Over 60 people took to Picton Main Street on Monday to protest Picton Terminals, a series of closed-session meetings of Council, and any deal the County might be preparing to make with the port operation.

Assembling at the Armoury plaza at noon, the group walked Main Street accompanied by a  police escort, blaring fog horns, banging water drums, and carrying picket signs bearing slogans such as “Say No to Picton Terminals.” They gathered outside Shire Hall, where passing cars honked their support.

Picton Resident Bob Bird barks into a bullhorn Monday afternoon. (Jason Parks/Gazette Staff)

Their target was a closed session of the County Council, which had scheduled a special meeting to deliberate, ostensibly, on the outcome of CAO Marcia Wallace’s negotiations with the Terminals.

Council directed Ms. Wallace and the municipality’s legal team to negotiate an agreement with the Terminals in a bid to head off legal proceedings. Those negotiations concluded on May 29, but no motion or decision has come before an open Council meeting.

Instead, that agreement has been the subject of closed sessions. Under the Municipal Act, a closed session of council can be convened to take legal advice and discuss confidential matters.

Just before the meeting started at 1pm, protesters outside proceeded to make a racket loud enough to call out Mayor Steve Ferguson, who faced questions about “closed door decision-making” and a perceived lack of transparency.

“It’s not uncommon to take legal counsel in a closed session,” explained the Mayor, who also said the day’s meeting “could be about any number of things.”

To a protester who voiced concern about decisions being taken in secret, the Mayor noted, “I’m not in favour of of doing anything in secret, as you know.”

“If a decision is made, any motion will come to Council and be publicly available,” he assured the assembled protesters.

As it happened, however, no decision came out of the closed session. That could mean yet another closed session.

Council is on a summer schedule of one meeting a month. The next regular meeting of Council is July 25. As no decision was taken, there is, as yet, no motion to bring to that meeting.

Notwithstanding the negotiations, and its deliberations on them, the County is continuing with a by-law enforcement order against the Terminals related to shipping containers it has stored on-site. It laid a charge against the company as it had not complied with the order within the two-week period granted. The Ontario Court of Justice granted Picton Terminal’s request for disclosure and a 60-day adjournment on May 19. The next court date is expected to be July 7.