The front page of this newspaper does not offer a glowing review of life in municipal politics in the Pontiac. Far from it.
This week, we got news that Waltham’s director general resigned, Bristol’s, according to the mayor, is on a leave of absence, and a newly elected councillor in Otter Lake stepped down from the position, just six months into the job.
And that’s not all. Earlier this month Portage-du-Fort’s DG was suspended. In March, a longtime Bristol councillor resigned from his position. Fort-Coulonge’s interim DG resigned in February. Each of these cases is unique, though each, with the exception of Otter Lake, involves a municipality with a new mayor at the helm.
In very few of these cases were taxpayers given any justification for these decisions. Only the director general of Waltham shared some transparency into her choice to step down, pointing to what she felt was a toxic work environment and a lack of support or collaboration from the mayor.
The mayors and councillors THE EQUITY has reached out to for some clarity on these HR decisions have largely refused to comment. This is understandable. Managing HR matters, usually personal, certainly has its challenges, especially in small communities. Precautions need to be taken to protect privacy. If personal matters were consistently aired in the public court of opinion, even fewer people would be stepping up to the plate to serve in public office.
Reporting on HR matters is equally challenging. Few want to speak on the record about their neighbour or colleague. In communities where most people know most people, and where interactions with a colleague are rarely limited to the workplace but also extend to the schoolyard, community groups, and the grocery store, every attempt must be made to keep matters, at least superficially, civil.
Many readers will know, though, that what is reported in THE EQUITY’s attempts to cover these matters is far from the full story.
The full story, in some cases, is less than civil, with divided councils, split visions of how a municipality should be run, and antagonism towards municipal staff. Testimonies to this effect are frequently shared off the record. The trouble is, journalists cannot report the full story if nobody shares it on the record. And as close to the full story is needed, while protecting private details, so that residents can cast an educated vote in the next election.
Municipal staff, including directors general, have no obligation to share the reasons for their decisions, though it is appreciated when they do. But elected councillors and mayors, many of whom campaigned on greater transparency in the last election, ought to deliver a small window into HR decisions that could have a significant impact on the functioning of a municipality.
This lack of transparency leaves people to speculate. But maybe that’s the preferred of two evils. The alternative, giving the ravenous members of the public fodder for further entrenching themselves in their chosen camps and launching for new rounds of online attacks is even less constructive of a healthy political sphere.
Voters can call on politicians to deliver transparency until the cows come home, but they carry as much responsibility as these politicians for creating the conditions where transparency is possible. It’s up to all of us, elected or not, to be respectful when disagreeing with people who take on public office if we want our local politicians to be forthcoming, and not dysfunctionally opaque.