Gaetan: Transparency is not a courtesy. It is a condition of accountable government.

By Joe Gaetan

February 15th, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

The issue raised in this article goes directly to the heart of transparency and accountability in municipal governance.

From a news report in the Gazette.    

It’s Friday afternoon. The city is heading into a long weekend – Family Day on Monday.

The agenda for the Council meeting is on line.  Some people make a point of checking it out.

There are several reasons to at least glance at it.

There is an item on the agenda that, if passed, would have the city not collecting development charges.

The meeting agenda for this coming Tuesday’s Regular Meeting of Council has not been made available to the public.

People who want to delegate have to register by noon on the business day before the meeting. 

City Hall will close at the end of the day.

Quite why the City Clerk would let something happen is beyond understanding.

One would have thought that at least one Council member would have seen the problem and taken corrective action.

A decision not to collect Development Charges has the very real risk of costing the city a big bundle of money.  And that money will eventually come out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Link to the complete article.

The City bylaw that governs council meetings consists of more than minor administrative detail – it is a safeguard. The requirement that agendas be posted at least seventy-two hours before a regular Council meeting exists so that members of the public can review the business before Council, assess its implications, and decide whether to delegate. Without that notice, meaningful public participation becomes practically impossible. What is not known is when the 72 hour clock starts ticking. As this is a long weekend, the 72 hour notice requirement is technically attainable.

The Clerk’s role under section 7.1 includes ensuring notice of meetings is provided as set out in the by-law.

However, another section of the bylaw states that lack of receipt of notice does not invalidate a meeting. That clause should not be interpreted as a license to dilute transparency. It protects the City from technical challenges – it does not excuse avoidable failures in providing proper notice.

In a matter as significant as potentially foregoing Development Charges – with real financial consequences for taxpayers – the public deserves clear, timely disclosure. Seventy-two hours is not excessive; it is the minimum standard set by Council itself.

If the agenda was not posted within the prescribed time frame, that raises legitimate questions about the City’s procedural rules. More importantly, it undermines public confidence. Deferral, as suggested, may well be the prudent course – not only to clarify the financial implications, but to restore public trust in the process.

Transparency is not a courtesy. It is a condition of accountable government.