View Single Post
Old 12-21-2018, 11:18 PM   #151
Roughneck
#1 Goaltender
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyman View Post
so your argument is, sure they're bad, but at least their not as bad as they could be?
ok, got it.
No. It wasn't.

It was: that council could easily have less in-camera council meetings by simply deferring these matters to committee level and administration like other jurisdictions do, which would mean less councilors will be informed on the matters because they'd still be in-camera, they just wouldn't be council sessions. So we could easily give into the illusion of transparency (because that's all it would be)

You brought up the comparisons to other cities. We could easily be like other cities and get a feel-good reduction of closed council sessions by just having less of them by including fewer people.

Quote:
This council deliberately hides prudent information, twists facts and then freaks out when the public finds out(i.e. hiding costs related to an olympic bid). You're cool with that?
This is different than complaining about how many in-camera sessions council has compared to other jurisdictions. One is an actual issue, the other is a manufactured one. People were given the Olympic info because of an in-camera council meeting. Had they kept in at committee level as long as possible with only a selection of councilors involved in the process until they would present the info as they wanted, it might never have gotten leaked in the first place (but hey, the comparison to other jurisdictions would look better because there would have been one less in-camera session).

Get what I'm saying now?
Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote