Courtesy TheMarkNews.com

Democracy can be a pain for those who think they know best and would rather conduct government business unsullied by public scrutiny. But for those of us who share the democratic impulse that governments ought to be accountable to the people, openness is vital. When processes are open, the public can see how decisions are made.

Openness at the local level is as essential as it is for Parliament. Indeed, the presumption of openness is enshrined in most municipal legislation across the country.

To be sure, there are some legitimate reasons for having closed meetings. Labour relations, land acquisition, security, individual privacy, legal advice, and litigation are all concerns that shouldn’t be discussed in public. But too often, councils have used closed meeting improperly. There have been too many examples of councils meeting for hours behind closed doors before making final decisions in minutes during open meetings.

The rules that govern open and closed meetings have been around for some time, but it was only in 2006 that the Ontario’s Municipal Act introduced a way to enforce those rules by allowed for the investigation of complaints that council meetings had been inappropriately held behind closed doors. Unfortunately, the government failed to set up a uniform system of investigation.

The Municipal Act allows municipalities to appoint their own investigator. If they do not do so, the provincial Ombudsman is the default investigator.

The Association of Ontario Municipalities gave its imprimatur to a firm called Amberley Gavel to offer meeting investigation services to municipalities for a fee. A number of municipalities have decided to go this route, while others have opted for individual investigators not associated with any firm. Many didn’t appoint anyone, and so “defaulted” to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s Office, of course, does not charge municipalities for its investigative services.

Giving municipalities the opportunity to choose their own investigator was supposed to be a sop to local control, but it is problematic for pragmatic and policy reasons. There is considerable risk of inconsistency in both approach and result. There is also the need to know the outcomes of research through reports. The Ombudsman does this but Amberley Gavel leaves it up to its clients to provide one or not.

Many municipalities seem to fear the Ombudsman. Some officials have criticized its “tone.” For example, the City of Oshawa had a scrape with the Ombudsman over an unreturned preliminary report. The details of this need not be rehashed here, but it is evidence that there are concerns over the Ombudsman’s approach. Still, most reported investigations appear to indicate cooperation.

Allowing different investigators harms both the credibility of the system, and the municipalities and the offices or private services that participate in it. Municipalities should be held to account by a single office with an established track record. The Ombudsman’s Office has thirty years experience with administrative investigations. It ought not to have been restricted in this way. Indeed, if anything, the jurisdiction of the office ought to be expanded to have all administrative functions of municipalities subject to its scrutiny.

The Mark is Canada’s online forum for news commentary and analysis.