City council and local government have a responsibility, under the B.C. Community Charter, to operate in an open and transparent manner. The basis for transparency rules is that democratic countries rely on an informed population to make decisions regarding issues and elected leaders.
Canadian political parties of every level recognize how important transparency is to citizens, and so routinely make promises to create more open governments.
Most recently, on July 19 the provincial government announced measures to increase access to information and transparency.
But a local municipal councillor who is quickly becoming the champion of transparency zealots - and whose past actions were found to have breached the Privacy Act in provincial court - is denouncing Community Charter and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act rules as inadequate.
Prince George Coun. Brian Skakun says changes are needed to allow elected officials and members of the public greater access to government information.
"It gives the municipality too much discretional authority," he said. "The head of a public body has the authority to decide what is in the public interest."
He says local council is holding too many closed door meetings.
"The public should be able to see the debate - what council said on the issue. You should always err on the side of transparency," he said.
The legislation also has too little oversight, he said.
In Prince George the authority to release government information is concentrated primarily in the hands of the city manager and city clerk.
"There is an inner circle that controls everything council gets," Skakun said. "This city council really has to look at what goes on at closed meetings. We're having a closed meeting before almost every [public] meeting.
"I don't think administration gets challenged often enough on what section of the charter it falls under."
FOR THE RECORD
Since the beginning of the year, city council has had 15 regular public meetings, four budget meetings, two special public meetings and 13 closed meetings. In 2010 council had 25 regular public meetings, five budget meetings, two special meetings and 22 closed meetings.
The most recent closed meeting held July 25 at 4:30 p.m. discuss the annual municipal report; have preliminary discussions about the provision of services which could harm the city's interest if discussed publicly; discussion of litigation or potential litigation effecting the city; and the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land.
OBSTACLES TO INFORMATION
Members of the public and elected officials can file freedom of information requests and challenge a decision to close a meeting or withhold information. But the process can be time consuming, costly and difficult.
Skakun contends that the provincial government has shown leadership by reducing the barriers to access information provincially, and it's time for local governments to follow that lead.
"The average person doesn't have the resources to do that, so they give up," he said.
Skakun said he plans to raise the transparency issue at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual general meeting in September. The union represents B.C. local governments and makes policy recommendations to the provincial government based on resolutions passed by members during the AGM.
"If the UBCM doesn't support it, I think it's dead in the water," Skakun said.
Spokespeople for the Union of B.C. Municipalities and Federation of Canadian Municipalities said the municipal organizations are not involved in setting best practices for local governments.
GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY QUESTIONED
In July, The Citizen reported on a June 20 closed council meeting discussing the controversial plan to build a stand-alone arena at Exhibition Park. Mayor Dan Rogers and city manager Derek Bates described as an "informal briefing session for council."
B.C. Civil Liberties Association executive director David Eby said residents should be concerned about such meetings taking place.
"The law is pretty clear. The city council is a legal body which can only meet in certain ways, proscribed by the Community Charter," Eby said. "There are very detailed exceptions allowed under the Community Charter. If they can't point to that and say, 'This meeting took place behind closed doors for this reason,' then that meeting has to take place in the public eye."
The Community Charter's requirement for open meetings extends to committees and other bodies of the municipality, he added.
"The default for city council should be full disclosure and transparency," Eby said. "It speaks to freedom of expression. You can't freely express yourself about your government if you don't know what it's up to. It also speaks to freedom to vote. You can't vote in an informed way if you don't know what they are doing."
MAYOR RESPONDS
Mayor Dan Rogers said openness and transparency are "something we take as a top priority," at the city.
Legislation sets the legal framework which the city must operate under, he said.
However the city has gone to great lengths to exceed the minimum requirements set in legislation by taking steps to make information available and accessible.
"You can start with our annual report."
This year the city pioneered an interactive, multimedia annual report which is available through its website. The website itself was revamped in March to provide greater opportunities for public feedback and improve access to information.
The city also engaged with residents through the myPG program, Smart Growth on the Ground and consultation on the Official Community Plan, Rogers said.
In June the city held three neighbourhood community engagement meetings, "to get their feedback on the issues that are important to them."
"It's one of the strengths of local government. We're the most accessible level of government," he said. "Fundamental to that [transparency] is making sure that people have access to their elected officials. I always listen when people have concerns."
However that accessibility itself led to criticism when the mayor met with a project opponent in private while the project's public hearing process was pending in violation of the Community Charter.
WHO HAS OVERSIGHT?
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, which has responsibility for local government, said the Community Charter sets the requirements for transparency, including closed council meetings.
However, the ministry is considering developing a best-practice guide for municipalities and does have information for councillors online.
A municipal council accused of contravening the legislation would have to be brought before the courts to determine if it did, in fact, act outside its authority.
The Ombudspersons' Office, which is authorized to investigates complaints against public bodies, has no authority regarding alleged breaches of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That jurisdiction falls to the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, which can investigate and issue orders.
The most recent investigation and order involving the City of Prince George dates to May 15, 1998. Then commissioner David Flaherty ruled the city had done its duty in searching for documents.
A spokesperson for the Information and Privacy Commissioner could not be reached as of press time for comment.
