BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
Your Data Your Rights
The Regional District of Fraser-Fort George (RDFFG) is one of only three regional districts in the province which neither records how directors vote in meeting minutes, nor publishes video or audio recordings of its meetings online.
In August, RDFFG directors voted 7-6 against a procedural bylaw amendment which would have obligated the District to record votes opposing a motion within meeting minutes. Directors opposed to the amendment expressed concern that voting on the record may lead the media to single out directors, or lead to more harassment from constituents.
The board returned to the proposed amendment during their October 17th meeting, with a slight tweak: the latest version of the proposal would have opposing votes recorded in the minutes by default, but directors could request not to have their vote recorded. However, directors voted to postpone making a decision on whether to adopt the amended bylaw, to give staff more time to research the legal implications of not recording votes.
Of the 17 districts that record votes in their meeting minutes, only one – the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary – allows directors to opt out of having their vote recorded. The RDFFG, if the latest version of the proposed bylaw amendment is adopted, would become the second district with this policy.
Voting transparency policies common, though not required
The Local Government Act requires regional districts to adopt procedural bylaws which establish the appropriate conduct and processes for board meetings. While the Province provides guidelines on what should be included in these bylaws, including best practices for meeting minutes, the guidelines do not suggest recording opposing votes in the minutes. Likewise, the guidelines do not suggest making meeting recordings available to the public.
The Goat analyzed procedural bylaws and interviewed staff from regional districts throughout the province to determine how common it is to record opposing votes and make video or audio recordings of meetings available to the public. Despite the lack of legislative requirements to do either, both of these practices are typical of most of B.C.’s 27 regional districts.
The vast majority of regional districts – about 74 per cent – publish recordings of their meetings online. Roughly 61 per cent record opposing votes in meeting minutes.
Just three regional districts – the RDFFG, the Cariboo Regional District, and the North Coast Regional District – neither record votes nor make meeting recordings available. The Cariboo Regional District and North Coast Regional District did not respond to The Goat’s request for comment on whether they have considered recording votes in their meeting minutes, or making audio and video recordings of meetings available.
There are 27 Regional Districts in B.C., depicted above. Blue districts have audio/video recordings of their meetings online, as well as vote records in meeting minutes. Green districts have audio/video recordings but do not record votes in the minutes, and yellow districts record votes in the minutes but do not have audio/video recordings. The three red districts neither record meetings, nor do their bylaws obligate them to record how directors vote.
Voting practices impact freedom of information requests
The RDFFG currently only records how directors vote if they explicitly request that their opposition be noted in meeting minutes. When a director does not request this, their vote is not recorded anywhere – meaning freedom of information requests about a vote may not yield any information on how specific directors voted, according to General Manager of Legislative and Corporate Services Maureen Connelly.
“With respect to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, open board and committee meetings are public, so they follow the [freedom of information] process and are accessible,” Connelly said. “With respect to not recording the names of directors opposed, those are simply not available in the minutes. Unless there’s some other record, it is up to the elected official to reach out or be available to their constituents to answer those questions.”
Audio and video recordings not on the table yet
Some RDFFG directors prefer having constituents ask them about their votes directly so they can justify their decision, rather than having the vote recorded in meeting minutes without context. When the board first considered recording votes in August, Director Jerrilyn Kirk said she wants the opportunity to defend her voting record.
“The yes or no is just the tip of the iceberg,” Kirk said. “I would rather have my vote not recorded, and have a constituent come up to me and ask, ‘Why did you vote this way?’”
But what some directors say is an opportunity for more clarity comes across as a concerning lack of transparency to others. Since being elected in 2018, City of Prince George representative Kyle Sampson has advocated for more transparency in the regional district. He successfully pushed for the District to begin live streaming meetings in January 2021 so residents who cannot visit the board in Prince George can still watch meetings.
If passed, the bylaw amendment would be a step in the right direction, Sampson said during the October board meeting. But without video or audio recordings of meetings, directors may not remember their reasoning for every vote, he said.
“This doesn’t let people go back later on, when they hear about [a vote] and want to see how it went,” Sampson said. “Having the meetings recorded is really important for context. But at the very least, having our votes recorded is important… the crux of the bylaw is that [not recording votes] is not democratic, from my perspective. It needs to be recorded and transparent.”
Simon Yu, another director for the City of Prince George, agreed. The board discusses dozens of issues at every meeting, and agendas can number hundreds of pages, so directors may not remember exactly why they voted for or against every motion, Yu said.
“The two things – recording a vote and recording the meeting itself – really go hand in hand,” Yu said. “If somebody asked me [why I voted yes or no], I would love to be able to go back to the meeting and see for myself what I said.”According to Connelly, uploading video or audio recordings of meetings would require board approval. After receiving a board decision, the Regional District would then need to acquire the technology needed to record, store, and upload archived recordings.
The board directed staff to research whether choosing not to record votes could open up the district to any legal liabilities, and whether there’s precedent for regional district board decisions being overturned because a vote wasn’t recorded in meeting minutes. Connelly said once staff have gathered this information, the proposed amendment can return to the board for another vote.
You can support trusted and verified news content like this.
FIPA’s news monitor subscribers, donors and funders help make these available to everyone rather than behind a paywall. We appreciate every contribution because it makes a difference.
If you found this article interesting and useful, please consider contributing here.
