Confidentiality

I have challenged an item being on the agenda of an in-camera ,or closed session, as it is now called, to no avail. The Mayor simply directed the question to town solicitor Christopher Cooper who affirmed his opinion the matter did belong behind closed doors.

With six votes securely in the mayor's pocket, there is little point in arguing . There are more serious matters to contend. You have to pick your battles.

A councillor does not function under the authority of the Mayor or the town solicitor. The solicitor has the responsibility to advise Council and it is a serious one. In the past, on far more significant issues, advice has been frequently dismissed.

If I do not perceive the town's interest at stake and alternately, if I see the public right to be informed being frustrated, it means I must make my own decision. I am not bound to secrecy where secrecy is not protecting the public interest.

There are a couple of complications though; there's a clause in the Code of Conduct which specifies information obtained in closed session is not mine to disseminate to the public. It's one of the reasons I do not support the wording of the Code.It's also the reason an agenda must be approved by council.

The second is that the issue is not always clear before the discussion. Sometimes I am home before I think; Hey, wait a minute, why was that behind closed doors?

It happened after the last closed session and another is coming up on Tuesday's agenda. .

The last one was a request from Roger's cable to make a new arrangement for filming council meetings. Currently a big truck rolls up to the town hall entrance Three huge cameras are unloaded, heavy cables laid into the council chamber, camera operators set up inside and a person operates inside the truck.

Apparently there's a better way of accomplishing the same purpose. Rogers can install five cameras in the council chamber. A station can be established in the room behind the chamber for an operator and his equipment.Audio and visual production could be improved.

Equipment permanently installed, one operator instead of four or five,better audio/visual
production . What could be wrong with that?

When I came back on Council in 2003, a frequently voiced opinion heard around the council table was Council was the least watched local program. Little value was given to the service.

A strongly argued opinion would be dismissed as " performing for the cameras".

On the other hand, no-one ever suggested Aurora Cable should be invited to make themselves scarce.

I heard about a complaint against Aurora Cable once because they did not adequately project the sound level of applause received in response to a councillor or candidate's comment. But that's only hearsay.

The service is provided at no cost. But now Rogers needs something from the town. They are proposing to install valuable equipment and to protect their ownership they need to have permission and an agreement.

I don't see that needed to be a closed discussion. I do not see the town's interest jeopardised by public discussion of the request.

But it was. Some members felt there may be an opportunity here and that was sufficient reason to huddle.

Well you know, sometimes the logic escapes me.