Council sticks to secret appointments

At Halifax council’s Tuesday meeting, councillor Linda Mosher brought forward a proposal to change existing policy, such that in the future all council appointments to boards and commissions are made in public.

Supporters of the status quo maintained that holding council discussion of applicants’ qualifications in public would be an invasion of those applicants’ privacy. Council Mary Wile, who is usually confused and left muttering to herself through council meetings, was uncharacteristically animated, and said that changing the policy would be a violation of the charter of rights and freedom. City solicitor Martin Ward appropriately shot down that notion, saying the appointments were covered by the municipal governance act, and council could make them in public if council wanted to. But Mosher’s motion was defeated on a vote of 12-9, regardless.

There will be no change in policy, and council will continue to make appointments to boards and commissions in secret.

I really must explain why this vote was wrong-headed, and argue again why these appointments should be made in public.

Let’s step back and examine how we select councillors themselves. Each of them ran for office, putting their name out to the public, beginning a very public debate about their capabilities, past history, their connections to private business, what churches they go to, the non-profit agencies they help out, their potential drawbacks, their criminal history (if they had one), even, judging by candidates’ literature, the relative good looks of their children and how hip their pets are. All done in public.

Why? Why is it appropriate to have council candidates’ lives dissected in public?

The answer should be clear: because these people are making political decisions that affect the common good. We, the public, should know if Candidate A works for a company that stands to make a lot of money from public contracts, if Candidate B has made some bone-headed mistakes managing the payroll of the Boys & Girls Club, if Candidate C trolls for hookers on Windmill Avenue, and so forth, because those facts will help us determine which is best for the job of creating policies and giving direction to how city finances and operations are run.

On the other hand, city employees are charged with implementing those policies. Ideally, no city employee should be making policy. And so, it’s understandable that employee’s work history, relative capabilities, etc, are not made available to the public. Who is hired and how they are rewarded is for city management, and council, to decide, not the public. (I’d argue, though, that the hiring and annual review of the chief administrative officer should be made in public.)

So, where do members of boards and commissions fall on this spectrum?

Unlike city employees, board and commission members are making policy. In some cases, they are making policies that can potentially cost the public millions, even billions, of dollars. (The Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission, for example, is advocating for a third harbour crossing that will cost at least $1.1 billion; the Water Commission is making decisions on assets worth several billion dollars.)

Board and commission members are directing policy, not implementing policy—and these policy decisions are political decisions. And just as other people making political decisions—councillors themselves—are selected in public, with public scrutiny, board and commission members should be subject to public scrutiny.

As an example, let me just pull out randomly a commission to which Halifax council makes appointments—the Board of Directors of the airport. The city of Halifax appoints four people to the eleven-member board. I don’t mean to suggest I have a problem with their performance on the board, but let’s look at who they are:

Cheryl Newcombe, is the controller of Canadian Gold Seafood Company, which, as described on its website, “specializes in the procurement, processing, storage, and distribution of some of Nova Scotia’s seafood treasures. Since our inception in 1995, we have concentrated on the consistent supply of quality seafood to customers around the world.”

Obviously, Canadian Gold has much interest in airport fees and policies for shippers. Does Newcombe have a conflict of interest? Was the potential for a conflict discussed when her application was reviewed by council? We don’t know, because council discussed it in secret. Has Newcombe helped shape policy that has reduced fees on shippers, shifting the financial burden to travellers? We don’t know.

Robert Scott is executive director of Glenora Distillers, another shipper, albeit with smaller volumes. I’d ask the same questions I asked about Newcombe.

Ken Streatch was a long-time MLA. Shouldn’t his record as minister of transportation be of public interest in terms of Streatch being on the airport’s board? The voters just overwhelmingly rejected Streatch’s PC party at the polls, renouncing many years of PC policy, including their transportation policies. Isn’t this relevant?

Peter McDonough is a partner at the McInnes Cooper law firm, where, according to the firm’s website, he “has been in practice for over 30 years in the areas of property development and real property (commercial and residential).” Anyone who follows airport issues knows that airport policy vastly affects nearby property values; does McDonough represent anyone who stands to benefit from decisions made at the airport? We don’t know—those conversations, if they were held at all, were held in secret.

(Another board member, Wadih Fares, is also a large developer.)

As the example of the Airport board demonstrates, Halifax council is using bogus “privacy” concerns to take public policy issues—that is, politics, the public’s business—out of the realm of the public and put it behind a wall of secrcy.

Related Stories

How councillors voted on making appointments in public

How Halifax councillors voted on Linda Mosher’s motion which would have changed council policy to make appointments information public

PR ranks swell as journalism suffers

Spin machines are working overtime as laid-off reporters find work in government public relations departments.

This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 4, 2009.