ROTHENBURGER – ‘Friend Mel’s’ assessment of closed meetings

SINCE I’VE BEEN NAMED in emails between Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson and Coun. Bill Sarai on the issue of closed council meetings, let’s get into it.

On Aug. 12, Hamer-Jackson emailed Sarai, who was deputy mayor for the month, demanding answers to previous questions, telling him to “step up and tell the truth” and reverse “measures” that have been taken against him.

The mayor has released the emails as part of a barrage he’s been directing at councillors and others the past few weeks.

The email exchanges were marked by ill manners typical of communications between them, including one particularly nasty and inappropriate comment by Sarai that I won’t repeat here.

Somehow, the issue of closed meetings worked its way into the conversation.

“Ask any mayor in BC if they attend closed meetings,” Sarai wrote. “You are the only one who thinks they are a conspiracy theory. Ask your friend Mel if he attended closed meetings. Of (sic) Peter, Terry and Ken.”

He wraps up with, “I am informing you now, I will not be responding to any more of your harassing emails and text messages. Nor will I be forwarding your multiple daily previously answered inquiries to staff.”

After which, Hamer-Jackson writes him back with “Harassing?…. Stop making up harassment claims and start tell (sic) the truth.”

And, a few emails later, “I did ask former Mayor Rothenburger and he wanted very few closed meetings.”

That’s by no means a detailed telling of the content of these electronic salvos but it’s the gist on the topic of closed meetings and how I was brought into it.

I won’t get into much in the way of response to the “friend Mel” crack except to note that Sarai isn’t a fan of mine. It started quite a while ago and came to a head with Tapegate. Prior to it being revealed that he was the source of a secretly taped argument with Hamer-Jackson, when the existence of the tape was becoming public knowledge, he didn’t like me asking him questions about it and told me so in no uncertain terms — “… not a journalist I am interested in talking to” was the way he put it.

After the RCMP investigation and the public apology he had to make for lying about having made the tape, I (and others) said he should resign. I’ve also expressed the opinion that he has balls — not in a good way — to run again in this year’s election and expect people to vote for him.

Anyway, yes, Hamer-Jackson has asked me on occasion about my experience with closed meetings. I actually ran a lot of my first mayoral campaign on the issue of closed meetings and council transparency. The council of the day was having too many closed meeting and even regularly scheduled them on topics not covered under the “Land, Labour and Legal” rule. Councillors simply didn’t like having to discuss things with the public listening.

When the new council got into office we got rid of them and stuck to the guidelines. The rules were later strengthened by the provincial government when the B.C. Community Charter was written, and councils must now publicly declare the specific parts of the three L’s they will be discussing behind closed doors. For example, at this Tuesday’s council meeting, administration will ask council for approval of a closed meeting under Section 90 of the Charter to discuss a land matter, legal advice and negotiations regarding provision of a municipal service. Under the Charter, some issues may be discussed in camera, others must — not may — be.

As Hamer-Jackson told Sarai in their email exchange, I did and do think closed meetings should be kept to a minimum. Sometimes they are absolutely necessary to discuss contract bids, personnel matters or confidential advice from lawyers — the sorts of things covered in staff’s Section 90 request coming up next week.

The problem comes with the temptation to stray into non-confidential matters during those meetings. It’s easy to get comfortable with the doors closed, and bring up items other than the legitimate ones for calling a meeting.

For example, a meeting might be called to discuss a legal item and easily wander off into informal discussions about some routine matter like an upcoming bylaw decision that legally should be talked about at an open meeting. I often ran into this during my two terms as mayor, and councillors didn’t always appreciate attempts to rein it in.

There’s also a danger of habitually using informal meetings — ones that haven’t been officially called during a public session — to discuss public matters in private. For example, council members might go out for dinner between the regular meeting and a public hearing. If that dinner involves a majority of council, that’s a quorum and any discussion of agenda items that should be done in public is forbidden.

Councillors might think having coffee with a senior staff member is a good opportunity to dig into matters without having to worry about public oversight, but if there’s a quorum sitting around enjoying their morning joe and a donut, it’s a no-no.

The rules can’t be avoided by trying to hide on the Internet, either. If a quorum of council discusses an issue via group chat, it’s a meeting and the same restrictions apply.

Whether or not a decision is made behind closed doors doesn’t matter. It’s the discussion of an issue or impending decision that does.

The rationale for all this is simple. Unless it’s essential that a topic be discussed in secret due to the three L’s, the public must be allowed in. As much business as possible must be done under public scrutiny.

As for Hamer-Jackson and Sarai arguing with each other over closed meetings, it’s true the mayor is very suspicious of them. Whenever a closed meeting is approved in a public meeting as per Community Charter guidelines, he usually asks if it’s truly necessary. And, invariably, he’s told that it is.

Hamer-Jackson steadfastly resists attending closed meetings. He believes the council should go in camera “very, very seldom.” His stubbornness on the matter, he says, is “about being more open and transparent to the public.”

He also likes to point out that he was banned from closed committee meetings over alleged concerns about privacy breaches, though it wasn’t specified what those breaches were. The ban, decreed in 2024, was to be for a year or until he took a council-approved training course on confidentiality. Hamer-Jackson did take such a course but, apparently, not one formally approved by council.

He chooses to make his point about closed meetings with a very broad brush and it’s arguable whether that’s a good strategy, because the mayor needs to be intimately informed on upcoming decisions. I admire his principle but question his methodology. Blanket non-attendance leaves the absentee without important information — it’s a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

At any rate, since Sarai asked the question, those are the observations of “friend Mel” on the topic. So, Coun. Sarai, as you once said to me, have a good day.

Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, writes for the Kamloops Chronicle and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, and was a Webster Foundation Commentator of the Year finalist. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor.  He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.