Municipal taxpayers deserve to know how decisions are made when their money is distributed to community groups as grants. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact — and it’s the law.
That’s why a recent debate over whether reporters should be allowed to attend meetings of the Fraser-Fort George Regional District’s Select Committee on Arts, Culture and Heritage Grants isn’t just unnecessary — it’s legally baseless.
Complaints about a Citizen reporter’s presence should have been dismissed the moment Coun. Cori Ramsay pointed out the reality: these meetings are public, and that includes the right of the media to attend and report on them.
This isn’t a political preference. It’s a legal requirement under the Community Charter and Local Government Act, which govern and guarantee transparency in local government.
It was particularly concerning to hear experienced committee members such as Tracy Calogheros — the long-serving CEO of Exploration Place and a former political candidate — suggest that the presence of a reporter has a “chilling” effect on deliberations.
She was wrong. The presence of media encourages decision-makers to weigh their words carefully, act fairly and avoid favouritism or bias.
Calogheros’s further suggestion — and the ensuing discussion — that these sessions should be held in camera and away from public view is a waste of time and an erosion of democratic accountability.
The committee is tasked with distributing taxpayer dollars to community groups. These are public funds, allocated through a public process, based on criteria and discussions that must be visible to the people — you — who are footing the bill.
Anyone arguing for closed-door meetings is asking the public to accept a news blackout on the disbursement of their own money.
That’s unacceptable.
The fact that some committee members find it “awkward” to discuss applications critically in front of a reporter isn’t a justification for secrecy — it’s a reminder of why transparency matters.
This is especially important in a smaller city like Prince George, where some of the appointed or elected members of a committee like this may have past or current connections to the groups applying for funding.
For example, at this meeting, Ramsay recused herself and left the room during the discussion of funding for the Prince George Community Band because she’s a member.
Not everyone is as familiar with conflict-of-interest guidelines — or even the perception of conflict — as elected officials like Ramsay.
That’s why it was unfortunate Ramsay later equivocated, wrongly suggesting to fellow committee members that there might be a mechanism to bar media from future meetings. This gave them false hope that their misguided complaint had merit.
On top of that, the slippery-slope argument that transparency could “damage relationships” with applicants or future partners is off-base.
Applicants are fellow citizens and community organizations. They deserve respectful and honest assessments — not whispered criticism behind closed doors.
If public scrutiny of the adjudication process risks relationships, perhaps the process needs to be improved — not hidden.
Let’s also dispense with the idea that this is uncharted territory. As chair Lara Beckett noted, these meetings have always been public — it’s just been a while since a journalist attended.
The fact that a reporter from the Citizen was present on May 9 isn’t a disruption. It’s a return to form for how public governance is supposed to work, and it’s part of the now locally owned Citizen’s mandate to shine a stronger light on public processes.
The law is clear. The meetings are public. The press has a right to attend. And the committee should focus on doing its work while accepting and understanding public scrutiny — not looking for ways to escape it.
Have your say on this editorial or other Citizen coverage with a letter to the editor: [email protected]
