Cambridge council cleared in closed-meeting investigation over CTS site

A complaint alleging some members of council held a closed-door meeting prior to voting on a motion to endorse 150 Main St. as the preferred location of the city’s consumption and treatment services (CTS) site is without merit according to the firm hired to determine if council conducted itself outside the parameters of the Municipal Act.

Municipal Act rules only allow closed-door council meetings when personnel, property or litigation are the subjects of discussion. The schedule and reason for a closed meeting must also be detailed on a public agenda.

Meaghan Barrett, of Aird & Berlis LLP conducted her investigation following a complaint that came to the city clerk’s office last fall following a public meeting on the preferred location of the CTS.

That’s when Coun. Donna Reid tabled a motion to consider 150 Main as the preferred site for a CTS after hearing over four hours of staff reports and delegations on the outcome of an online survey that asked residents to rank two other sites within walking distance of Galt’s core. 

The shift back to 150 Main as the preferred location prompted an angry exchange between Coun. Jan Liggett and Mayor Kathryn McGarry, during which Liggett accused her fellow councillors of conspiring with each other on the motion prior to the meeting.

“I have been left out of all of this. There’s been a total disrespect. I am disappointed I haven’t been included in any of those conversations,” she said as McGarry insisted Liggett stop talking out of line. 

The complaint that came after the meeting, from an unnamed accuser, alleged “certain named members of Council participated in undisclosed serial gatherings and conversations prior to the Special Council Meeting.” 

Although Barrett said her firm’s investigation determined “meetings between members of council and between members of council and the mayor” did occur with respect to 150 Main St. prior to the special council meeting, “there is no evidence that a quorum of council … ever met to discuss this matter at any one time.” 

“Based on our interviews, the discussions only ever included two members of Council at any one time,” she wrote in her report.

Coun. Reid also told Barrett that she had been “a vocal advocate of the downtown site for years” and became aware that other members of council may be changing their minds about 150 Main St. after reviewing the CTS Report.

“Many of the members of Council that we spoke with indicated that, after reviewing the CTS Report, hearing the staff presentations and delegations, and, in some cases, following site visits and other independent research, it became clear that the Downtown Site was the best option,” Barrett wrote.

In her final summary, Barrett wrote that “there was no quorum of members present nor did the discussions materially advance the business or decision-making of Council. Importantly, no formal consensus was sought or reached in respect of the Downtown Site during the course of those gatherings and discussions.”

A related Code of Conduct complaint that alleged a named councillor “purposely deceived the public and misled two fellow councillors” and “acted in a manner that was devoid of transparency as they concealed a hidden agenda” was dismissed.