Welland, City of

The Ombudsman found that, in a resolution to close a meeting on September 17, 2019, council for the City of Welland failed to state the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings. The description of the subjects to be discussed was included in the meeting’s agenda. The Ombudsman encouraged the municipality to ensure that resolutions to go into closed session contain a general description of the topics to be discussed, to the extent possible without undermining the reason for closing the meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the City of Welland held on September 17, 2019. He found that an in camera discussion about appointing candidates to two city committees fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. He also noted that the municipality did not comply with the open meeting rules when it failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera within the resolution to go into closed session.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to appoint a new member of council. The Ombudsman commended the municipality for recording open and closed meetings of council. However, in this case, the audio recording system failed to work properly during the closed meeting. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality review its audio recording system to ensure it is working properly.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to appoint a new member of council. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council voted by way of secret ballot to select a candidate to fill the council vacancy. The Ombudsman found that the vote was improper as it was not taken during a properly closed meeting and was not for a procedural matter or to provide direction to staff. The Ombudsman also found that ballot voting is prohibited by the Municipal Act, 2001, with limited exceptions, and such votes are of no effect.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the personal matters exception to appoint a new member of council. The in camera discussion did not include any personal information about the candidates, rather the discussion focused on the voting procedure for selecting a candidate. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss potential litigation against a party pertaining to the Flatwater Centre. The municipality’s solicitors were present and provided advice on the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the fact that a municipal staff member had written a cheque without council approval. The municipality’s solicitors were present during the closed session and provided legal advice regarding how councillors should respond to public concerns about the matter.  The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception to discuss a shared services proposal with the public library. Council discussed staffing changes, workload, and the roles of particular employees. The labour relations or employee negotiations exception refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss potential litigation against a party pertaining to the Flatwater Centre, located in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that council was genuinely contemplating litigation during the closed session. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss a marketing plan prepared by an economic development consultant. The municipality believed that the marketing plan contained sensitive business information and should be confidential. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because council did not discuss a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss a marketing plan prepared by an economic development consultant. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because it wanted to protect its competitive advantage over neighbouring municipalities in attracting new business. The Ombudsman found that while the municipality has a property interest in its marketing plan, the subject matter of the closed session discussion was not protecting the marketing plan from loss or damage. Rather, the discussion involved sharing the marketing plan itself with council. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss whether the municipality should support a bid by a local corporation to host the 2016 Pan American canoe sprint championships. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because it believed the chance of a successful bid would be diminished if detailed information about the bid was made public. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because council did not discuss preventing loss or damage to the bid. Although council had a desire to maintain confidentiality to protect the interests of the city, section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not apply to a matter that is only considered sensitive or confidential, or against the municipality’s interests to discuss publicly.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to receive a presentation from staff regarding the local development corporation’s strategic plan. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The strategic plan had been approved by council at an earlier open meeting. During the closed session, council discussed information relating to the municipality that it considered sensitive. The purpose of the education or training exception is not to shield sensitive information from the public. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception because the discussion did not relate solely to educating council, rather it was intended to inform their decision-making and advance the formulation of the municipality’s economic strategy.