Private Member’s Bill

Watching the televised council meeting and subsequent media - truly local television news- reports, I gathered that Councillor Maroosis intends to bring what sounds like a private member’s bill to council on Monday. It seems that Maroosis and some others disagree with the content of the very numerous ‘in-camera’ meetings that this council are holding. Failing to get consensus from the many new council members, he wants to bring in an outside specialist on the Municipal Act to clarify the issues of notification and content of meetings. (That earth tremor was just Dick Donnelly squirming . . .)

Mayor Fedeli dismissed the need as a “cat fight”, saying he was too busy issuing all those building permits for North Bay to get into a procedural skirmish. I am sure the Mayor was not demeaning cats, because cat fights are very serious events! I am also sure he didn’t mean that he personally was in the kitchen writing up those building permits, just that he was doing so well in attracting new business and growth to North Bay that he didn’t have time to spare. The Mayor claims the committee structure of council is working just fine.

But the rumours coming out of City Hall is that too many of these ‘in-camera’ or ‘away-from-public-scrutiny’ meetings slide off-agenda. And one gathers that not everyone who should be at the meetings is in attendance because the issues or agenda has changed. I guess we never learn.

This council makes no bones about the questionable decisions made by past councils. But as a couple of the old guard have noted, they did not see the details of the deal that was signed with the Department of National Defence to keep CFB North Bay open. One assumes that this was because the committee of the day that dealt with this agreed with the deal and the whole of council accepted their decision. Did the GG committee of the day see the details or did they leave it to the Mayor and senior staff? Did the Mayor discuss the details with the group of councillors who normally supported him and not the others?

How much did senior staff know of the details? Enough to show the potential liability to the City in their financial statements? Did the auditor know the deal details? No doubt Mayor Vic will use his well known DND bargaining skills to fix this problem, but was the problem avoidable by following proper procedure and letting all of council in on the details? Of course we have the old problem of council confidentiality, but maybe if all councillors felt they were ‘in’ they would abide by the purple paper rules.

Looking back at the much maligned Rail Lands deal, the ‘in-camera’ topic of that year, were the details known only to a few council members and few senior staff? Would it have made a difference if the whole of council had been involved? Maybe someone would have raised the issue of an environmental clean-up, but then that problem too, has been solved. Again, did the auditor’s have full disclosure to report the impact of the liabilities tied to the Rail Lands?

The recent Race Track / Casino fiasco came about because of the ‘in-camera / off-agenda’ where council only became aware of the details after the Mayor had already given his seal of approval. And this too, may work out just fine. You cannot fault Mayor Fedeli’s efforts and track record. So far. I get a little cautious when I see ‘the ends justify the means’ people in action.

The interesting thing to watch now will be to see if there is a ‘free vote’ in the chambers on Monday night. Will the inner circle be allowed to vote as they please or will they get a Chrétien-like dictum to follow the party line?

It is equally interesting on the national election scene to hear Harper say he will allow free votes in the Commons on such divisive issues as abortion and gay marriages. That sounds like a pretty liberal stance to me, unlike the aforementioned Chrétien who would not allow his party the same rights. It certainly makes me feel better about the Reform Party rhetoric that the Liberals and NDP continue to spout in desperation.

So I hope that George gets a second for his motion and that council gets back on track. We need the knowledge of all the council on these bigger issues. It is why we get to vote for ten members.