(français ci-dessous)

A couple of recent decisions by the municipal council of North Hatley raise questions about how such decisions are arrived at, potential conflicts of interest, and transparency in decision making at the municipal level, in North Hatley in particular, and in Québec in general. This last issue has been recently raised for Québec as a whole by some forty sitting and former municipal councillors from across Québec. They ask that, for reasons of increased transparency, working meetings of municipal councils be open to the public (as they are, for example, by law, in Ontario) (See: https://fanhca.org/2020/09/26/la-transparence-en-politique-municipale-nous-pouvons-faire-mieux-transparency-in-municipal-politics-we-can-do-better/.) In the past, a number of residents of North Hatley have asked for this but have always been rebuffed.

Two recent decisions by the municipal council of North Hatley again raise such questions. Because of the lack of transparency as to how the decisions were arrived at, and the holding of discussions in camera, the municipality, to escape even the appearance of a conflict of interest, should avoid any commercial dealings with the employers, partners, or relatives of members of the municipal council, or with the councillors themselves.

Decision 1: After purchasing two Ford 250 trucks at the Ford Yargeau Acton Vale dealership, council members voted at the June 2020 meeting to pay for extended warranties for the trucks, at a cost of $8433,41 each (later the coverage was reduced, leading to a reduction in the amounts to $7168,69 for each truck). The extended warranties were bought at the Ford dealership in Sherbrooke (Val d’Estrie), where, if I am not mistaken, the mayor is employed. There is no record in the minutes of the meeting of the mayor withdrawing at any point, and, of course, residents do not know what justifications for the purchases were discussed at the working meeting.

Decision 2: At the September 2020 meeting of the municipal council it was decided to reverse an earlier decision by Council, passed only two months previously (see resolution 2020-07-06.10), and award the partner of one of the councillors a contract to provide training for the newly-hired building inspector for North Hatley. One councillor (two were absent from the meeting, and one withdrew) voted against the decision to re-award the contract, considering a conflict of interest existed. Two councillors and the mayor voted for the decision. 

An additional problem in this second case is that the person hired to provide the training is himself a member of the Planning and Heritage Committee (CCUP), a committee the building inspector advises on a regular basis. My thirteen years on this committee, from which I have now resigned, have made clear to me that it is vitally important that the committee remain independent of Council and of the municipal administration. Through this decision, however, this independence is being weakened, since a member of the committee who is there as a resident will be training a municipal officer, who, in the future, will be advising the CCUP, of which the trainer will once again be a member. This confusion of roles — as resident and as contractual employee of the municipality — remains present despite the person to whom the contract has been awarded agreeing to step down temporarily from the committee.

This is not the first time — nor, unfortunately, probably not the last — that the basic considerations surrounding the clear avoidance of conflicts of interest have not received the attention they deserve from members of our town council. And, of course, residents have no direct knowledge of how decisions are being arrived at, since working meetings are held in camera. 

We, the taxpayers of North Hatley, can hope for, and expect, better — much better.

– Paul St-Pierre

_____________________

Quelques décisions récentes du conseil municipal de North Hatley soulèvent des questions concernant la manière que de telles décisions sont prises, les conflits d’intérêts potentiels, et la transparence du processus décisionnel au niveau municipal, à North Hatley en particulier, et au Québec en général. Cette dernière question a été soulevée récemment pour l’ensemble du Québec par une quarantaine de conseillers municipaux à travers le Québec. Ils demandent que, pour des raisons de transparence accrue, les réunions de travail des conseils municipaux soient publiques (comme elles le sont en Ontario) (Voir: https://fanhca.org/2020/09/26/la-transparence-en-politique-municipale-nous-pouvons-faire-mieux-transparency-in-municipal-politics-we-can-do-better/ ). Par le passé, un certain nombre de résidents de North Hatley ont demandé que les réunions de travail soient ouvertes au public, mais ces demandes ont toujours été rejetées.

Deux décisions récentes du conseil municipal de North Hatley rendent ces questions d’actualité encore une fois. L’opacité du processus de prise de décision et la décision d’exclure le public des réunions de travail font que la municipalité, pour éviter même l’apparence d’un conflit d’intérêt, ne devrait pas entrer dans des transactions commerciales avec les employeurs, les partenaires, ou les relations d’un membre du conseil municipal ou avec les conseillers eux-mêmes. 

