Intermunicipal council meeting an extended closed session

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

The MD of Taber held a joint council meeting on Dec. 9 which was attended by elected officials from Taber, Barnwell and Vauxhall. However, rather than offering insight into the relationship between the four municipalities, the meeting was veiled by a closed session, pursuant to the guidelines of the Municipal Government Act (MGA).

 After a round of introductions led by Reeve Tamara Miyanaga, she introduced Tim Janzen, director of the Taber and District Housing Foundation – only to announce that the meeting would move into closed session. For nearly 75 minutes, the meeting remained that way, only to wrap up shortly thereafter.

 It provided no insight into intermunicipal relations or any collaborations that are in the works.

 “Thank you again for everyone joining us tonight,” Miyanaga said in closing. “When I look around this room and see the councillors who are here, I see you active in all aspects of your community. We’re very fortunate to have strong regional representation. As we go through these next four years, I think we’ll be able to work on some really strong projects, whether that’s emergency services or economic development.”

 She explained that the MD has set up a training seminar scheduled for Jan. 30 that councillors will be invited to attend. The meeting ended and councillors were invited to stay for a social during which municipal discussions could occur.

 To see if anything more could be gleaned, Southern Alberta Newspapers reached out to officials from the municipalities and received two replies from the communications departments in Taber and the MD.

 Taber’s Meghan Brennan and the MD’s Carley Grant were willing to help but ultimately bound by non-disclosure. Grant suggested reviewing the minutes once they’re posted.

 Aside from the initial giveaway that a housing topic was on the agenda, there was nothing else to go on. The agenda was in line with the MGA by listing a closed session under the authority of Section 21 and 14 of Division 2 of Part 1 of ATIA – Advice from Officials (21) and Intergovernmental Relations (14).

 As a general rule, council meetings are open to the public; as an ironclad rule, bylaws or resolutions are not to be passed in a private session. The only exception to the rule, according to the MGA, is “allowing municipal planning commissions, subdivision authorities, development authorities and subdivision and development appeal boards to deliberate and make decisions in meetings closed to the public.”

 Topics like legal advice, personnel decisions, third-party privacy and land negotiations are examples of items that qualify for closed session. Closed sessions are referred to as ‘in camera’ – Latin for ‘in a chamber’ – and the term has nothing to do with cameras being on or off during a publicly recorded meeting.

 According to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (POPA), discussing general public business or policy development in private, without a valid reason under POPA, is a violation.

 The open meeting provision is vital for transparency, public trust, and ensuring democratic accountability in local government. The MD’s joint council meeting appeared to follow the correct protocols, even if its content remains unknown aside from a TDHF topic, ‘intergovernmental relations’ and ‘advice from officials.’ The minutes may prove to be more helpful.