Cambridge council motion may not be legal, democracy watchdog says

A move by Cambridge city council to prohibit councillors from attending in-camera committee meetings if the councillor doesn't sit on that committee is likely not legal, a democracy watchdog says.

"I think it's actually not legal under the Municipal Act. The only people you're allowed to shut out of an in-camera meeting are members of the public and I think a councillor is, by definition, not a member of the public," Duff Conacher, co-founder of the group Democracy Watch, told The Morning Edition's host Craig Norris Friday.

• Cambridge multiplex behind council's move to restrict access to in-camera committee meetings
• Cambridge council limits access to in-camera committee meetings
• CBC coverage of the Cambridge Multiplex project

"They're a member of the council and they not only legally – I think – have a right to attend, but should be attending because it's a good check on other councillors, especially committee members, to ensure that they are not somehow working together as a cabal to violate the requirement to have open meetings."

Conacher said he's never heard of a city restricting councillor access to in-camera committee meetings.

"I've heard of things like this on student councils in universities, which are considered to be hotbeds of factionalism and kind of petty disputes," he said. "I haven't heard about this on city councils."

Taking documents, passing notes

On Tuesday night, Cambridge council voted 5-4 to pass a motion that restricts attendance at in-camera committee meetings to those who sit on that particular committee.

The issue came to a head after Coun. Jan Liggett attended in-camera meetings on the proposed sports multiplex.

Coun. Frank Monteiro said a councillor – he did not name Liggett but Liggett has said it was her – took documentation from a meeting and passed a note to a committee member.

Liggett told CBC she only took documentation she was told was acceptable to remove from the room. The note, she said, had nothing to do with the matter under debate.

Liggett said she defended herself at Tuesday night's meeting, telling her fellow councillors, "I don't know what you think I'm doing, why you think I have this evil intent of attending these meetings."

'Huge overreaction'

Conacher said he doesn't see any issue with Liggett passing someone a note. If she had wanted to speak at the meeting, however, rules of order would require she first obtains permission from the committee.

"But passing a note? The person who receives it will decide whether they're going to raise the point you might be raising, or maybe it's just a note about, 'When this is done, do you want to have lunch?'" he said.

"I don't see a concern about that at all. I really think this is a huge overreaction and in terms of shutting out councillors from in-camera meetings of committees of council, also illegal."

I think the city's going to hear back that, no, you can't shut out councillors.- Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch

Conacher said if a councillor has a problem with the change to the procedural bylaw for in-camera meetings, they should discuss it with the ombudsman. 

Ombudsman? 

Staff at both the Waterloo Area Municipal Ombudsman and the Ontario Ombudsman offices told CBC they could not speak directly on this matter unless they had already investigated, prepared and presented a report to council. Their offices also do not confirm whether an investigation has been requested or is underway.

"I think the city's going to hear back that, no, you can't shut out councillors. Hopefully that would resolve it and reverse the bylaw and a lawsuit would not be necessary," Conacher said.

"If the councillor went to court, the councillor would win."