Open Council Communication

The Three Communication Channels

Open Council Communication gives each kind of civic exchange a clear place:

The official Council meeting remains the place for live discussion, motions, amendments, recorded votes, and final decisions.

Public Council Forum

A permanent Public Council Forum would give residents an ongoing public written conversation with elected Council members and appropriate City staff where factual or professional information is useful. The system could use a public mailing list or equivalent open written discussion system. Mailman is one possible implementation technology; the policy commitment is the civic structure.

Why a public forum is needed

Owen Sound currently provides the public with a common email address, council@owensound.ca, for contacting Mayor and Council together. Emailing all of Council provides a direct contact route. A Public Council Forum would add shared visibility, searchable discussions, reusable answers, and links from resident questions through to subsequent Council consideration.

Residents could see questions, councillor and staff information, follow-up, later Council consideration, and eventual outcomes in one public history. Public discussion creates shared civic knowledge that the wider community can revisit and build on.

How the forum would work

Residents could send ordinary civic questions, concerns, proposals, and observations to a public Council discussion address. The exact address would be selected through implementation planning. A public exchange could follow this path:

RESIDENT QUESTION → PUBLIC THREAD → COUNCILLOR RESPONSE → STAFF INFORMATION WHERE USEFUL → FOLLOW-UP → SEARCHABLE RECORD

Appropriate staff participation would provide factual or administrative information while preserving the distinction between staff administration and Council's political decision-making. Public posting permissions can remain controlled while residents freely observe and subscribe.

Every Question Has a Visible Path

Every public question or issue can have a visible status and history. Residents can see whether it is Open, Acknowledged, Referred, Answered, Under Review, Before Council, Resolved, or Closed with Explanation.

Questions, responses, referrals, and outcomes become measurable public information. Periodic reports could show response times, questions awaiting answers, recurring topics, referrals awaiting completion, matters progressing to Council, and completed outcomes. This gives Council useful evidence about community needs and where additional attention may improve service.

A public question creates a visible history and a clear process. Council's response remains a matter for its evidence-based judgement, which may include agreement, a different action, or an explanation of the decision.

Shared civic memory

A useful answer should become reusable public knowledge that the community can revisit and build on.

Reasonable response expectations

• public questions receive an acknowledgement;
• existing factual answers are linked where available;
• questions requiring staff information are referred appropriately;
• councillors can answer individually while sharing useful information through one public record; and
• questions awaiting resolution remain visibly marked, with later Council stages linked when the issue proceeds.

Ask once. Answer openly. Build a public record others can use.

From a Public Question to a Council Decision

The Public Council Forum provides ordinary public communication and a clear path toward Council consideration. When a quorum of Council is present and activity materially advances Council business or decision-making, the statutory meeting framework applies and the matter moves into the active Public Written Council Session.

1. Public Council ForumResident question or proposal
2. Open answersCouncillor response and factual information
3. HandoffMatter develops into substantive Council deliberation
4. Written sessionCouncil examines options and reasoning in public
5. Official meetingMotions, amendments, votes, and decisions
6. Public recordDecision links back to the originating discussion

A forum thread could receive a notice such as: This matter has developed into Council deliberation. Follow the related Public Written Council Session here. The corresponding written-session thread would link back to the originating public discussion. Residents could continue discussing the issue publicly after the Council deliberation moves to its formal channel.

Public Written Council Sessions

Give Council Time to Think

Ontario's open-meeting framework protects the public's ability to observe municipal government. Under the current Municipal Act, 2001, the statutory meeting framework applies when a quorum of members is present and members discuss or otherwise deal with a matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of Council, a local board, or a committee.

This precise quorum and material-advancement test supports public transparency. In practice, it also concentrates much of Council's substantive collective deliberation into scheduled meetings. A several-hour meeting can then carry the first transmission of information, questions, research, and reasoning alongside the formal decision.

The proposal is to provide that deliberative space openly in writing between official meetings. It would help councillors consider complicated material over several days, give residents a larger record of Council's reasoning, and reserve live meeting time for the questions and exchanges that benefit most from oral discussion.

