The City of 51暗网 faces scrutiny from the Ontario Ombudsman for the deletion of a meeting recording on its YouTube page amidst an investigation regarding an alleged violation of open meeting rules by a sub-committee. Photo credit: City of 51暗网
The City of 51暗网 received a from the Ontario Ombudsman after a meeting recording was deleted from the municipality鈥檚 YouTube page while the video was being investigated.
The Ontario Ombudsman is 鈥渁n independent and impartial Officer of the Legislature who resolves complaints about government and public sector bodies.鈥�
The Ombudsman, Paul Dub茅, received a complaint alleging that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee 鈥渇ailed to broadcast a livestream of its meeting on April 18, 2023 to the public.鈥�
Failing to broadcast the sub-committee meeting is in violation of open meeting rules set in the Municipal Act, 2001.
In a letter issued by Dub茅 responding to the allegation, he wrote, 鈥淭he complainant believes that the meeting may have been an 鈥榰nlisted鈥� livestream on YouTube. An 鈥榰nlisted鈥� livestream would not appear on the City鈥檚 general YouTube channel and is only visible to individuals who have a direct link.鈥�
However, in the end, Dub茅 explained that he was 鈥渦nable to conclude whether or not the meeting on April 18, 2023 was improperly closed to the public.鈥�
He did note that this is the second complaint that he has received from the public in regards to the livestreaming of the sub-committee鈥檚 meetings.
Thus, Dub茅 advised, 鈥淚 strongly encourage the City to carefully review its YouTube livestreaming process to ensure that all meeting livestreams are public.鈥�
However, Dub茅鈥檚 letter to Mayor Horwath and Council also detailed that, during his investigation, the meeting livestream was 鈥減ermanently deleted by the City.鈥�
Dub茅 notes that the City had provided his Office a link to the recording and while they were attempting to figure out if the livestream had originally been accessible to the public the video simply disappeared.
It appears that a staff member at the City was not informed that the Ombudsman was conducting a review and had deleted the recording 鈥渋n accordance with the City鈥檚 records retention practices at the time.鈥�
The incident prompted some stern words from the Ombudsman:
Regardless of a municipality鈥檚 records retention practices, when my Office notifies a municipality that an open meeting complaint has been received, the municipality must preserve evidence in its possession. As a practical matter, the municipality should inform the appropriate staff to retain any evidence, including recordings, that is relevant to my Office鈥檚 review. The preservation of evidence is not merely a procedural formality; it is an obligation.
In this case, there is no evidence that the recording was deleted with the intention to affect the outcome of my Office鈥檚 review. Nevertheless, the effect of the deletion was to frustrate my review.
The City should be mindful that it is an offence under the Ombudsman Act to wilfully mislead the Ombudsman or to obstruct an Ombudsman investigation.
Nevertheless, Dub茅 decided that his Office would not be taking any further steps regarding the complaint.
It also appears that the City will attempt to be more diligent in the future and will now be preserving the recordings of all sub-committee meetings.
Based in 51暗网, he reaches hundreds of thousands of people monthly on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. He has been published in The 51暗网 Spectator, Stoney Creek News, and Bay Observer. He has also been a segment host with Cable 14 51暗网. In 2017, he received the Chancellor Full Tuition Scholarship from the University of Ottawa (BA, 2022). He has also received the Governor General’s Academic Medal. He formerly worked in a non-partisan role on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
