Transparency in government

Today, I write about my belief that it is necessary for government to work in the open as much as possible. I believe that since our elected officials are there to represent our interests as our proxies, that it is beholden upon them to act in a way that we can hold them to account. In my post where I documented the issues I hope to address as councilman, I wrote, "As a former journalist, transparency of government is very important to me. I would make it a point to air the issues in the open, and not to hide behind conveniently written 'rules' of order to railroad through controversial legislation before it has been given a fair public hearing." When I wrote this, I was talking about two trends I have noticed in attending public meetings. "Rules" are invoked frequently to:

•adjourn to executive session
•bypass the requirement that new ordinances be read publicly on three separate occasions.

These trends are not unique to Toronto by any means. They do it in Steubenville and Follansbee and many other municipalities. I've seen it done numerous times in numerous places; and not just in city government - but in school boards as well. First, I should note that when this is done, it is perfectly legal. Nonetheless, it is often done for reasons that strain the intent behind the right of council to do it.

Public meetings are public for a reason; to give the citizens the opportunity to scrutinize how their business is being conducted. When legislators go into executive session, it closes the door on their deliberations, and the public is left guessing about what exactly is going on behind the closed door. Except in cases where council is considering private matters, it is my belief that the public has a right to see their business being conducted. Therefore, I would vote against closing the meetings to privately discuss the public's business in almost every instance.