staff are responsible for including, in the event of the opening of negotiations with the OPP, a satellite office as a precondition for the agreement, with the idea of recruiting current civilian staff; 65 At closed meetings on May 17 and 18, council voted to adopt five resolutions relating to the police service consultation plan, 22 of which revealed that the following exceptions applied to police service consultation on the issue of the police service consultation plan: the Ombudsman received a complaint that on 17 and 18 May the Deep River City Council met inappropriately under the entrance. 2017 to discuss a police consultation plan. The complainant also claimed that a “working group” of the police consultation, which took place at the closed meeting of 18 on 1 May, which should have been classified as a committee of the Council, subject to the requirements of the Law on Communes for open meetings. The Ombudsman found that Deep River City Council violated the Municipal Act by discussing and voting in front of the public on matters relating to the police service`s consultation plan. The Ombudsman also noted that the police consultation “working group” was not a committee of the Council and was therefore not subject to the requirements of the Municipal Act.17As the outcome of the OPP billing reform, the city received its OPP cost proposal in early 2017. The matter was referred to the municipality`s Protection and Safety Commission, which recommended developing a comprehensive community engagement plan to hold public consultations and gather citizens` views on the future of policing in Deep River. general police issues, such as revenue from substantive audits, response times and quality of service; and 20The usual practice of the city is to first discuss all the items of the closed session, with the aim of .m the discussion on the agenda items of the open session until 19:00. Once the meeting was called to order, a member of council submitted a request to amend the agenda to bring the discussion of the police service consultation plan from the closed meeting to the open meeting. This request was rejected and this item remained on the agenda of the closed session. 33The three members of the task force reported orally to council on the police service`s consultation plan at a special council meeting on May 30, 2017. Final versions of the documents to be published as part of the consultation plan were made available to Council during the meeting.
Council adopted a decision to oppose the oral report and publish the documents submitted to Council on the city`s website. 45 However, our interviews and document review indicate that council did not discuss any named individuals during the meeting that was not concluded. In addition, the staff was not the subject of a personal discussion: behaviour, character and work were not discussed. The debate focused on the provision of police services in general and how to communicate with the public on this issue. . . .