Times change, people’s expectations change and, sometimes, laws need to change.
For too long now, the general public has sat back and watched elected officials go behind closed doors to discuss matters deemed too sensitive to be aired in public. No doubt there are occasions when matters have to be talked about in camera, but as we have seen, too often it’s is a matter of wanting to keep the pesky public in the dark while said elected officials go about doing business the way they want.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Look at this advice in Wisconsin, a state which has strict “open meeting” legislation.
“Although there are some exemptions allowing closed sessions in specified circumstances, they are to be invoked sparingly and only where necessary to protect the public interest,” reads a passage in the state’s open meeting compliance guide. “The policy of the open meetings law dictates that governmental bodies convene in closed session only where holding an open session would be incompatible with the conduct of governmental affairs.”
Mere government inconvenience, the guide quotes from a state court ruling, is “no bar to the requirements of the law.”
The policy includes a fine of up to $300 to any member of a governmental body who “knowingly” attends a meeting held in violation of the open meetings law.  Not a huge deterrent, but not a quarter in the swear jar, either.
Compare this to the penalties faced by city councils, school boards and police commissions in Ontario. Well, there is no comparison. As we’ve seen several times in recent months, there are rules, but there is no enforcement let alone penalties.
Take last week’s report from the Ontario Ombudsman’s office, which found Hamilton councillors twice last year locked the doors when they shouldn’t have. Those investigations took place as the results of public complaints; we don’t truly know on how many other occasions council may have went in camera inappropriately.
But, as we are reminded by this and other incidents last year involving the city’s public school board and police board, all our elected and appointed representatives have to do is say, “Sorry, we slipped up,” and carry on without having to worry about repercussions until the next election — and we know about short attention span of the electorate.
In Wisconsin, the state’s attorney general office oversees complaints. Here, there is no oversight. For as admirable a job as the Ombudsman’s office does, it can pass judgement on a city council’s in camera meeting, but not hand down any penalty. Nobody oversees school board complaints; the education ministry says to take up your complaint with the very body you are complaining about, which is the political equivalent of telling the public to take a hike.
The current legislation is toothless when it comes to holding elected municipal officials accountable for improperly discussing public business behind closed doors.
However, we would like to see a harsher penalty imposed than the $300 fine in Wisconsin. Instead, we suggest the province cut its grants, by a small percentage, to any municipal body found guilty of improperly holding an incamera meeting.
Perhaps, municipal politicians and staff would think twice about going behind closed doors if it meant the loss of the provincial cash they depend upon. This would force them to either cut services or raise taxes — options which would be difficult to explain away at election time.

Nothing increases the attention span of the electorate more than making them pay for council’s misdeeds.
Things have to change. The public has had enough of unjustified secrecy.
The time has come for stricter rules — and enforcement.