Ontario Ombudsman finds three councillors violated open meeting rules during visit to Unity Project

Unity Project on Dundas Street, (Daryl Newcombe/CTV News London)

It’s a tough lesson for a trio of first-term councillors.

According to a report by Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dube, three members of the Community and Protective Services (CAPS) Committee (Coun. Corrine Rahman, Coun. Jerry Pribil, and Coun. Susan Stevenson) violated open meeting rules by gathering last March for a tour and discussion at Unity Project‘s headquarters and homeless shelter.

“My investigation found that the gathering on March 21, 2023 constituted a ‘meeting’ of the committee under the Municipal Act, 2001 and contravened the open meeting rules,” wrote Dube in his report.

Unity Project was seeking one-time funding of $760,000 from city hall to support its ongoing operations and short-term capital needs, and to undertake a retrofit project at its shelter facility.

The investigation determined that the councillors met for about 45 minutes at the Dundas Street headquarters of the homelessness agency.

Less than two hours later, all three participated as voting members of a CAPS Committee meeting.

Appearing at the time as a delegation to discuss changes to its shelter program, Unity Project Executive Director Chuck Lazenby said, “Thank you to Councillor Rahman, and Pribil, and Stevenson for attending on site at the Unity Project today for a candid conversation and a better understanding of what we’re looking to do.”

A short time later Stevenson said, “We were there [Unity Project] again today for another hour. For me this is exactly what I am looking for…the numbers, the answers.”

Then the committee unanimously passed a motion recommending council approve conditional funding for Unity Project’s proposal.

The Ombudsman’s investigative team reviewed records of the committee meeting and interviewed the three councillors and Lazenby.

Dube’s investigation determined that the three councillors constituted a quorum of the five-member CAPS Committee, and that committee matters were materially advanced during the tour and discussion.

Therefore, the visit to Unity Project violated open meeting rules door because public notice was not provided, the public was not able to attend, and meeting minutes were not kept.

“Despite members of the committee insisting to my office that they had already made up their minds on the proposal or that the visit to the site had no effect on their decision, the discussion that took place was geared at persuading decision-makers one way or the other,” the report read.

In addition Dube writes, “The facts of this case suggest that the information members of the committee received from the executive director during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making.”

Based on his investigation, the Ombudsman has made three recommendations

• All members of council for the City of London should be vigilant in adhering to their individual and collective obligation to ensure compliance with their responsibilities under the Municipal Act, 2001
• All members of council and committees of the City of London should ensure that no council or committee business or decision-making is materially advanced outside of formal meetings
• Members of council for the City of London who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with city staff.

The Ombudsman is the closed meeting investigator for the City of London.