Skip to content

St. Albert council spent a third of its time meeting in private

St. Albert city council spent roughly a third of its time meeting in private, according to data collected by the Gazette based on publicly available council meeting minutes.
0809 in-camera file CC
St. Albert city council has spent a third of their time this term meeting in-camera, over a ten-per-cent increase from the previous 2013-2017 term. FILE PHOTO/St. Albert Gazette

St. Albert city council spent a significant amount of its time meeting in private, according to data collected by The Gazette.

The numbers, derived from the official minutes of 120 city council meetings held between October 2017 and August 2021, show council met in camera at least 247 times. This is equal to 173 hours of in-camera meeting time out of a total of 529 meeting hours, representing 32.7 per cent of council time spent meeting in private. 

The data The Gazette gathered looked at time in council meetings — including special meetings of council — and did not include committee meetings or dedicated budget meetings. Six council meetings were not included in the data set because either the time council ended, or the period council went in camera for, was not included in the publicly available minutes.

George Cuff, an Alberta-based municipal government consultant, said the degree of in-camera time spent by a council should “always be of concern to the public.”

“Meeting in camera means taking away the public’s right to transparency, to see what council is discussing, and what issues they’re moving forward,” Cuff said. 

Cuff noted there are several legitimate reasons for a council to meet in private that are permitted under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act (MGA). This could include land matters where the city is looking to buy or sell, sensitive issues related to personnel, intergovernmental relations, or matters of individual and public safety. 

“The danger every council faces is it gets comfortable talking in camera,” Cuff said.

In 2017, Calgary city council spent nearly a quarter of its time behind closed doors, according to a study by the Manning Foundation, a free-market think tank. 

Lori Williams, an associate professor of policy studies at Mount Royal University, said the Manning report raised questions about “whether there was an increasing reluctance” for Calgary council to be open to the public. 

“Those are very important and legitimate questions to raise,” Williams said. 

Private meeting time increased from former term

St. Albert city council has spent 13.2-per-cent more time meeting in private than it did during former mayor Nolan Crouse’s council term from October 2013 to September 2017.

During Crouse’s term, council met for a total of 624 hours, with 122 of those hours in private. Three of 144 meetings were not included in the calculations of this term due to times not being included in the publicly available minutes.

Williams said a significant increase of in-camera hours between terms without a change in the nature of the issues being dealt with in camera “certainly raises questions.”

“If there are not clear reasons why there would be such a significant shift in the number of in-camera meetings, it certainly could become an election issue,” Williams said. 

While the details of St. Albert’s city council’s in-camera meetings are not known, some of the general themes outlined in meeting minutes include land matters, personnel and human resources, transit, strategic planning, and intergovernmental affairs. 

A significant portion of council’s in-camera meetings are dedicated to dialogue with the city’s chief administrative officer. Advice from officials is outlined by the MGA as one of the reasons council can meet in private. 

Council spent 74 of its 247 in-camera meetings in dialogue with CAO Kevin Scoble, amounting to 33.2-per-cent of its total in-camera time. 

This is a 15.6-per-cent increase from time Crouse’s council spent meeting with the CAO in camera (the 2013-2017 council met in camera for 46 CAO dialogue meetings, totalling 21 hours). 

"The number of times that we are meeting with the city manager for CAO dialogue is much higher than it was in previous terms with the other CAO," Coun. Sheena Hughes said in an interview with The Gazette on Tuesday. 

Coun. Wes Brodhead said that the reason for the increase in in camera hours this term is due to the presence of more issues that had to be discussed in private, for example personnel issues, or land deals which must be discussed in private to protect "the financial integrity of the community."

"Council doesn't go in camera just to go in camera," Brodhead said. "We did a lot of servicing work this past term and applied for grants, but the only motion that is made in camera is to come out of camera, so any decisions made by council are always made publicly, and I think that needs to be understood."

Similar to Brodhead, Coun. Ken MacKay noted that while the items discussed in camera this term were important to discuss in private, there could be room for the incoming council to re-evaluate procedural bylaw for how the council agenda is set.

"It would be nice to have some of our dialogue between the CAO and ourselves out of camera, but we would have to be careful in relation to some of the information we discuss," MacKay said. "There may be an opportunity to have those discussions more in open."

Mayor Cathy Heron and CAO Kevin Scoble declined an interview regarding these findings, and did not provide comment at time of publication. 

In a statement relayed by city spokesperson Cory Sinclair the night of Sept. 7, Kevin Scoble said council meetings that are closed to the public are specifically provided for in the MGA because they are "essential aspects of good municipal governance."

"Council is prohibited under the MGA from making any decisions at a closed meeting – nevertheless the closed venue allows the CAO (or other members of administration at the CAO’s request) to provide advice to council on policy options, to answer council questions on confidential matters including potential land transactions or labour and employment issues, and to provide confidential legal advice," Scoble said in the statement. 

He added it is "not unusual" for the amount of time spent in closed meetings to vary throughout a council term, or from one term to another, depending on the number and complexity of matters that are appropriate for discussion by council in-camera. 

"Regardless of the amount of time spent in camera, it is always the case that council cannot pass any bylaw or make any motion in a closed meeting, other than a motion to revert to an open meeting," Scoble said. 

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks