The issue of how Muskoka’s district chair is selected will re-surface on Pine Street in the near future, but much of the discourse on the matter may never see the light of day, if district solicitor David Royston has his way.

He cites legal reasons as to why this discussion needs to head behind closed doors. Apparently, the irony of this situation has been lost on the district’s legal guardian and any district councillor who accepts this veiled approach.

One of the reasons this issue was brought to light by councillor Stewart Martin in the first place is because he and others feel such a powerful position needs to be more accountable to the public.

If there is a change to the way the district chair is selected, then legal formalities will certainly follow. However, we fail to see why discussion leading up to this important decision needs to be held in secret.

It is clear that the public, when give the opportunity to choose, supports the election of the chair.

In Durham Region, for example, constituents in three of the region’s area municipalities voted overwhelmingly in favour of having their chair, Roger Anderson, elected at large during a referendum last fall.

However, because the referendum was non-binding, voters’ sentiments were eventually forgotten and the issue later died at the parliamentary level.

This example reinforces the importance of maintaining as open and public a process on the chair’s selection as possible.  

Indeed, those on the inside of these debates often view this issue very differently than the public. Whether due to real concerns about a change to the process, or just personal allegiances, once the matter disappears from the public’s view, the discussion can veer off in a totally different direction than anticipated.

This can leave a select few to reach a final verdict that is entirely opposite of what the public wishes to see.

In an open and democratic society, this is never a desirable scenario.

Whatever the outcome of next month’s debate may be, the public needs to know that the process in Muskoka was open and that those involved, including Royston, are accountable for their actions.

Otherwise, the matter, whether shot down or accepted by councillors, will always be subject to public scrutiny, and never truly resolved in the eyes of the public.

We hope this issue gets the kind of open and frank discussion it deserves.

K.F.