Athabasca town councillor Nichole Adams believes that council has misused in-camera sessions of its regular meetings as per Municipal Government Act regulations.
An in-camera session is a portion of a meeting that is closed to the public and media. In-camera sessions are generally used to discuss personnel issues and issues where personal or legally sensitive information could be released. No motions can be passed during an in-camera session.
Following the public portion of town council’s regular meeting on Feb. 18, during which a motion was passed increasing council members’ remuneration, council went in-camera to deal with three listed agenda items.
Adams alleges that before these items were dealt with, council discussed how members would talk to the media about the new pay raises.
“We had legitimate reasons to go in camera,” Adams said, “but … to immediately use the fact that the public had left to try and control how certain councillors were going to approach that to the media afterwards is a problem.
“It shouldn’t have even been a topic of discussion, especially not right after the in-camera motion. It was a good 10–15 minutes before we even got to what we actually had to go in camera for, because they chose to talk about this other topic that shouldn’t even have been a topic of discussion.”
Adams acknowledged that she did not raise her concerns about the in-camera discussion while it was taking place.
“It’s just an issue of transparency and also following the law, because the law says we’re not supposed to be having secret meetings,” Adams contended. “We’re not supposed to be discussing things in camera unless there’s a legitimate reason and it’s on the in-camera agenda.”
She said that what she believes is inappropriate use of in-camera sessions has happened on more than one occasion.
Mayor Roger Morrill said he is unaware of any misuse of in-camera discussions.
“I’m not aware of where she’s coming from,” he said of Adams’s concerns. “She can bring that to council … I think that’s where she should discuss that and go from there.”
Town chief administrative officer Ryan Maier said, “I find it disappointing if a member of council is disclosing in-camera discussions.”
The Municipal Government Act refers to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIP) for determining reasons for a council to enter in-camera discussions. For example, council may enter an in-camera discussion when dealing with sensitive information, disclosure of which could be harmful to other parties, including: public safety, personal privacy or business interests of a third party.
If a councillor has an issue with council’s use of these discussions, they are directed by Municipal Affairs to contact their town FOIP coordinator. Melody Wolansky, assistant chief administrative officer, currently fills this position for the Town of Athabasca.
Wolansky said she is unaware of Adams’s concerns, but would look into the concerns if Adams approached her.
“She would bring it to me and we would look to see if it was out of bounds with FOIP, and we would try to resolve it from there,” Wolansky said.
Wolanksy explained the allegations could lead to an audit from Municipal Affairs, but it was unlikely.
“First, they would go by the Act and make sure that everything was in line, and if they still felt that what we were discussing in camera shouldn’t be, it would go to their (privacy) commissioner, and it could bring on an audit,” Wolansky said.
The Municipal Government Act refers to The Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIP) for the reasons a municipal council may go in camera. A motion may be made to go in camera if the disclosure of the information discussed would be:
- harmful to business interests of a third party, i.e. trade secrets, commercial, financial or technical information
- an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, i.e. personal information that relates to medical history, employment or educational history, or religious beliefs of an individual
- harmful to individual or public safety
- revelatory of evaluations of potential employees
- harmful to law enforcement, i.e. would compromise investigative techniques, procedures or confidential information
- harmful to intergovernmental relations
- revelatory of local public body confidences, i.e. draft resolutions or bylaws
- revelatory of advice from officials
- harmful to economic and other interests of a public body, i.e. trade secrets
- revelatory of testing or auditing procedures (if disclosure could prejudice the use or results of those tests/audits)
- revelatory of privileged information, i.e. information subject to solicitor-client privilege
- harmful to conservation of heritage sites or endangered species
- information that is or will be available to the public
These are only some of the reasons for non-disclosure listed under FOIP. For all reasons, see Part 1, Division 2 of the full act, which is available for free online from the Alberta Queen’s printer.
