SIlly Stuff And Serious Stuff

There's a lot of silly-billy stuff floating  about right now. Like the idea a person elected  only speaks as a Councillor some of the time.
Any time a Councillor speaks on a public issue he/she speaks as a Councillor. It cannot be otherwise.
Beig elected is not a cloak one wears on  appropriate occasions.  
If Councillor Abel chooses to make his views known, he knows they will be subject to agreement and/or disagreement. 
He knows there will be little hesitation on the part of  some people who do not reveal their identity, to take  gratuitous shots 
It's par for the course.
Politics is no place for a shrinking violet. Double-speak will  always be outed. 
Here's something else I thought about while stirring the soup.
Even if everything else I've said about the terms of the agreement and lease between the town and the Culture Centre Board  is
inaccurate  and my purpose is to create confusion , this  much is absolutely true:
The agreement calls for public resources to be handed over to a board that deliberates in secret. A practice they  state to the press they intend to continue.
The only requirement in the previous agreement  for them to receive a quarterly payment of  public funds was  to submit  a financial statement to the town treasurer. 
No requirement  was imposed for that official to report  any aspect of the statement  publicly to Council . 
He did not.
Readers may re-call during the last term  I asked the town solicitor to provide a list of legal  costs incurred by the former Mayor up to that point. 
I was assured I would  receive them. . 
I was asked if I objected to a  consultation with the C.A.O.
I said I did  not so long as I received the information. 
Next, there  a resolution moved by former Councillor Evalina MacEachern and seconded by former Councillor Al Wilson was approved  that allowed the solicitor to refuse to provide the information I sought. 
During debate on the question, the Treasurer was  asked if  he found the resolution acceptable. He replied it was. 
Whether or not  the intention of the last Council was to have a member  serve on the Culture Centre Board and be secretly  paid  is neither here nor there.
The fact is, the agreement made it possible. 
Public funds were handed over, deliberations and decisions were  made in secret. Financial statements needed only to cite a total  for salaries
 In fact,  individual salaries are protected by the right to privacy.
Had everything gone as planned and the last Council ad been re-elected.with all Councillors owingelection  to a specific  organisation and staff amenable to whatever strategy presented to withhold information from the public, the status quo would undoubtedly been upheld. And we know who would have been in charge. . 
The Culture Centre Board  continues to hold that  meetings shall not be public.  
If  resources at hand were privately raised and used accordingly
there could be little fault found. 
But  resources are not private. 
Close to a million dollars of public resources are involved.  
There is little in the former agreement or its successor that  warrants public trust and confidence.
Board membership of two Councillors and the Mayor, all bound to secrecy,  will do nothing to meet the requirement for  openness ,
transparency and  accountability.   
Quite the opposite.