The revelation that reeve Charles Navratil says Westlock County council’s discussion on a peat-burning ban shouldn’t have been in camera isn’t startling.
For years county councillors have made it a habit of going behind closed doors when they see fit — the Municipal Government Act allows them to hold discussions in private under the three broad categories of land, legal and personnel. But, and it’s a big but, the MGA refers to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to outline why a council can go in camera.
FOIP allows a public body to withhold a wide variety of information and close meetings for a potpourri of discussions for topics that don’t fall under land, legal or labour. And then there’s something known as a ‘working meeting’.
In essence those closed-door affairs would allow them to discuss municipal business without the prying eyes of the media present. Granted no binding motions could be made, but in essence all of the county’s business could be conducted without public oversight.
So really, on a whim, council can, and has, closed the doors to the Westlock News — or more importantly, to the people who foot the bill, the ratepayers. We’re not alleging any chicanery, but when the doors close, the first question any good reporter asks is ‘why?’
Now we’re not about to anoint new Coun. Jim Wiese a saint or champion of free speech, but he does deserve credit for at least asking why council felt the peat-burning discussions needed to be private. It’s obviously a big issue and probably should have been talked about in a public setting — a group of unhappy ratepayers has formed a group (see Page 4) with the peat-burning ban No. 1 on its list of complaints.
Mind you, the county isn’t the only body that appears to be operating in the shadows. The revelation on Page 1 of the July 16 Westlock News that select 99th Street residents would be getting their water and sewer service free for a year didn’t come via a press release, or even a council minutes package.
No, it came from a tip from a reader.
In an interview last week town manager Darrell Garceau said it was his decision to make the concession — to our knowledge it didn’t come before council in an open meeting for approval or discussion or we would have reported it. So then, when were the rest of the town ratepayers going to learn about the decision?
Ratepayers demand municipal government that’s open and accountable. Sadly, those words don’t seem to resonate with some of our municipal officials.
