“I think that the findings of the report were/are a foregone conclusion. First, there is the extremely
narrow scope of the investigation – both in terms of timeframe and functional direction. It was
unlikely from the outset that Council would be found to have actually contravened the
mandated ‘closed meeting protocols’. The real question, which the report does not answer, is
how does this Council compare to its predecessors and other municipal Councils in the
number and intent of the closed meetings; and is this Council as open and transparent as
it can (and should) be both pre and post closed meeting? These are the measures that
Councilor Stolte was addressing and these are the questions that should be answered. It is
ironic that a mayor who campaigned to ‘open up the shutters of COB and
let the light in’ now leads one of the least transparent Councils in recent memorv. IMO.”

As far as Councillor Stolte is concerned, I don’t share your assessment and find it rather strident and lacking either empathy or balance. Council’s treatment of their “colleague” was a shameful display of public pillorying, going on far too long and being enjoyed far too much by those who should have controlled the session. Councillor Stolte’s transgression was in favouring more open and transparent discussion of topics (such as the Batemen sale) that directly affect the public interest. She erred but she erred on the side of open government and public accountability. I hope that she will run again and that she will establish a campaign that promises to deliver on the empty 2018 rhetoric of the Mayor and her “brave supporters”.

Watching the livestream meeting, a few things were clear:
– She has no contrition
– She minimizes her breaches as a “toe over the line”, which the Integrity Commissioner challenged
– She is willing to scorched earth by taking down Nisan and Galbraith with her Spec column, which the Integrity Commissioner said opened her up to steeper penalties

After three+ years on the job, she doesn’t understand the purpose of the council vote to go into closed meetings. I was embarrassed for her when she thought her line of questioning to the IC was a “gotcha” moment. The council vote is simply to confirm going into a closed meeting. The vote is not about waiving privilege on the legal and staff reports. Privilege can only be waived in the closed session. If council voted against going into a closed meeting, they just wouldn’t go into a closed meeting. The reports remain confidential – which presumably all council members have in their possession. Anyone with governance experience knows this.

The 905er is focusing on the inappropriate increase in closed door meetings – which they have not, nor has the councilor, been able to back up.

The more central question is why the Ward 4 councilor chooses to breach confidentiality on the purchase of Ward 5’s Bateman school. She is clearly opposed to the purchase, but why? Is there really anything sinister going on or is she the parochial politician who is opposed to supporting significant investment in another ward because the pot will be empty for her ward?

A good leader and decent people would have set an entirely different tone, one where they were respectful of each other’s feelings and would want to aim to get the matter of the punishment dealt with quickly and with a view to coming together to go forward in a positive way. Both sides could have made concessions to do so. Instead it seemed to me that some relished the chance to read long insulting prepared statements and humiliate and attack a colleague. Three hours!! None of us believe their nonsense about this being a cohesive council that treats people with respect after seeing that. We even had different rules for different speakers. It was actually worse than anything I ever saw with the old council and which supposedly was going to stop with this one.

I appreciated Councillor Kearns’ respectful actions and also Councillor Sharman being the only one to say that he hopes Stolte will reconsider her decision to not run again.