The rules are pretty clear about in-camera municipal council meetings.

In the Community Charter, a part of a council meeting may be closed if it relates to such matters as personal information about someone being considered for a job.

Councils also go in-camera to discuss labour relations, the security of municipal property, law-enforcement matters, potential litigation, and the purchase or sale of land.

Often, this is abbreviated in the minds of reporters as anything to do with land, labour relations, or legal issues.

Anyone who attends these in-camera meetings is expected not to reveal what’s discussed.

So how is it that a Vision Vancouver propagandist and blogger by the name of Jonathan Ross was able to learn of an in-camera meeting about mixed-martial arts?

Ross, who managed the campaign of unsuccessful Vision Vancouver council candidate Kashmir Dhaliwal, wrote about this earlier this month.

Here are Ross’s precise words:

“Yesterday, Vancouver City Council received an in-camera briefing of a staff report on MMA that hasn’t yet been publicly released yet (I will post a link as soon as it goes up online). From what I am hearing, Vancouver City Council will proceed on establishing a 2-year trial for MMA events, including a major UFC card to be held at GM Place in June, this morning.”

It’s possible that somebody blurted out in a council meeting that there was a previous in-camera meeting on the matter. But if anyone leaked this information to Ross, that person  might have  run afoul of the rules.

As some residents of False Creek South learned a few years ago, the average citizen can’t even get information about in-camera meetings from the city via freedom-of-information requests.

Last year after documents from an in-camera meeting about the Olympic Village were leaked to Globe and Mail  columnist Gary Mason, the Vancouver police launched an investigation at the request of then-mayor Sam Sullivan.

The NPA-controlled council also retained lawyer Richard Peck to investigate the matter. He recommended, among other things, that political staff be required to adhere to the same ethical guidelines that apply to councillors and staff.

Peck also recommended the appointment of a part-time integrity or ethics commissioner. In addition, he called upon council to request that the province amend the Vancouver Charter to allow for this.

On June 18, council voted unanimously to appoint “a respected individual who is knowledgeable and experienced in issues of ethics and integrity". But it didn't vote to ask for a change to the Vancouver Charter.

This person would, at the request of council, "investigate and report on alleged breaches of the City’s Code of Conduct and that the City Manager will bring recommendations to Council for a selection process and compensation options”.

There’s no word on whether or not city manager Penny Ballem ever did bring recommendations forward to hire anyone for this position.

Perhaps this was done in-camera, and it hasn't been revealed to the public.

In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath for the Vision Vancouver-controlled council or Mayor Gregor Robertson  to call for a police investigation.

Nor  should  we expect the Vision-controlled council  to  announce the appointment of anyone to look into whether or not information about an in-camera meeting was leaked to a Vision Vancouver campaign operative.

Perhaps the two COPE commissioners, David Cadman and Ellen Woodsworth, or NPA councillor Suzanne Anton will  consider bringing  a motion before council on this matter.

At the very least, this would kick-start an important and necessary  discussion about the need for an integrity commissioner at  the municipal level of government.