• More time to read, research, and think.
• Better opportunity to check evidence and calculations.
• More opportunity to ask questions and reconsider assumptions.
• Better-prepared councillors and higher-quality decisions.
• A richer public record of Council's reasoning.
• Focused live Council deliberation, with the potential for shorter meetings as information is prepared in advance.

One bounded cycle around each official meeting

1. Step 1Official Council meeting adjourns
2. Step 2Public Written Council Session opens
3. Step 3Read • Research • Question • Discuss • Refine
4. Step 4Next official Council meeting begins
5. Step 5Written session closes
6. Step 6Live discussion • Motions • Amendments • Decisions
7. Step 7Meeting adjourns
8. Step 8Next public written session opens

An official Council meeting in this model may be held in person or through an authorized synchronous audio/video format. A special Council meeting follows the same mechanical rule: the active written session closes when the special meeting begins, and a new written session opens when it adjourns. Each session is therefore a clearly bounded electronic session with a published opening and closing point, creating distinct deliberative periods between official meetings.

How the Written Session Works

Council could use a public mailing list or equivalent open written discussion system. Mailman is one possible implementation technology; the policy remains focused on the public written-session function and the civic outcomes it supports.

Council members could use the system to:

• circulate detailed explanations, research, source links, reports, attachments, calculations, and datasets;
• ask questions of one another and answer after having time to investigate;
• identify uncertainties, challenge assumptions, and explain reasoning;
• suggest alternatives and refine possible motions or amendments ahead of the formal meeting.

Messages should be publicly visible essentially as they are sent, available through public email subscription, and preserved in a permanent web archive. The archive should be searchable, timestamped, threaded by subject, permanently linkable, retained as municipal records, and available in accessible formats as practical.

The system is primarily an elected-member deliberation channel. Public posting permissions can remain controlled while residents freely observe and subscribe. The existing Public Document Forum and other resident-participation mechanisms can continue providing broader public discussion and participation.

Formal Decisions Remain at the Official Meeting

Public Written Council Sessions provide time for deliberation, information exchange, questioning, research, and proposal development. Formal Council decision-making remains clearly handled through the following official Council meeting:

• motions;
• amendments;
• recorded votes; and
• final Council decisions.

Live discussion remains available for questions requiring further discussion and matters that benefit from oral exchange. The purpose is to move first-pass information transmission and basic analysis into written preparation, creating more room at the Council table for the exchanges and decisions that benefit from live discussion.

READ → QUESTION → DISCUSS PUBLICLY → MEET → DECIDE → BEGIN THE NEXT PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Why This Improves Decision-Making

More time to think

Councillors can consider complicated material over several days, revisit their initial understanding, and prepare useful questions before the next Council meeting.

Written information works well for complex material

Financial, technical, legal, infrastructure, planning, housing, policing, transit, and budget material can often be understood more effectively when councillors can read it carefully and follow supporting sources.

Errors can be caught earlier

Other councillors can question calculations, identify missing evidence, provide additional information, test assumptions, propose corrections, and reconsider their own conclusions before voting.

Less meeting fatigue

Formal meetings can focus more heavily on delegations, questions and differences requiring further discussion, amendments, questions needing oral exchange, and decisions. The reform improves focus, while actual meeting length will continue to depend on each agenda and the discussion needs of Council.

Better public understanding

Residents can see what questions councillors asked, what evidence influenced them, what alternatives were considered, whether a position evolved, and how the eventual decision developed. The public can observe reasoning as part of government in process alongside the final vote.

More time to think. More reasoning in public. Focused meetings. Better-prepared decisions.

Private Council Correspondence

The public forum provides a standing channel for ordinary civic questions, proposals, policy discussion, and service concerns. Private Council Correspondence gives residents an appropriate way to share personal, legally confidential, or sensitive information with elected representatives.

Private correspondence is appropriate for personal, confidential, legally protected, or otherwise sensitive matters, including matters of the kinds that may properly require confidential treatment under Ontario law. Examples include:

• personal information about an identifiable individual or sensitive individual circumstances;
• litigation or potential litigation and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege;
• labour relations or employee negotiations;
• proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land;
• confidential negotiations, security matters, and protected commercial, financial, scientific, or technical information; and
• other information that legislation requires or appropriately permits to remain confidential.

