0
Secrecy, as usual
08 September 2010
Council held another in camera meeting, last night, that I felt was inappropriately staged behind closed doors. After 10-15 minutes of presentation - all of which I strongly believe should have been made in public - I made my protest and walked out. To my disappointment, the rest of council remained.
The discussion was - as it noted on the agenda - about the "Raglan Street servicing." When I saw this, I asked the clerk by email why a discussion about infrastructure had to be held behind closed doors. I was told it pertained to the "security of the property of the municipality," a stock phrase from the Municipal Act that tells the reader nothing, but is used as an umbrella to cover a host of reasons that don't get revealed until the doors close and the public is shut out.
Nothing I saw or heard before I left related to any security or legal issues that were in any way confidential.
Before we went in camera, I asked in public why this was behind closed doors, and the mayor refused to clarify or give more details.
I was also told by email it pertained to "solicitor-client communications." Perhaps after I left - but the client wasn't present, and why that segment could not have been separated after the general material was presented in public, I have no idea.
I had to wait through 10-15 minutes of presentation before I felt it was just another case of inappropriate secrecy that involved the spending of a considerable amount of tax dollars.
I always feel any discussion about spending public money should be public and if legal concerns about contracts need to be discussed in camera, then we can do so. But the discussion about whether or not to spend taxpayers' money should be done in public. Apparently I am alone in this belief.
I made my protest and walked out. Nothing I saw or heard while I was behind closed doors could not have been shown or said in public. Nothing.
When council came back to the public realm, a vote was held - recorded - over the decision (no details provided) made in secret. I voted against it because, as I noted then, it should have been held in public and I was not privy to any of the details worked out in secret.
Councillor McNabb interrupted my explanation - the mayor made no comment over the outburst - with a snarky comeback about me writing about it on my blog. Well, he was right. But snide remarks about a colleague who feels he is doing what he believes is in the best interests of the people and the democracy he was elected to serve are puerile.
Sometimes I think this council has become so inculcated with the cult of secrecy that it can't clearly see when something is or is not appropriate for discussion behind closed doors.
Story in the Enterprise-Bulletin.
The discussion was - as it noted on the agenda - about the "Raglan Street servicing." When I saw this, I asked the clerk by email why a discussion about infrastructure had to be held behind closed doors. I was told it pertained to the "security of the property of the municipality," a stock phrase from the Municipal Act that tells the reader nothing, but is used as an umbrella to cover a host of reasons that don't get revealed until the doors close and the public is shut out.
Nothing I saw or heard before I left related to any security or legal issues that were in any way confidential.
Before we went in camera, I asked in public why this was behind closed doors, and the mayor refused to clarify or give more details.
I was also told by email it pertained to "solicitor-client communications." Perhaps after I left - but the client wasn't present, and why that segment could not have been separated after the general material was presented in public, I have no idea.
I had to wait through 10-15 minutes of presentation before I felt it was just another case of inappropriate secrecy that involved the spending of a considerable amount of tax dollars.
I always feel any discussion about spending public money should be public and if legal concerns about contracts need to be discussed in camera, then we can do so. But the discussion about whether or not to spend taxpayers' money should be done in public. Apparently I am alone in this belief.
I made my protest and walked out. Nothing I saw or heard while I was behind closed doors could not have been shown or said in public. Nothing.
When council came back to the public realm, a vote was held - recorded - over the decision (no details provided) made in secret. I voted against it because, as I noted then, it should have been held in public and I was not privy to any of the details worked out in secret.
Councillor McNabb interrupted my explanation - the mayor made no comment over the outburst - with a snarky comeback about me writing about it on my blog. Well, he was right. But snide remarks about a colleague who feels he is doing what he believes is in the best interests of the people and the democracy he was elected to serve are puerile.
Sometimes I think this council has become so inculcated with the cult of secrecy that it can't clearly see when something is or is not appropriate for discussion behind closed doors.
Story in the Enterprise-Bulletin.
