Norfolk County council and staff have received criticism from Ontario’s Ombudsman for entering closed sessions when it was not warranted.
The Ombudsman reviewed four reported incidents, clearing only one and raising concerns about the justification for the other three, as they did not meet the criteria for closed sessions.
One particular incident on January 9th was criticized on two counts: the resolution to go in-camera lacked sufficient detail, and the subject matter discussed did not qualify for an exception to open meeting rules.
During that closed session, council reportedly discussed a recently purchased sign and the subsequent social media backlash.
The reasoning for going in-camera was that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was concerned about the possibility of a lawsuit related to the sign and feared that discussing the matter publicly might provoke legal action from the public.
In December, Norfolk County unveiled the illuminated “Norfolk” sign, which sparked online controversy due to its steep price tag of over $30,000.
After receiving the preliminary report, council disagreed with Ombudsman on the January 9th meeting.
The report notes that council expressed that, at the time of the meeting, the risk of litigation was real and not speculative.
Otherwise, council agreed to ensure that, in future, it will adhere to the report’s recommendations when meeting in closed session.
The full Ombudsman report is available here.
Written by Matt LeBlanc