Regina city council votes against motion to increase transparency

Transparency was on the agenda for Regina city councillors on Wednesday, but at the end the majorityvoted 6-5 against a motion referring to transparent decision making.

Ward 6 Coun. Daniel LeBlanc introduced the proposal during the meeting, calling for the city council to commit "to more transparent decision-making, including fewer secret meetings."

The motion outlines that according to Section 14(1) to the city's procedure bylaw, all meetings of council are supposed to be held in an open and public manner.

Section 14(2) of the bylaw says that a meeting can only be moved to a private setting when the majority of councillors in attendance vote to do so.

In his proposal,LeBlanc said both sections have been violated since November2020, alleging that administration regularly put matters on a "private agenda" for the city's executive committee.

"This politically-sensitive task of deciding what ought to be debated in private should only be done by elected people," said LeBlanc on Wednesday.

"It's by no means suggesting that we don't trust our staff to make good decisions."

'That makes us more accountable':LeBlanc

Citizens have a choice whether they want to re-elect a councillor or not, and therefore voters should know if and when elected officials decide to move matters into private, he said.

Councillors maybe less likely to move issues into private discussion because there could be a political price to pay at the next election, said LeBlanc.

He recommendedimplementing a process where all matters coming before the executive committee should be placed on the publicly-circulated agenda.

Administrative staff could suggest at the public committee meeting if they believe a matter should be discussed in private, and members of council could publicly debate if that move was justifiable, said LeBlanc.

If city administration felt that certain material associated with an agenda item should not be shared publicly, they could choose to not include the information in the public agenda. The materialcould be provided oncethe committee moves in-camera.

A general summary of those materials would then be shared once the meeting returns to a public format, according to the motion.

"That makes us more accountable and transparent," said LeBlanc. "Which will lead to better decision-making and I think more faith from the public."

Challenges of motion

Interim City Manager Jim Nicol answered several questions about potential challenges the motion could create.

Administrative staff might have additionalinformation which they wanted to raise in privateand therefore not include on the public agenda.

"I can foresee a problem if six members of council or a large majority did not accept the administration's recommendation to go in camera, then what would happen?" he said.

"Then you may be making a decision that you do not have the full understanding of the implications."

Putting items on a private rather than public agenda was not done lightly during his tenure, saidthe former city clerk and now interim city manager.

Nicolexplained that if the city's executive committee decided during a meeting that an item should not be on a private meeting agenda, members could vote to direct the matter to city council, put it on a future public agenda of the committee or ask the city manager to withdraw it.

All decisions of city council have to be made with the cameras rolling and the public having free access, he said.

Six councillors vote against the motion

After the debate, Mayor Sandra Masters, Ward 4 Coun. Lori Bresciani, Ward 5 Coun. John Findura, Ward 7 Coun. Terina Shaw, Ward 9 Coun. Jason Mancinelliand Ward 10 Coun. Landon Mohl voted against both items of the motion.

Masters said the council did not make decisions in a secretive way.

"The motion, as it's written using that language, is unfair, it's inaccurate and it's misleading," she said. "I do not believe there's been a threshold that's been met here for a change."

Mancinelli, who also voted against the proposal, said it is his responsibility to make decisions in public. However, he also appreciates time in private to understand a decision before making it publicly.

"I think administration has used their judgment quite adequately throughout my term as a councillor to provide me with a little bit of a heads-up in a private manner," he said.

"I haven't tried to hide things from people. I believe in open government."

Bresciani said she felt absolutely disheartened when she read the motion and that she is happy with the status quo.

"I think it's very dangerous when we allow politicians to start creating agendas," she said."I am disappointed that this even comes forward."

Even though Ward 3 Coun. Andrew Stevens and Ward 2 Coun. Bob Hawkins voted in favour of the motion, they said it was not correct that councillors constantly made decisions about items in private.

"Of all levels of government in this country, I believe that municipal governments are the most transparent," said Hawkins.

"I think that this motion really brings very little new ground."