Should Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) directors representing Sechelt or Gibsons be free to share confidential SCRD information with their municipal councils?
That was the crux of a debate among SCRD directors at a June 28 committee meeting where changes to the board’s procedures bylaw were being reviewed.
One proposed amendment was intended to provide clarity on how and whether sensitive information should be shared with member municipalities and the public. As it stands, the bylaw states that board members cannot disclose proceedings from a closed (“in-camera”) meeting to the public unless the board has passed a resolution to authorize it. The proposed amendment would also put restrictions on sharing information with municipal councils.
In-camera proceedings include discussions of legal, real estate and personnel matters.
Staff provided two options to clarify rules around information sharing. The first option stated “a member must not disclose” proceedings from a closed meeting to a municipal council, any other person or organization without a resolution. The second option stated that “members must keep in confidence any record or other matter held in confidence by the board,” unless authorized by a resolution.
Milne spoke firmly against the first option, stating it does not reflect the structure of regional districts, since municipalities are members. “I will not and cannot support the first option,” said Milne. “There are many times when a member who is representing a municipality must and may discuss in-camera items with those that are in fact sitting here.” He said he could, however, “live with the second one.”
West Howe Sound director Ian Winn agreed with Milne, and said the “second one is broader and more inclusive,” but also noted that a resolution would still be required if directors wanted to share information with municipal councillors or staff, which staff confirmed was the case.
In response, Milne refuted the interpretation, stating that while he doesn’t have an issue with directors keeping information in confidence, he is opposed to the requirement that a resolution authorize the exchange.
Milne said he would expect as much from directors. “I think our noses are out of joint for inappropriate reasons,” he said. “I would have not a single hesitation if I heard that a designate from the District of Sechelt had shared information that is in-camera in Sechelt with this board in-camera and I would not expect them to come back and ask for a resolution.” He said that in-camera extends to conversations with staff, which he said could be even more common than with elected members and a matter of efficient governing on the Coast.
Jeremy Valeriote, director for the Town of Gibsons, agreed with Milne. “I understand taking an entire in-camera report and distributing it to municipal council … but a verbal update is something that a municipal board member needs to be able to provide,” he said.
Elphinstone director Lorne Lewis also agreed that sharing in-camera information between municipality staff and directors should be permissible. “I expect anyone who has taken the oath of office, that they are going to treat those things in confidence… Moreover I expect that I can trust the CAO and corporate officer of any other local government,” he said.
Directors voted in favour of the second option. A number of additional amendments were introduced and carried. For example, in the event of two tie votes during the election of chair and vice chair, candidates could get five minute to address the board. Another change came in relation to meetings involving directors participating electronically, which would require a quorum of the board physically present at the meeting location provided in the public notice rather than one member.
The amended bylaw will be considered for three readings at the board.
