Cambridge multiplex behind council's move to restrict access to in-camera committee meetings

A decision by Cambridge council to prevent councillors from attending in-camera committee meetings if they don't sit on that committee has roots in the ongoing controversy surrounding the municipality's proposed multiplex complex.

In a 5-4 vote Tuesday night, council agreed to pass a motion by Coun. Frank Monteiro to limit who can attend in-camera committee meetings.

• Cambridge council limits access to in-camera committee meetings
• Cambridge sports multiplex could still go on Conestoga lands: Councillor
• ​​CBC Coverage of the Cambridge Multiplex project

"It came to our attention that one of our councillors was attending closed meetings regarding the multiplex," Monteiro told The Morning Edition host Craig Norris Wednesday. 

"This particular councillor took documentation from the meeting and there's allegations that [they] communicated by notes with the committee when it was in a closed meeting."

When asked if there was proof of that allegation, Monteiro said it had been witnessed by city staff.

'I don't know what you think I'm doing'

Though Monteiro didn't name the individual, Coun. Jan Liggett told CBC News she knows it was about her.  

"Clearly the motion was directed at me personally," Liggett said in an interview Wednesday.

She maintained she did nothing wrong when she attended the meetings.

"I just feel the need to know as much about everything as I can," Liggett said. "It's just a quirk with me."

I don't know what you think I'm doing, why you think I have this evil intent of attending these meetings.- Jan Liggett, Cambridge city councillor

Liggett said she defended herself at Tuesday night's meeting, telling her fellow councillors, "I don't know what you think I'm doing, why you think I have this evil intent of attending these meetings." 

She added, "I'm just bamboozled as to what they think I'm doing."

Liggett agreed she did take documentation from the closed-door meeting, as Monteiro said, but said it was permitted in all but the first closed-door meeting of the multiplex task force. All documents were surrendered to staff at the end of that first meeting.

As for the note Monteiro said she sent to committee members while in-camera, Liggett said it was five words long and had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. 

It was Liggett's motion in May that created the task force to oversee where the proposed sports multiplex should go after public outcry against it being built on lands owned by Conestoga College. The task force is made up of two councillors, two city staff members and three members of the public.

Unclear why motion necessary

The decision to limit who can attend in camera committee meetings split council 4-4, with councillors Liggett, Nick Ermeta, Mike Devine and Shannon Adshade voting against the motion and councillors Monteiro, Mike Mann, Donna Reid and Pam Wolf voting in favour. Mayor Doug Craig broke the tie with a vote in favour of Monteiro's motion.

But the new procedural bylaw confuses Bob Williams, a municipal affairs expert who is a retired University of Waterloo political science professor and is currently the integrity commissioner for two Ontario municipalities.

"I really don't see why it was necessary to create this kind of limitation on the work of a committee of council and to deal with confidentiality in this fashion," he told The Morning Edition after hearing Monteiro's interview Wednesday.

He said any recommendations made in camera at the committee level would eventually go before council.

When it is in camera, there are expectations that any materials distributed, any discussions that go forward, are held in confidence by those in attendance, whether they be members of the public or members of council.- Bob Williams, retired political sciences professor

"The idea of confidentiality can be handled in a different way. For one thing, committees do not make decisions. Committees are there to make recommendations to council for action, but they cannot be conducting business in the sense of making a decision," he said.

"A closed session is really more about understanding the situation but can't, in itself...be the place where a key decision is made."

Anyone who attends that meeting is bound by confidentiality, Williams added.

"When it is in camera, there are expectations that any materials distributed, any discussions that go forward, are held in confidence by those in attendance, whether they be members of the public or members of council. So the idea that you need to put a rule in to prevent people from actually attending seems to me to be superfluous, if not overstepping the bounds," he said.

Asked if there could be unintended consequences, Williams said trying to limit involvement "could perhaps interfere with effective decision making."