These examples reflect the Municipal Act's listed closed-meeting categories, including section 239(2) and the additional circumstance in section 239(3). Some correspondence can reasonably deserve privacy even when it remains outside a formal closed-session Council matter. Existing access-to-information, records, privacy, and municipal law would continue to apply, including the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

How This Complements OurCity

Open Council Communication would complement the City's existing OurCity Owen Sound platform. OurCity is a City-led digital space for selected projects and consultations, with tools such as surveys, polls, forums, maps, updates, and project-specific feedback. The two systems would serve complementary public purposes.

The City's current community-engagement information describes OurCity alongside Council and Committee participation. The proposed channels add clear paths for public questions, Council deliberation, and sensitive correspondence within that complementary system.

Legal Basis and Precedent

This is a governance proposal grounded in the current statutory framework and open-meeting principles. The exact recurring, asynchronous, contemporaneously public written-session design is a new application of those principles. The implementing procedure by-law would be developed with the Clerk and municipal legal review to ensure the final design satisfies Ontario's meeting, records, conflict-of-interest, confidentiality, and accessibility requirements.

Municipal Act, 2001, section 238

Section 238(1) defines a meeting as a regular, special, or other meeting of Council, a local board, or a committee where a quorum is present and members discuss or otherwise deal with a matter in a way that materially advances the body's business or decision-making. This is the legally important formulation: quorum plus material advancement.

Section 238(2) requires every municipality and local board to pass a procedure by-law governing the calling, place, and proceedings of meetings. Section 238(2.1) requires that by-law to provide for public notice of meetings.

Section 238(3.1) says the applicable procedure by-law may allow a Council, local board, or committee member to participate electronically in a meeting to the extent and in the manner set out in the by-law. Section 238(3.3) permits the procedure by-law to provide that an electronic participant counts toward quorum and can participate in a meeting that is open or closed to the public.

Municipal Act, 2001, section 239

Section 239(1) establishes that meetings are open to the public except as provided in the section. Section 239(2) lists the permitted subject-matter exceptions, and section 239(3) provides additional closed-meeting criteria. Section 239(4) requires a resolution before a meeting or part of a meeting is closed, while section 239(5) and (6) govern voting in a closed meeting.

Section 239(7) requires the municipality or local board to record without note or comment all resolutions, decisions, and other proceedings at a meeting, whether open or closed. Section 239(8) assigns the Council meeting record to the Clerk. The Clerk's broader statutory record duty also appears in section 228.

Ontario's electronic-meeting guidance

Ontario's Municipal Councillor's Guide, Meetings explains that municipalities determine whether to use electronic participation and the method and extent of that participation through their procedure by-law. It also advises municipalities to select technology suited to local circumstances while maintaining meetings that are open and accessible. Electronic participation carries the same duties of notice, public access, minutes, and records.

Ramara, Ontario Ombudsman, October 2025

In its Township of Ramara investigation, the Ontario Ombudsman considered written electronic communications such as email capable of placing members together in an electronic place. The decision explains that when a communication reaches a quorum and materially advances Council or committee business, it can constitute a meeting. The analysis considers whether the exchange informs, persuades, reaches agreement, gives direction or input, or otherwise advances business; information that reasonably informs a subsequent decision can also contribute to material advancement.

Ramara does not approve this proposed recurring public written-session model. It demonstrates that the statutory concepts of electronic presence and material advancement can apply to written communications, which makes public access and proper procedural safeguards essential.

Leeds and the Thousand Islands, 2016

In the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands investigation, the Ombudsman examined councillors using group email between meetings to exchange substantial information and reduce lengthy Council discussion. The private email discussion was followed by public disclosure afterward.

The Leeds investigation took place in 2016, before Ontario's 2020 amendments that permanently added electronic participation provisions to the Municipal Act. The present framework should therefore be applied directly when designing any current procedure by-law.