Décision 1: Après avoir acheté deux camions Ford 250 chez le concessionnaire Ford Yargeau Acton Vale, les membres du conseil ont convenu lors de la réunion de juin 2020 de payer les factures de garanties prolongées pour les camions, au coût de 8433,41 $ chacun (plus tard, avec une réduction de la couverture, les montants ont été réduits à 7168,69 $ pour chaque camion), achetées chez le concessionnaire Ford de Sherbrooke (Val d’Estrie), où, si je ne me trompe, le maire est employé. Il n’y a pas de mention dans le procès-verbal de la réunion du retrait du maire à aucun moment et, bien entendu, les résidents ne savent rien de ce qui a été discuté lors de la réunion de travail.

Décision 2: À la réunion de septembre 2020 du conseil municipal, on a décidé d’annuler une décision antérieure du conseil, qu’il venait juste d’adopter en juillet 2020 (voir résolution 2020-07-06.10), et d’embaucher le partenaire d’un des conseillers pour assurer la formation de l’inspecteur en bâtiment nouvellement embauché par la municipalité. Il est à noter qu’une conseillère (deux conseillers étaient absents de la réunion, et un conseiller s’est retiré lors de la discussion et du vote) a voté contre cette décision de ré-attribuer le contrat, considérant qu’il existait bel et bien dans ce cas un conflit d’intérêts.

Cette décision comporte un problème additionnel. La personne embauchée pour encadrer l’inspecteur est elle-même membre du Comité de l’urbanisme et du patrimoine (CCUP), comité que l’inspecteur en bâtiment conseille régulièrement. Mes treize années d’expérience comme membre de ce comité (duquel j’ai démissionné dernièrement) m’ont démontré qu’il est extrêmement important que le comité garde son indépendance par rapport au Conseil et à l’administration municipale. Par cette décision, par contre, l’indépendance du comité est mise en question, puisqu’un membre du comité nommé en tant que résident donnera une formation à un officier municipal, qui, à l’avenir, conseillera le CCUP, dont l’encadreur sera redevenu membre. La confusion des rôles (résident/administration municipale) demeurera même si la personne à qui le contrat d’encadrement a été accordé a accepté de se retirer temporairement du comité.

Ce n’est certes pas la première fois — ni, malheureusement, probablement pas la dernière —que les considérations fondamentales entourant la prévention des conflits d’intérêts n’ont pas reçu l’attention qu’elles méritaient de la part des membres de notre conseil municipal. Et, bien entendu, jusqu’à présent les résidents de la municipalité ne peuvent avoir aucune connaissance directe de comment les décisions sont prises lors des réunions de travail. 

Nous, les contribuables de North Hatley, pouvons espérer mieux — beaucoup mieux.

– Paul St-Pierre

(Please scroll down for the English text and summary)

À ceux qui se préoccupent de démocratie municipale, je propose la lecture de deux récents articles qui donnent espoir qu’en matière de transparence les choses évoluent. Vous pouvez trouver le premier, publié dans La Tribune, ici : https://www.latribune.ca/actualites/40-elus-veulent-la-fin-de-la-culture-des-huis-clos-dans-les-municipalites-1f4d0bef9a3e36afd04b5ac3650904c7, et le deuxième, publié dans Le Nouvelliste, ici : https://www.lenouvelliste.ca/opinions/carrefour-des-lecteurs/pour-des-villes-plus-transparentes-aa96754327cc6ba90ad17138cd19350e

Vu que les articles sont uniquement en français, je me suis permis de faire un résumé de leur contenu en anglais pour nos lecteurs anglophones. Ce résumé suit l’introduction en la matière en anglais.

__________

For those of you who are interested in municipal democracy, and especially if you are concerned by transparency issues, I recommend two recent articles. The first, published in La Tribune can be found here: https://www.latribune.ca/actualites/40-elus-veulent-la-fin-de-la-culture-des-huis-clos-dans-les-municipalites-1f4d0bef9a3e36afd04b5ac3650904c7

and the second, published in Le Nouvelliste, here:  https://www.lenouvelliste.ca/opinions/carrefour-des-lecteurs/pour-des-villes-plus-transparentes-aa96754327cc6ba90ad17138cd19350e

These articles attack the current policy of many municipalities in Quebec of holding important council meetings behind closed doors. Given that the articles are written in French, I have put together a summary, which follows below, of the content of the articles for our English speaking readers. 

Summary:

These articles recount how past and present council members from different Québec villages and municipalities are lobbying to have the province pass a law which would require all full council meetings, including working meetings, to be open to the public. They are lobbying for closed door meetings to be the exception to the rule and allowed only in accordance with strict guidelines. 

