Forty-four days. That’s how long into the new term it took a city councillor to produce a truly memorable ‘Did they really just say that?’ moment.
This dubious distinction belongs to Coun. Cathy Heron, one of four new faces elected to council in October. During budget deliberations last week Heron raised more than a few eyebrows with a comment directed at a $30,000 expenditure to stream council meetings online, of all things. Heron called the business case “excessive” and pointed out meetings already air on Shaw TV, thank you very much, before going off about council being open, transparent and available to residents via email or one-on-one communication. Besides, if residents really want to know what happens at council they can always check the meeting minutes posted on the city’s website.
“We’re a pretty transparent council. People have every opportunity to know what we’re doing,” Heron said.
Let’s set aside the flippant “check the minutes” line which, given their barebones level of detail, is nothing short of insulting to residents who actually want to know the substance of a particular issue. But how did a discussion about the merits of online webcasts degenerate into a debate over council transparency? While generally the two are related, transparency has little to do with the value of streaming meetings online. The budget item, pushed by Coun. Cam MacKay and supported only by fellow newcomer Coun. Wes Brodhead, would have vastly improved residents’ ability to stay not just up-to-date, but actively engaged in city council business.
The value of engagement shouldn’t be overlooked coming off an election where the previous council was soundly critiqued for its perceived ability — or inability — to communicate with residents. The modest $30,000 request seemed, to this scribe at least, a good starting point to overhaul civic engagement, starting with the most basic of steps: keeping the public informed. Though we often try, newspapers can’t cover everything and even if we could many residents want to be part of the process, even if they can’t be there live and in person.
Shaw council broadcasts are capped at four hours, usually good enough for capturing most business of the day, but falling short for lengthier meetings, which also happen to be when the meatiest, most controversial issues are discussed. And thanks to increased competition for the airwaves, Shaw isn’t necessarily a homeowner’s first choice for TV viewing options. By hosting the meetings and archiving them online, like they do for council meetings in Edmonton, Grande Prairie and Wood Buffalo (Fort McMurray) and for the Alberta legislature, residents can tune in at their leisure and even research issues after the fact.
In the grand scheme of a $138.5-million operating budget, “excessive” isn’t exactly the word I’d use for a $30,000 budget item that has such obvious benefits. More understandable is the argument put forward by Mayor Nolan Crouse, who points out council hasn’t decided what it wants to do about communication, including whether webcasts fit the bill. Fair point. No one is professing that webcasts alone are a cure-all for engagement woes but it’s one more tool the city is not utilizing to open the lines of communication, right beside social media, town hall meetings or live blogs that have become commonplace elsewhere. MacKay recently took advantage of the latter last week when he held fort and had an engaging discussion with a small but dedicated group of civic-minded individuals on a local website. Perhaps he could give other councillors a link to the archived chat so they can read the blow-by-blow. It’s not as dry as meeting minutes, but it’s a place to start.
Bryan Alary is an editor at the Gazette.
