85% agree – too many closed meetings, Universities and Did MPPs have input?

85% of respondents claim city holds too many in camera meetings 

Back on February 21, 2007, Councillor Brister claimed that only ”two or three people out of 200,000 have an issue” with council’s closed door meetings.

According to AM800’s online poll, nearly 85% of 693 respondents agree with those who claim that council conducts too much of its business in-camera.

I don’t know about you, but perhaps Councillor Brister needs to hire a new polling firm.

In the same article, the councillor defended council’s use of in-camera meetings, citing its proof that the city is following the Municipal Act.

He said the number of private meetings versus open ones is a signal to residents that council is following the rules under the municipal act. “When they see this becomes an issue again, on issues like the tunnel file, on issues like the border file, and even to the extent this has occurred already on the arena file, I’m hopeful the community has the trust in this council to know when an item has to be in-camera under the municipal act.

A meeting may be in-camera  if what is being considered are property matters; acquisition or disposition of land, labour relations, litigation or potential litigation, or advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Ontario Ombudsman, André Marin recently stated in the Toronto Star:

… people should be outraged that municipalities are making important decisions behind closed doors with no accountability.

And in Windsor we’ve had our fair share of closed council meetings – ranging from budget discussions to the border.

In reading various documents pertaining to the Sunshine Law in Michigan, I have wonder if issues are wrapped in “solicitor-client” priviledge in an attempt to justify a closed door meeting.

Closer to home, I cite a recent story in the Peterborough Examiner, wherein two city councillors claimed this was occurring in disussing a code of conduct for city employees:

The public couldn’t observe part of a city council meeting last week because a personnel item was intertwined with a subject that should have been discussed in a public meeting, two councillors said last night.

Councillors Bob Hall and Patti Peeters left that meeting last week after they objected to council discussing a code of conduct in a session closed to the public.

Imagine that – councillors walking out of a meeting because they objected.

Councillor Hall explained:

“We’re also expected to live up to the spirit of the law,” he said. “If you want to avoid openness or transparency or accountability you basically want a lawyer to present every matter in caucus.”

On a regular basis, “Border Update” appears on the in-camera agenda in our fair city with no reason given – denying residents access to information presented.

It is important to note, the Municipal Act does not state those above items “shall” be in-camera – it only states they “may” be in-camera – therefore, this city council is choosing willingly to discuss items in-camera.

And for all the criticisms Councillor Lewenza and Councillor Postma suddenly have of the DRIC process,  their new-found concern rings very hollow.

Considering council met just this past Saturday in-camera to “strategise” a legal response to the DRIC and the Manning Road extension – what exactly have all the other in-camera “Border Updates” been about to warrant denying citizens the right to know?

I will go out on a limb here and suggest solicitor-client priviledge.  Could our “Border Updates” be wrapped in the cloth of solicitor-client priviledge?   Are decisions being made and resolutions being passed in-camera, away from the eyes of the public?

In-camera meetings are a choice.  And its a choice that should be used sparingly – particularly when it comes to the border debate.

Did MPPs Pupatello and Duncan have input?

Enquiring minds want to know. 

Councillor Lewenza asked tonight if our MPPs Sandra Pupatello and Dwight Duncan had input into the terms of reference of the DRIC study, namely if quality of life issues had been considered.  The terms of reference can be found here.

But I wonder why the councillor didn’t ask the same regarding the Windsor Utilities Commission audit?  Remember, back on August 23, 2007 when the Windsor Star reported:

Mayor Eddie Frances refused to say Wednesday why he kept news of the audit’s approval under wraps for days.

The mayor disclosed the audit in a radio interview Wednesday.

Munce said Gerretson decided to proceed because it was a direct request from council and followed a discussion with local MPPs and provincial cabinet ministers Dwight Duncan and Sandra Pupatello, who encouraged him to look at the issue.

This was after Ministry spokesperson Ms. Kaperski-Wild stated that it would be unusual for the ministry to conduct such an audit.

And speaking of the WUC audit, I have posted WeAct’s 130-page application, in part, to the Ombudsman’s office requesting an investigation of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs regarding the process and procedure they undertook to conduct a Section 9 provincial-municipal audit. 

I say “in part” because some of the documents I was unable to convert into a format that could be used in Microsoft Word – so some of the Appendices and all the historical background information are not included – but they were submitted to the Ombudsman’s office.

More to university than an economic engine

We have read and heard about the economic arguments for a downtown engineering campus.  We’ve read the arguments presented by DWBIA Board of Director’s Chair, Larry Horwitz, which included:

The consequences of the university locating its engineering campus downtown would include increased student enrollment and escalating economic benefits that will extend through all levels of our society. Existing businesses will expand, and new ones will locate downtown to serve the new reality. This will create an economic engine which will renew downtown Windsor and make us all proud of being Windsorites.