Close to forty elected officials, led by Sherbrooke Councillor Évelyne Beaudin and Rimouski Councillor Virginie Proulx, have signed a letter addressed to the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs asking that council meetings held behind closed doors be the exception rather than the rule and that a law be passed providing a framework for the holding of in camera sessions.  They argue that in municipalities across Québec important issues of interest to the population are debated behind closed doors during working meetings of council and important decisions are made without the presence of the citizens which the councillors represent.  Often such decisions can take on a political flavour but concerned citizens do not have the opportunity to voice their opinions or concerns before such decisions are made. 

Furthermore, argue Councillors Beaudin and Proulx, citizens have no way of knowing what positions are being taken by individual councillors that represent them, nor what considerations may have led to a particular decision being taken by Council.  Furthermore, often municipal employees attend Council meetings and present important information relevant to the questions and files being discussed at the meetings. Such information should be available to the public.

The fact that important decisions are being taken during in camera sessions of Municipal Councils can lead to situations of exclusion and intimidation in situations where council members wish to express views that are contrary to those of the majority.  Virginie Proulx refers to the Charbonneau Commission Report and in particular to Recommendation No. 51 which recommends that the government adopt legislation, inspired by sections 239 and 239.1 of the 2001 Ontario Law, limiting the exceptions to the rule that deliberations by elected municipal officials be public. 

According to Évelyne Beaudin, these legislative provisions provide for only nine subject matters that constitute exceptions to the rule and that can therefore be examined by elected officials in a confidential manner.  Recourse to these exceptions must be justified publicly. There is nothing which justifies the rules governing Ontario municipal politics being different than the rules governing Quebec municipal politics.

The article in the Nouvelliste also talks about how the role of municipalities in provincial politics has evolved over the years – Municipalities now have a role to play in economic development, quality of life and preservation of the natural environment.  This also justifies the importance of re-evaluating the democratic process so that decisions that have an important impact on citizens are explained and debated in a manner that is as open as possible.

The point is further made that if the government doesn’t act to install clear rules, qualified persons might not present themselves as candidates in the next municipal elections. As a result, people will become more and more disinterested in municipal politics and public cynicism in the process will increase.

Councillor Beaudin concludes by saying that each councillor signing the letter to the Minister will attempt to have a resolution passed by Council adopting Recommendation 51 of the Charbonneau Commission Report. She believes that the City of Sherbrooke could discuss the subject at one of it’s Council meetings to be held this fall.

– Jane Meagher

(Please scroll down for the English text)

« L’édition du 19 septembre 2014 de Nouvelles du conseil rend compte des deux séances d’information portes ouvertes sur le projet Laliberté, tenues les 24 et 30 août. Elle est disponible ici: http://www.northhatley.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nouvelles-du-conseil-2014-09.pdf

 « Malheureusement, elle ne contient guère plus qu’un résumé des commentaires du public. L’objectif principal de l’événement est mal représenté, même dans la brève description : le terme « plans architecturaux » est utilisé dans l’article et pourtant, ce sont précisément ces plans qui étaient notamment absents des présentations.

 « Ce sont des composites qui nous ont été présentés : des images quasi-photographiques manipulées. Une seule des images – le long panorama du bord de l’eau vu du pont de chemin de fer – replaçait le projet proposé dans le contexte des bâtiments existants. En raison de l’optique choisie pour faire cette présentation, le projet inséré est à échelle réduite, peut-être dans le but de minimiser son impact.

 « (Nous craignons) que les personnes qui préparent Info Village, ou celles qui lui fournissent les articles, ne connaissent pas suffisamment cette terminologie et, par extension, ne soient pas suffisamment informées pour évaluer correctement ce qui est présenté à la population. » – fanhca

______________________

“The 19th September 2014 edition of News From Council reports on the two public information sessions regarding the Laliberté project, held on August 24th and 30th. It is available for download here: http://www.northhatley.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nouvelles-du-conseil-2014-09.pdf

“Unfortunately it contains little more than a summary overview of comments from the public. The main focus of the event is misrepresented even in the short description: the terms ‘blueprints’ and ‘architectural plans’ are used in the article and yet those are the very items that were notably absent in the presentations.

“What we saw were composites: manipulated quasi-photographic images. Only one of the images – the long panorama of the waterfront as viewed from the trestle – went as far as to place the proposed project in context with existing buildings. Because of the optics chosen to make this presentation, the project being inserted is reduced in scale, perhaps for the purpose of understating its impact.

“(We are) concerned that the people who prepare Info Village, or those who supply copy for it, are not sufficiently versed in such terminology and, by extension, may not be adequately knowledgeable to properly assess what is being presented to the population.”  – fanhca