Jess McDiarmid
Northern News Services
Published Friday, November 23, 2007

YELLOWKNIFE - City council is talking about too much behind the cloak of in-camera proceedings, according to some councillors.

Coun. David Wind served notice at a Nov. 13 council meeting that he will put forward a motion to review the criteria for closing meetings to the public and revise it as necessary.

"I respect that there may be times when it's necessary to discuss things in-camera," Wind said this week. "But I'm very concerned that we not use the in-camera provision we have to discuss things that might be politically sensitive."

Under procedural bylaw, meetings of council and its committees must be open to the public unless they fall into categories set out by the territorial Cities, Towns and Villages Act, such as personnel, contract negotiations, land and legal matters.

It must also be deemed in the public interest to discuss the matters in-camera.

Wind said he doesn't think it's a "rampant misuse of the in-camera provision" or that council is doing it for nefarious reasons.

But he said that during discussions about a particular confidential matter, a wide range of topics often come up.

"Not having anybody else in the room and not having any press in the room, it tends to get less formal," said Wind. "There can be all kinds of statements in all kinds of directions."

Councillors and staff discuss matters that don't require confidentiality but because the talks were in-camera, councillors are barred from disclosing anything to the public once the in-camera sessions are over.

That hurts the democratic process, said Wind.

"The political process, the democratic process, really depends on residents being able to have information."

Coun. Dave McCann said they've had a "bit of a problem" with the handling of in-camera sessions that's against the best interest of residents - and council.

"There's been a practice at city hall which some of us have noticed that maybe some of the issues and discussions are going on, you find yourself there wondering, well, why are we discussing this in-camera?" said McCann.

"Especially when (we) may be questioned in the streets by citizens wanting to know about this topic and you can't report to them."

That "almost dummies up" councillors and leaves too many citizens with an impression that council isn't dealing with important issues, said McCann.

Council needs to better define the "core" of confidential matters, said McCann, and while those should be private, the peripheral information and views should be public.

It would be more work but, McCann said, "It's worth the extra sweat."

Coun. Mark Heyck said it's hard to make a call on a motion that hasn't been presented yet but he hasn't seen an inappropriate item appear in the in-camera agenda.

"(Administration's) judgement is pretty good in that respect," said Heyck. "But... from time to time once council starts discussing an issue there may be times when that discussion goes a little bit beyond. That's certainly an issue."

The councillor pointed out, however, that figuring out how to move in and out of in-camera sessions based on the topic of discussion would be a challenge.

Wind wants a review of in-camera proceedings with a view of making as much council business as possible public.

The current process may require updating and specific definitions for in-camera criteria, he said, and more care in using it is needed.

He will present his motion at the city council meeting being held Nov. 26.