Last week, at Radio-Canada Mauricie–Centre-du-Québec, we wondered if the municipal council of Trois-Rivières was going to resume its preparatory meetings and, if necessary, if they would be held in public or behind closed doors.
No, this is not an insignificant question. There is an important democratic issue here, an issue that is not as simple as you think. The question concerns almost all cities outside of Montreal and Quebec (cities whose democratic system, of the parliamentary type, is different from the others).
A preparatory meeting or caucus is an unofficial meeting of the municipal council usually held just before the formal council. As the word says, it serves to prepare for the meeting to come. Elected officials review each item on the agenda to clarify the issues with the help of the municipal public service. The meeting is generally held behind closed doors.
The relevance of this camera is constantly debated, as is currently the case in Trois-Rivières.
The camera is debated because it poses two challenges: an obvious transparency challenge that makes it inappropriate and a management challenge that makes it acceptable.
Transparency challenge
The perverse effect of these meetings is that they generally go much further than the simple preparation of advice. Indeed, too often, all the real debates take place there, debates which therefore occur behind closed doors. When the council opens to the public, the elected officials obviously do not repeat the discussions they have just had and vote in rapid succession on all the points on the agenda.
From the point of view of some mayors, this is great. The debates take place discreetly, the elected officials “join” the majority position and, in public, the council seems united like a couple on the first day of their marriage.
From the point of view of the citizen (and of democracy), this is absurd. The citizen does not hear any debate, does not have the opportunity to familiarize himself with the issues, he believes that there is unanimity on everything, even on issues that are obviously controversial. He therefore has the impression, not always false, that everything is “arranged with the views guy”. Except for very specific files (human resources, legal issues, etc.), the decisions and the debates of the councils should always be public.
Management challenge
The pressure is therefore strong for the councils to abolish the preparatory meetings, as in Trois-Rivières for a few months, or to hold them in public, as in Gatineau for several years. In both scenarios, a management challenge arises.
Elected officials prepare their council a few days, if not a few hours, in advance. To abolish the preparatory meetings is to deprive them of an important moment of exchange with the civil servants. This is often where we confirm that we have understood the ins and outs of the issues.
Moreover, holding the meeting in public also involves a danger.
If civil servants do not stick to factual explanations and express their recommendations, they risk becoming political adversaries of some of their bosses. This is already happening, some of them sometimes joining the political game1.
Don’t get me wrong, it goes without saying that the public should have access to the expertise of civil servants, but only on the “how”, on the mechanics. The “what”, the objective, belongs to the elected officials. For example, the City’s financial data can be explained in public by civil servants, but the judgment on their meaning (do we have a problem or not?) as well as the orientations to be taken (cuts, tax increases, postponement of projects ) belong to political actors.
The solution ?
If the preparatory meetings behind closed doors are maintained, no vote or debate should take place. If the debate begins, the chairman of the council should remind the elected officials that the debate will take place at the official meeting, in public, so no debate behind closed doors!
If these meetings involve, for the civil servants, only factual clarifications, they can be held in public. However, if they relate to the opinions of officials, they should be held in camera. In public, the proposals or opinions debated should always be those of elected officials.
For sound management of the State, the ability of the public administration to give frank opinions to elected officials must be preserved, without it at the same time being transformed publicly into a political adversary of some of them.
In this respect, it is interesting to know that at the federal level, the advice given by civil servants to a minister is secret… even the minister of the next government does not have access to it!
Because cities in the past were administrations with specific services, disputes were rare and goals were common. As cities transform into local governments where visions of the future clash, the rules governing their councils must adapt. Debates must now always take place in public, but we must also ensure that civil servants remain civil servants.