Emily Bowen, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Mildmay Town Crier

TEESWATER – A series of motions tied to transparency and accountability stirred debate at the May 12 South Bruce council meeting, with councillors weighing how much access the public should have to municipal decision-making and how far the municipality should go to provide it.

Council considered four motions brought forward in a report by Deputy Mayor Van Dyk, each aimed at improving how information is shared either within council or with the public. Only one, a change to how closed session materials are distributed, was approved. The others were defeated or stalled after councillors raised concerns about cost, necessity and staff workload.

The discussion throughout the meeting showed a clear divide on what transparency should look like, with some members wanting more access to information and others saying the current system already lets people see enough. 

Tracking unfinished motions

The first motion proposed a new internal tool: a quarterly “information only” email prepared by staff that would list all motions passed by council that have not yet been completed, along with updates on their status. The report described the intent as a way to ensure the council maintains awareness of ongoing items that may take time to complete or may be delayed. It would also allow councillors to request further discussion or bring items forward to a future agenda if needed.

The motion resulted in a tied vote and did not pass.

“We’re talking about correcting a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Councillor Mark Ireland. “If we get to a point where there’s a problem and things are falling through the cracks or whatever, then that’s time to take action.”

“I’m in favor of some kind of a list that keeps an eye on things that we talk about,” said Councillor Jeff Goetz. “It’s never a bad idea to track open items and read it once in a while. It shouldn’t take much effort, because that list is somewhere anyways.”

Clerk Vivianne Kennedy told council that information on ongoing projects is already available when requested, and that staff can provide updates as needed.

“If Council wishes at any point in time to have any status update on any project with the municipality, please do just call,” she said. “Because we’re able to help you with that. And if I don’t have the information readily available, I’d be sure to get it to you in a timely fashion.”

The vote was tied, so the proposal did not move forward. The current approach will remain the same, with councillors requesting updates as needed. 

Recording council meetings

The second motion called for staff to prepare a report outlining options and costs for video recording council meetings and publishing those recordings online for public viewing. The proposal also included consideration of closed captioning to meet accessibility requirements for recorded sessions.

“For example, my wife right now is away with my son at a soccer game tonight. She couldn’t see this council meeting if she wanted to,” said Van Dyk. “I know there’s lots of other parents with kids in sports and recreation activities, and if they wanted to see the council meeting, they wouldn’t be able to be here tonight or watch it live. So I think recording would be a great thing for transparency.”

Kennedy referenced previous work on the issue, noting that council had already considered recording meetings in the past.

“There was a report brought back in 2021… further to a June 9, 2020 report, where Council passed a motion that agreed that the official record of the municipal council meeting is the written minutes as adopted by council,” she said. “And further that virtual council meetings of the municipality will no longer be recorded using audio or visual equipment.”

The financial aspect of the proposal became an important point to the discussion. Kennedy provided cost estimates from the past review, noting that quotes were “around 30,000 for the initial and then around 23,500 for annual fee thereafter.”

South Bruce remains one of the few municipalities in the region that does not record its council meetings, relying instead on written minutes as the official record. While many neighbouring municipalities have moved toward video recordings to improve public access, South Bruce has maintained its existing approach, with council opting not to revisit or adopt recording.

“We can’t always do what every other municipality does,” said Mayor Mark Goetz. “I keep saying that we’ve got to get back to our core mandate, as some of them have been suffering. We’ve had two bridges closed out west of town here for how long? I don’t think it’s fiscally responsible to spend money on a recording of a council meeting.”

He added that there are existing ways residents can stay informed.

“The minutes are posted online, and anybody can access them at any time. And you know, the media usually has coverage of the council meeting anyways.”

Kennedy noted that while official recordings are not provided by the municipality, individuals are not restricted from recording meetings themselves.

“There’s nothing to say that somebody couldn’t hold their phone and record the whole meeting,” she said.

Councillor Mike McDonough raised concerns about how the council’s work is perceived publicly, particularly online.

“I was disappointed and shocked to see that this council hasn’t been transparent,” he said. “I thought we were pretty upfront and honest . So to see this going around social media and then see counselors taking credit for work being done by themselves was quite a shock. I think if we need any policy made, it’s maybe a social media policy.”

Despite arguments in favour of improving access, the motion to explore recording meetings was defeated, leaving in place the current system where written minutes serve as the official record.

Recording closed session meetings

The third motion proposed that staff prepare a report on the options and costs of video recording closed session meetings and archiving those recordings for future reference.

Closed sessions are used by council to discuss sensitive matters, and the proposal suggested that having an exact record of those discussions could assist council and staff when revisiting past decisions or clarifying direction.

The motion was defeated.

No change will be made to how closed session discussions are documented, with written records continuing as the primary reference.

Earlier access to closed session materials

The fourth motion focused on how the council prepares for closed session meetings rather than how information is shared publicly.

Council approved a direction for staff to circulate closed session agenda packages to members at least 48 hours before meetings. The report described the need for additional preparation time, noting that closed session discussions often involve sensitive issues with tight timelines that require decisions during the meeting itself.

Providing materials earlier is intended to give councillors time to review, understand and assess the information before discussions begin, reducing the likelihood of rushed decisions or delays caused by the need for further review.

The motion carried, marking the only approved item from the report.

Across all four motions, council’s discussion reflected differing views on transparency, accountability and the role of municipal government in providing access to information. Some councillors supported additional tools and processes that could improve visibility into council operations, particularly for residents who are unable to attend meetings in person.

Others maintained that existing practices – including written minutes, direct communication with staff and media reporting – already provide sufficient access, and that additional measures would create unnecessary costs or administrative burden.

“I take offense to somebody thinking that we’re not being transparent,” said Mayor Goetz. “There’s a certain number of people you’ll never satisfy no matter what you do. I’m not about to make any more work for staff on top of that, and I’m not in favor of spending taxpayers money on this.”

The decisions made at the May 12 meeting leave South Bruce’s approach to transparency largely unchanged, aside from the earlier distribution of closed session materials.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---