Gord Henderson commented several times, also claiming among others,  a downtown engineering building would be the “renaissance” for Windsor:

Once again, as it did with the former Cleary, the ivory tower will have turned its back on an opportunity to lead a Windsor renaissance, leaving a vastly more agile St. Clair College administration to step into the breach.

But we’ve read very little about the great opportunities this  $110-million development could create for the city – regardless of location.  We’ve also read next to nothing as to the reasons other institutions have located to their respective cores.

Developer Ron Aliano for the Three River’s Community college downtown campus cited interaction with the arts and business communities:

Lead developer Ron Aliano said the downtown move would allow the college to interact closely with the arts and business communities, helping spark other development in the slumping city center.

The University of Alberta motive for locating downtown was a “space crunch” faced by the university:

The idea of expanding the U of A campus to the city’s downtown was hatched in 2005 as a space crunch prompted university planners to find a new home for TEC Edmonton, the technology commercialization venture created by the U of A and the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation.

Gateway Community College in New Haven also cited lack of space for locating downtown:

Gateway administrators point to their cramped, largely windowless quarters as one of the key reasons why the community college needs a new downtown campus – the centerpiece of a $230 million project to boost the revitalization of New Haven’s downtown.

Richard Florida, in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, wrote about “connecting” universities with their community and the 3 T’s – technology, talent and tolerance.  But he cautioned against seeing them as “economic engines”:

Rather than as an “engine” of development, then, think of the university as an ecosystem or infrastructure for a knowledge-driven, creative economy. The key to the future lies in building stronger bridges between universities and their surrounding communities. The old town-gown boundaries must dissolve until it becomes impossible to see where the university ends and the community begins.

Florida claims that universities through their “human capital” can have a “magnetic effect” in attracting “outside companies, venture capitalists, laboratories and research institutes.”

Something I alluded to in a prior blog – just because the new engineering campus is not downtown – the new centre for innovation can be an incubator for economic development and not economic development of itself.  This is to say, all those researchers eventually will need to find a location to market and produce their innovations – and some of those could locate in the core or business parks.

Florida states, rather than making universities responsible for generating economic growth he suggests:

Local leaders must also play their roles. Rather than pushing off the responsibility for generating growth and innovation to the universities, officials need to build better connective fibres. Providence, R.I., under its dynamic young mayor, David N. Cicilline, has worked hard to develop a model whereby local universities support neighbourhood redevelopment – the Rhode Island School of Design, for example, has developed studio space and student housing in old industrial buildings.

To me, the university could be the key to Sandwich area renewal, if those “connective fibres” are strengthend.  Some of those fibres already exist.  The visual arts school, dramatic arts, and the deparment of anthropology are natural fits for Sandwich Town with plenty of opportunities by way of new uses for old industrial buildings there.

In reading Glenn Murray’s speech in Guelph, he speaks of “authenticity” and every city has something that is authentic:

I’m trying to convince the people in Vancouver there’s no such thing as a cultural district. That there’s actually an economy that relates to the culture, that there’s actually ecological implications to a district and you cannot exactly move museums around and not realize that they’ve created a commercial ecology of different types of creative people who drive different types of businesses and have interdependencies that are related to things like location and customer bases and where people can go and how you design the neighbourhood. They’re complex relationships and you’ve got to understand them before you mess with them.

That connective fibre.

From what I understand, building it does not necessarily mean they will come if it is not “authentic” but investing in authencity may just pay dividends. 

What fibres are already downtown and how can they be strengthened, or “connected” with the university?  If this can be answered (if it hasn’t been already) then you have opportunity for redevelopment rather than the mish-mash of ideas that appear to have an air of desperation – anything, just build anything – without solid planning and long term analysis of its impact and practicality.

Murray states, “It wasn’t just good enough to have beautiful buildings and treat them as museums but to start to understand how they relate to each other.”

What are our ”core” strengths and how do they relate to each other?  

Hospitality – so the St. Clair Centre’s hospitality program is a good fit.  Law offices, city social services, the arts, the symphony – all these “fibres” seeking a connection whereby the university or college could play a role.

In rejuvinating our downtown core, we need to look beyond the immediate economic benefits,  but also consider the authenticity, or connectivity which in of itself could create more economic opportunities than a single building.

If we can’t have a physical connection with our university, let’s start building new or strengthening other connections that could benefit the city and region as a whole.