienced on council to take a firm stance. However, he did lean towards opening up the plenary meetings to the public.

“I’ve seen some topics that needed some more info on details before presented to the public,” said Walsh. “There are certain things that have to be discussed privately but there is stuff that I don’t think has to be.”

He said that the questions asked and stances the mayors take during the plenary should be public knowledge and he is open to transparency during the plenary meeting.

Other mayors took firmer stances in favour of reforming the way the plenaries work, even though again, they all believed in some mechanism to go in-camera (meet in private) for certain issues.

Bill McCleary, mayor of Shawville, was sympathetic to criticism of the way the Council of Mayors conducts its business.

“It does seem kind of secretive the way it’s done because all you guys see is us voting on a resolution we’ve discussed, so you have absolutely no idea what the discussions were and how people felt,” said McCleary. “I don’t know what the answer is. There are obviously things that you can talk about with the public or press there.”

McCleary says the way votes happen at the public meetings often take place in a way that leaves the press and the public in the dark about what is actually being voted on, as it has already been decided at the plenary meeting. He went on to say that mayors often didn’t have the chance to express opposition to particular motions at the public meetings because motions are approved so quickly.

McCleary said he didn’t care whether or not the plenary meetings were public or private as it would not change what he would say. He is in favour of scheduling the plenaries into two parts to allow the public to attend the first part and then close them when confidential business needs to be discussed.

Lynn Cameron, mayor of Portage du Fort also believes in a similar model, though spoke in defence of the merits of private meetings.

“In our municipal meetings I always call it a safe zone where you can speak your mind and not have to worry about any repercussions,” said Cameron about her use of in-camera meetings. “In small municipalities, even if it’s the best thing for the municipality, people don’t like to hear it.”

Cameron is in favour of using in-camera meetings only for a set number issues where the confidentiality of individuals or companies needs to be protected.

“The public should have a right to know how the decisions came about,” said Cameron

Likewise, the mayor of Rapides des Joachims, Doug Rouselle believes that there needs to be an option to go in-camera for certain issues, but if the council wants to be more open with plenary meetings then he’s in favour of it.

Christine Francoeur, mayor of Fort-Coulonge, is also in favour of opening up the process more.

“I do think that some subjects really need to remain private because it concerns some certain people that do not want the whole world to know them,” said Francoeur. “Let’s say you bring up a problem to the MRC but you don’t want your neighbors to know about it. Well, something like that should be discussed privately. But basically, I say that, yes, they could be open.”

Warden Jane Toller is also in favour of making all the meetings public.

“Previously, I was on the City of Toronto Council and we didn’t have a planning meeting before the main meeting,” said Toller. “We only had the main meeting, and everything was discussed and debated in public.”

Toller said that, like the others, there needs to be some mechanism to go in-camera on certain issues, but is looking into moving towards more transparency.

“The benefit of this is that people in the Pontiac would have an opportunity to hear how all of their mayors feel on different issues and they can also see what is behind our decisions,” she said. “What does the debate consist of? Is it fiscal responsibility, is it social consciousness, is it the environment? What is it that guides our council? Most of all, is it integrity and is it transparency? I feel we have nothing to hide.”

Toller hasn’t given a timeline on when she plans on opening up the plenaries, though does plan on asking mayors to explain their positions on at least two issues at Wednesday night’s public meeting of the council of mayors.

“I would be proud to be the first MRC that had its meetings all entirely in public,” said Toller.

Register or subscribe to read this content

Thanks for stopping by! This article is available to readers who have created a free account or who subscribe to The Equity.

When you register for free with your email, you get access to a limited number of stories at no cost. Subscribers enjoy unlimited access to everything we publish—and directly support quality local journalism here in the Pontiac.

Register or Subscribe Today!