“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.” – opensource.com
After thirty five years on the outer edges of politics, I sometimes wonder if “open government” is an oxymoron to those driven to lead us or even to those who serve the politicians.
Twice within the last 30 days I have asked the Town of Rothesay for information that residents are entitled to have under the laws of this province.
First, I asked if Councillor Wells had provided reports to Council on the Rothesay Common Upgrade Steering Committee, as required by the Town’s Procedural Bylaw (Think accountability). Still no answer from either the Town Clerk or Councillor Wells despite weeks of patient waiting. It should be a simple question for anyone interested in transparency and accountability.
Today I asked why the public was excluded from a special meeting of Council held without the required public notice on March 30th, 2016 in the Town Hall.
The New Brunswick Municipalities act requires that all meetings of Council be open to the public, except under very specific circumstances. When they are closed, the Town is required to provide the reason for excluding the public by identifying the relevant authority under subsection 10.2(4) of the Act.
That information was not provided, when it was requested on April 22nd, (What I was given is shown above.). This despite the Municipalities Act requirement to have it available for “examination by the public in the office of the clerk during regular business hours.”
The reasons for having this available are simple. First because the Law requires it; “All decisions of Council shall be (a) made in a regular or special meeting of the Council, and (b) adopted by a bylaw or resolution of council”. Second, because it is 2016 and the public expects transparency.
When it comes to council meetings, Councillors have to play by the rules, especially when the public is excluded as it was on March 30th.
With its refusal to provide the reason for the meeting, Rothesay is once again on the wrong side of public expectations of openness and accountability.
We’ve left the days of Tammany Hall behind. But Rothesay has yet to catch up to 2016. If there is any doubt as to why Blair MacDonald, supported by Pat Gallagher Jette, wanted more oversight applied to Rothesay’s affairs, this might qualify as further evidence of the merit of Blair’s proposal.
Clearly, real time accountability that results from true transparent government imposes a constraint on power that many are uncomfortable with.
That, however, is no excuse for not complying with the law or even going beyond the minimum by reaching for best practise.
From my personal experience, the Town of Rothesay hoards information, especially information specifically requested by the public.
When and if the reason for the March 30th Council meeting, becomes known, then maybe we’ll be in a better position to ascribe motive as to why we were, and are, being kept in the dark about a secret meeting held behind closed doors. For those Councillors who know what went on, the time to speak up is now or their talk of transparency, and accountable government is just that, …talk.
On May 9th voters will have to decide if returning the same foxes to guard the town hen house will bring about the change that Rothesay so badly needs.