Renfrew Council goes into closed section a lot. Like, an awful lot.
And how is one supposed to know if these closed sessions are legitimate? As in some of them? All of them? None of them?
Of course, that last one would never apply, because there are legitimate reasons for a council to meet in-camera, a term I’m surprised I don’t hear more often from the pretentious bunch who otherwise like to stick to their in-house admin vocabulary, because I guess they feel it makes them sound smart. Or at least smarter than us.
This is one tried and true method to achieve the look, sound, and feel of smartness, the in-house lingo, a kind of code language where only the people inside the tent can decipher what’s being said, while everyone else just kind of looks down at their hands so as not to appear stupid for not understanding. It’s a tactic employed by administrations everywhere, and teachers everywhere. The basic premise is this: if you don’t know what the hell I’m saying, you’re stupid and I’m smart. It works fabulously until some anti-social cretin comes along and spills contempt all over the practice, and wrecks it for everyone. That is at least for all the people who were, for a brief, shining moment, feeling that they had a leg up on everyone else around them. That is, of course, until they get home and their spouse, partner, or cat snaps them back into shape with a stiff one upside the head.
That’s the thing about secret codes. All the boys and girls who belong in the fort get it, nurture it, feed off it, and revel in it. Whereas your wife just tells you to shut up and take out the trash.
Very humbling, those wives. They have a way of cutting to the quick, and do so so without any fancy words that might not be understood. Instead, they use the language of life, easily understood if you know what’s good for you.
Wow, all of that because of in-camera. Talk about digressing. And for the record, that’s a word that means going off-topic, in case they’d like to incorporate that into their cool lingo.
Back to the closed sessions.
Yes, there are times where it’s completely appropriate to take a meeting behind closed doors, and the Municipal Act, that toilet roll of single-ply legislation, has several exceptions by which a meeting can go closed. They’re listed among all the other pieces of nonsense to be found there.
My point is, how are we supposed to know if the cited exceptions are a legitimate use of the exceptions listed? Who makes the call to go closed in the first place? And are they ever wrong? Is she ever wrong? Are they ever challenged? Is she ever challenged?
As to the challenges, the answer is no. Nobody would dare. We all know who runs the joint, and we all know who the enablers are, and we all know who’s in cahoots with who. The One sits upon the throne. The others sit at the foot of the throne, thriving on any scraps that fall their way. And they do it in plain sight, for anyone who cares to watch and pay attention.
For me it’s just frustrating to see and not be able to do anything about it. And for those who can do something, it appears they’d rather be humiliated by those who are supposed to work for them, and not the other way around. But that’s their deal, not mine. Nobody voted for me to be a sock-puppet.
So, how does one know a closed meeting is legitimate unless they happen to be in the closed meeting? I wish I could be like one of those National Geographic reporters visiting some undiscovered tribe in the depths of the Amazon Basin, and sit in on a couple of these meetings, just to see who’s who and what’s what. As I’m not related to anyone who makes decisions on staff, that’s never going to happen. And I’m not a pal of the ex-CAO so there’s no way in from that direction, either. For nepotism to work, you kinda have to be family or friend, although I was once “hired” to shut-up and stop writing by somebody who was getting a little tired of having too much truth thrown around. If that’s nepotism, then I’m back in play.
Who inside that room is going to challenge the veracity of a closed meeting? I mean, as if. And wreck the circle of trust? Distance oneself from the group over a matter of integrity, either personal integrity or integrity of process? Do people even do this? Or would they dare risk getting tossed out of the fort?
What if somebody did take issue? What would they do? Make a complaint to the integrity commissioner? It’s enough to choke on a very thin soup.
The integrity commissioner, and the whole stated mission of pursuing openness, accountability, and transparency, are both poorly-constructed jokes, as in a sham, or a charade if you prefer.
The Council and the Town Administration control all aspects of the transparency process, including the naming and hiring of the very integrity commissioner who would be tasked with looking into complaints.
And as the final insult to you, me, and everyone else, they can freely ignore the report of the integrity commissioner, one way or another. It’s a facade.
Sham, charade, and facade. And you can get it all on a YouTube Livestream should you choose to see what it looks like in action.
That is, unless, it’s a closed session, where transparency goes to die.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 