Maple Ridge can post, or not, a video of its meetings on the municipal website.
But to use the possibility a defamation lawsuit as the reason for doing that is “nonsense,” says libel lawyer David F. Sutherland.
“There’s a very wide protection for a fair and accurate report, which a videotape would be, of a council meeting,” under Sec. 4 of the Libel and Slander Act.
Sutherland was responding to the District of Maple Ridge’s removing the video of the June 17 committee of the whole meeting from its website after Coun. Corisa Bell questioned the budget.
Bell said her comments were general and not directed any one in particular, and if anyone would be offended, it would be council.
She’s been told she’ll have to file a Freedom of Information request in an attempt to get her own copy, although she can watch the video at municipal hall.
Mayor Ernie Daykin decided to remove the video from the website after getting legal advice.
“During the discussions around the annual financial report and statement of financial information, comments were made that, upon review, may be defamatory,” he said in a statement Tuesday.
After getting legal advice, the video was “removed from the district website.”
Sutherland, though, said recordings of meetings have “qualified privilege,” meaning they’re largely protected from legal action from what was said at the meetings.
Sutherland said if publishing what happens at a council meeting has an ulterior motive, there is a limit to the privilege, but it’s not exceeded by a councillor’s questioning of budgets at a council meeting.
“That is really highly unlikely,” he said. “There are so many other checks and balances.”
Councillors are in the business of public service, he added.
“The idea that somebody’s private reputation should interfere in the dissemination of information about what goes on in the public sphere is really troublesome to me.”
“Anybody who knows anything about the field … will know there’s no viable prospect of liability, none, absent there being some vicious, ulterior purpose.”
In addition, municipalities are heavily insured.
But the district doesn’t have to post the video, Sutherland said.
It could just not post it in order to protect staff from comments that may be made during a meeting, but which could hurt morale, or undermine the credibility of staff, or hurt the municipality.
“There’s a far better reason and I bet it’s the real reason,” Sutherland added.
“To say it’s because it’s libelous is not the appropriate excuse because there is such a wide and wonderful protection.”
Daykin said Tuesday, “It’s unequivocally not about Coun. Bell or the staff person. It’s about the District of Maple Ridge and of having that posted to the website that puts the District of Maple Ridge in the potential of liability.
“The key point is, it’s not the district against Coun. Bell.”
He didn’t want to say that a lawsuit could come from a staff member, but said “you could assume that.”
But he didn’t know if that would happen or not.
“We’re trying to be responsible.”
Bell has been at odds with council after questioning the budget process, the decision to extend borrowing authority for $6 million for a new Fire Hall No. 4, a project that’s long been planned, as well as development decisions and pay parking at Ridge Meadows Hospital.
Meanwhile, Daykin won’t be suspending chief administrative officer Jim Rule pending an investigation of a complaint filed by Bell following a June 10 workshop meeting.
Bell had asked that Rule be suspended while the complaint was being resolved.
Daykin said after reviewing the details, “there are no grounds for a suspension.
“Mr. Rule is the consummate professional whose 30 years of experience are a valuable asset for our community and our council,” Daykin added.
Rule has said he had private conversations about district matters with councillors, but doesn’t want to discuss those conversations.
“The mayor is aware of the issue and I have every confidence he will deal it appropriately,” Rule said previously.
Daykin said Bell isn’t considered an employee of the district. He offered to begin a third-party mediation process and is awaiting her response and wants the issue resolved as soon as possible.