Open government in process

In London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., 2007 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada described the open-meeting requirement as protecting the public's ability to observe municipal government in process. Contemporaneous public written deliberation serves that democratic purpose more directly than private deliberation disclosed afterward.

Public Access and Procedural Safeguards

The implementation should begin with a clear policy and procedure-by-law review. Basic safeguards should include:

• advance public notice of the recurring session structure and access method;
• a clearly identified electronic meeting place that residents can access;
• session numbers, opening and closing times, and a subject or thread identifier;
• public visibility of messages essentially as they are transmitted;
• a permanent, searchable archive and a Clerk-maintained official meeting record;
• attendance and quorum tracking sufficient to comply with the Municipal Act and the procedure by-law;
• conflict-of-interest declarations and procedures under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act;
• a process for identifying and handling information that lawfully belongs in a closed meeting;
• accessible design, records retention, and protection of personal or confidential information where legislation requires it.

The final technical design should remain proportionate. The policy objective is a reliable public record of Council deliberation, with the Clerk and municipal counsel confirming the procedure, moderation, records, accessibility, and privacy details.

Example Session

Tuesday: A councillor posts a detailed transit-cost analysis and sources.

Wednesday: Another councillor asks about fleet-maintenance assumptions.

Thursday: Additional figures are supplied and an alternative approach is proposed.

Following Council meeting: Members arrive already familiar with the evidence. Remaining questions are discussed, motions and amendments are considered, and Council makes its decision.

The Same Principle at Grey County

As Mayor of Owen Sound, Andrii would also serve on Grey County Council and advocate for Grey County to establish its own Open Council Communication architecture, including Public Written County Council Sessions, using the same basic model. Grey County would maintain separate channels so County residents and representatives could examine regional issues together in public between formal County meetings.

The County system would have its own:

• formally defined written sessions;
• County public discussion list or equivalent written electronic system;
• County Clerk-maintained records;
• public subscription and permanent archive;
• meeting and session identifiers;
• procedural safeguards for notice, access, quorum, conflicts, confidentiality, accessibility, and records retention; and
• clear relationship to Grey County Council meetings, motions, votes, and decisions.

City issues belong in the City system. County issues belong in the County system. Both systems would be open to residents and designed to give elected representatives time to think.

Grey County Council deals with housing and planning, social services, long-term care, County roads and infrastructure, economic development, paramedic services, regional financial decisions, and other County-wide responsibilities. These matters often involve extensive reports, technical material, financial information, and impacts across multiple municipalities.

Public written deliberation between County meetings could give representatives from member municipalities more time to examine that information, understand one another's local concerns, ask questions, compare options, and arrive at County Council better prepared to decide.

The Municipal Act's open-meeting provisions apply to municipal councils at both lower-tier and upper-tier levels. Grey County Council would establish its own procedure by-law, public access, and records for a County system, while Owen Sound Council would establish and administer its City system.

City issues discussed through the City system. County issues discussed through the County system. Both open to residents. Both designed to give elected representatives time to think.

Sources and Legal Basis

The proposal uses the following primary and authoritative sources. The implementing procedure by-law would be developed with the Clerk and municipal legal review to ensure the final design satisfies Ontario's meeting, records, conflict-of-interest, confidentiality, and accessibility requirements.

• City of Owen Sound, Council and Mayor, current Mayor and Council contact information, including council@owensound.ca.
• City of Owen Sound, Community Engagement - Get Involved!, current Council and OurCity participation information.
• OurCity Owen Sound, current City-led engagement platform and project tools.
• Municipal Act, 2001, ss. 228 and 238-239, current Ontario statute.
• Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56, personal information and privacy protections.
• Ontario Municipal Councillor's Guide: Meetings, Government of Ontario guidance on meeting procedure and electronic participation.
• Ontario Ombudsman, Township of Ramara, October 10, 2025, written electronic communications, electronic presence, and material advancement.
• Ontario Ombudsman, Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands, September 8, 2016, quorum emails, public notice, public access, and meeting records.
• London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., 2007 SCC 29, the democratic purpose of observing municipal government in process.

Back to contents