Home->Kincardine
->2005->Feb
->Feb 16
 

by Fred Kirby    February 16, 2005

 The idea of freer debate is dashed by council. Yet their very discussion of more open debate and less closed sessions demonstrates the obvious need for such. Barry Schmidt brings forth a suggestion for such debate. In response, there is barely a comment that contributes to thoughtful discussion of the idea. It does not matter whether one is in agreement, that is not the point here, but the quality of debate is important. Barry did not deserve the response he got. 

“Others should come up to the standards of municipal councils.” states the deputy mayor.  Such a vapid remark contributes nothing to the discussion. What are those standards and which councils exhibit them? Sandy does not say, but I know all councils do not behave the same.  

I was disappointed in Councillor Maureen Couture’s remarks which missed the point of the idea. Open debate has nothing to do with uncivil debate. I expect more from Maureen.

As for lawsuits, the only ones I can remember have come from some in council whose idea of an intelligent rebuttal is to threaten a lawsuit. 

The mayor says, “We’re here to do the public’s business and be as open and accessible as possible.” which adds nothing to the discussion? For what does Glenn mean when he says, “…open and accessible as possible”? 

 He chose to represent Kincardine for $5000 a year to sit on the board of Westario and yet when the labour dispute arose last summer at Westario he said not a word to his constituents about the issues nor would he explain his position to the strikers who also were his constituents. They may not have agreed with him but he owed it to them to explain where he stood and to listen to them. There was nothing open or accessible here. 

When confronted by Tiverton residents over their water issue, Glenn avoided saying what was necessary. Where is the openness and where is the fairness to residents given no choice? 

The handling of the nuclear waste issue with its closed meetings, one-sided information, and lack of a legal referendum also gives the lie to his statement of openness and accessibility. 

Citizens deserve to see freer, intelligent debate with the information accessible to all.