Here is a post I dusted off this morning. I began it 5 months ago.
September 14th, 2016.
After thirty five years on the outer edges of politics, I sometimes wonder if “open government” is really an oxymoron in the hands of those driven to politics. (See open government definition at end of this post)
For seekers of political power, the real-time accountability that is implied by “Transparent” government imposes a constraint that many politicians will support publicly, but are uncomfortable with in practise. “Open” government, on the other hand, is more than transparency. It involves engaging the public in the processes of governing. Open government takes real commitment as it dilutes the power of old style top-down command and control as it gives way to consensus building, something we have seen little of recently in Rothesay politics.
Open government is clearly about more than communications and one-way message control. It is about making all information that residents should have more readily available. It also requires real two way engagement with the public. Open government is most effective when it gives a voice to all sides in a civilized community debate. That debate should happen before Councillors take on an entrenched position that is hard to retreat from.
While the headlines tend to emanate from Open Council meetings, Rothesay councillors do a lot of work through the town’s system of committees. Just like the meetings of Council that are routinely closed to the public, committee activity tends to fly under the public radar. Here are a few examples of what we’ve observed –
- The Planning Advisory Committee is mandated by the Provincial Community Planning Act. Its recommendations form part of a regulatory process that informs decisions of Council.
Rothesay PAC is perhaps best known for a decision that was actually a non-decision related to the Funkey Monkey. Its members may have felt a near death experience with flack coming, not from the public, but from the Mayor who appeared furious when PAC decided that the question of a permit for “dog carts”, as the Mayor called them, came up for discussion.
With rare exceptions, PAC is seen as all but rubber stamping the wishes of Councillors on the advice of staff. While following the professional advice of staff may be fair when matters are technical. However, when following staff recommendations becomes the default position, it is questionable if PAC is really acting as a valued-added advisory body. The active participation of Councillors on PAC can bring an element of politics into a process that should be anything but political. When that happens, confusion over roles makes it difficult to hold any of the players accountable for results.
The current spate of spot re-zoning recommendations coming out of Rothesay’s PAC is turning the town’s zoning bylaw into a swiss cheese of exceptions. Creating zoning policy by exception undermines confidence in Rothesay as a stable place to invest. Maintaining continuity in the rules for development mean no unpleasant surprises after homeowners and developers alike have invested in Rothesay property. It’s unclear, however, if the current trend is driven by the collective wisdom of PAC, staff, or Council. Clearly that does not contribute to open government.
Perhaps the public understanding of PAC’s role might be improved and transparency achieved, if members did a better job of communicating the reasons for their decisions. As it stands, that is often left to speculation as the individual views of PAC members don’t normally reach the public. - The Rothesay Heritage Preservation Board is supposed to operate at arm’s length from the politics of Council. However, its handling of the Rothesay Common Project have left some wondering if it was captured by politics when it did not live up to its “preservation” mandate in allowing the traditional open green space of the Common to be replaced by an oversized commercial building and hardcourt recreational facilities.The Heritage Board has been criticised for lack of transparent process, including failure to give public notice of applications before it. A Board member was also criticised for anonymously operating a Facebook page supporting the Common Development while having responsibility as a member of the Board to act impartially. While there is confusion as to whether or not the Town followed through on a commitment to investigate that matter, the Board’s track record begs for further investigation, perhaps by the NB Ombudsman? In any event, the new Council needs to fix a process that many believe is broken.
Not all Town committees are easy to follow. Some don’t post notices of their meetings or agendas . Their meeting minutes or records of decision are not published online, except as part of the monthly Councillors’ package.
Why is this important?
Decisions of bodies like PAC and the Rothesay Heritage Preservation Board are open to appeal. The right of appeal is typically time-limited.
The Heritage Board’s decisions, for example, are open to appeal for just two weeks. Without the Board’s minutes any decisions are known only to those who may have attended the meeting. But the meeting agenda isn’t posted before the Board meets. So how is the public supposed to know that a meeting took place or what was on the agenda or what was the decision taken?
If the public is unaware of the business before a committee or the decision taken until after the time allotted for appeal is over, then the right of appeal is effectively withheld. That means no public oversight is possible and limited or no opportunity for redress. That is unfair and almost always illegal as the empowering provincial legislation requires these elements of fair process.
Why are committees worth following?
Town advisory committees are the bellwether of issues coming before Council. Council will often send issues to committees for detailed examination and committees can hear from interested residents before making a decision. The next time you hear of some new Council initiative and wonder,”Where in the heck did this come from?” The answer is likely to be, “Oh this was recommended by such and such a committee.” If the public record is lacking, who are we to argue?
So, do committees perform their intended roles as advisors to Council or are they just used as cover for political agendas?
Sometimes the line between board member and staff advisor seems to be blurred, as with the Rothesay Common application at Heritage Board. Town staff advised the Heritage Board on a Town development in that case, a clear conflict, in my opinion. Without rehashing the Rothesay Common debate, suffice it to say that many do see conflict in the multiple roles played by staff when a town development is at play before an advisory committee.
A review of multiple years of committee minutes shows that staff or councillors are often the originators of proposals purportedly originating from town committees. Ideas or proposals are funnelled onto the agenda, receive cover in the form of some pre-worded motion from the committee, and then are presented to Council as originating from that committee. No wonder there is cynicism in municipal politics.
But a more fundamental problem with town committees is that they don’t have published rules of procedure and the few that have a semblance of procedure in bylaws or legislation, don’t always follow them. The Heritage Board failed to give Public notice of the Common “Upgrade” application before it was considered and while its decisions could have been appealed to the Provincial Appeals Board, the public (or even its own members) had to have been informed of their decisions in time to exercise that right of appeal. In the case of Rothesay Common, the decision was not made available until after the appeal period for the decision.
If Mayor Grant is committed to open government her committee system is a very good place to start. While I’ve provided just a few examples, the entire system of town committees and boards could do with an overhaul. That is, if Rothesay wants to boast that it is a best practises leader in open government.
Rothesay, in my opinion doesn’t come anywhere close to meeting best practises. Worse, I believe it frequently does not meet its obligations under the laws of the land. Rothesay should also take a look around at neighboring municipal governments where they would see that the issue of politicians on municipal advisory committees and boards is under examination. – High time it was done here as well. Can you imagine the late Rob or Doug Ford on the Toronto police commission?
An open government initiative that doesn’t address these issues is like building on a foundation of sand, a complete waste of time.
Here’s how opensource.com defines Open Government:
“In general terms, an open government is one with high levels of transparency and mechanisms for public scrutiny and oversight in place, with an emphasis on government accountability.
Transparency is considered the traditional hallmark of an open government, meaning that the public should have access to government-held information and be informed of government proceedings. In recent years, however, the definition of open government has expanded to include expectations for increased citizen participation & collaboration in government proceedings through the use of modern, open technologies.”