Marie Walsh is freshly back from vacation. The new Chief Administrative Officer of the CBRM closed out the final topic of the council meeting on August 15th, 2017 with some practicality and a refreshingly clear answer about port financial information.

However, this came only after the mayor and several veteran councillors detoured the discussion into some... what I suppose I'll just call... unnecessary places.

I've reviewed the council video three times. Had CAO Walsh spoken at the beginning instead of the end, the entire discussion could have been resolved in less than 5 minutes. However, Mayor Clarke and other councillors apparently didn't consider the request for additional information in quite as practical a manner as the new CAO.

Several comments from Mayor Cecil Clarke and councillors Darren Bruckschwaiger and Jim MacLeod took the discussion off on tangents that questioned (1) whether pursuing port development was an all or nothing choice, (2) whether the CBRM should just abandon pursuing economic development, or (3) whether CBRM citizens posting criticisms online should be held legally responsible.

These responses were voiced after councillors Amanda McDougall, Kendra Coombes, and Ray Paruch pressed for info on port spending in addition to what is currently provided on a monthly basis.

Coombes may have been first to trigger their reaction by using the CBRM hot word: transparency.

In one of the stranger tangents, Councillor Darren Bruckschwaiger talked about how online postings on sites like Facebook could lead to people being held libel for their comments and "some are bungalows that could be got in many places". The bungalow comment was presumably in reference to the size of possible financial damages if a civil lawsuit was filed by the CBRM against its citizens and taxpayers for libel (written defamatory comments).

I suppose as we zoom through August, everyone including the councillors have bungalows on the brain. Here is a video of Bruckschwaiger's comment, with a bonus clip from the 1986 Rise & Follies (who were also big fans of bungalows as you'll soon see):

I found a few of the comments from Clarke, Bruckschwaiger, and MacLeod to be quite over the top and irrelevant to the primary request of additional financial information regarding CBRM expenditures related to port development.

However, that hot word of transparency and Coombes' correct take on how it impacts public perception and trust apparently hit a nerve with a few of their colleagues.

Here's a video showing three of the more concerning and unnecessary comments made:

Let's take a look at the comments, one by one.

"Either we're for the continuation of this port file moving forward, or we're not" - Councillor Darren Bruckschwaiger

Here Bruckschwaiger is presenting a false dilemma. Asking for additional financial information in no way suggests that councillors are not in support of port development. Likewise, there is no clear indication that obtaining this information would in any way put the development at risk.

Councillors are able to view sensitive information with confidential privilege in business dealings. There are very few things made more clear than this point by the CBRM. Likewise, having all requested information available helps council members remain confident that the port development activities are proceeding in a responsible and productive manner.

The councillor then goes on with a statement that suggests that port development is the only path that the CBRM has to follow:

"For me, I don't see any other prize to chase at this particular time" - Councillor Darren Bruckschwaiger

In terms of industry, this might be a good indication that the councillor should pay a little closer attention to Louisbourg Seafoods, Protocase, the Verschuren Centre at CBU, the New Dawn Centre for Social Innovation, Innovacorp, the billionaire that's building new roads to truck coal out of Donkin (dirty as it may be), new tourism adventure operators on the Cabot Trail that provide archery, ziplining, or "Live Life In Tents" adventures, or perhaps he might even ask the chair of Business Cape Breton about the scope of the opportunity for hemp oil production in Cape Breton.

If we get away from the "economic development mandate" which has often been suggested the CBRM doesn't have, we can get back to more municipal governance topics. These include discussions on equalization, levels of provincial funding, pursuing the CBRM charter, replacing the tax cap to try to stimulate the housing market and increase CBRM working capital, working towards downtown revitalization in our core areas, and doing whatever we can to improve conditions for small business development.

You see, management of the CBRM and pursuing our future is actually a multi-pronged mission. There is far more for us to do than simply resign ourselves to either seeing a container terminal built in Sydney or failing as a municipality.

However, Mayor Clarke himself reflects a similar sentiment in one of his comments:

"And the other piece of this is that, it is always the prerogative of council to get out of the business of being in business" - Mayor Cecil Clarke

He's right. The CAO and council could decide to steer away from any attempt at directly pursing economic development like the proposed container terminal. However, once again, it's a false dilemma.

Councillors asked for additional information that is easily obtainable, and suddenly the mayor is talking about the choice to give up the entire project - or all projects related to economic development.

In each of my three viewings of the video, I've yet to see the part where McDougall, Coombes, MacMullin, or Paruch suggest that the entire port project should be abandoned, or that the CBRM should "get out of the business of being in business".

Councillor Jim MacLeod elevated his voice and offered the most dramatic of the three who gave versions of the all or nothing propositions:

"The port is our future, and if we keep on the hunt, what's gonna happen is that there'll be no future" - Councillor Jim MacLeod

It's a fair point that Jim's comments could be presented as an example of fear mongering. However, in another context, Jim has a point.

Specifically, if the CBRM continues to decline we're going to have a very challenging future indeed. After all, our population is declining; we're seeing troubling economic indicators like rising property tax arrears; and based on overall analysis of the factors considered by MoneySense Magazine, we're not only among the very worst off in Canada... we're also still losing ground.

Securing a major shipping terminal would certainly be a major upturn in our economy depending on the scale of the operation. Whether or not it should be considered the key aim for our future success is a subject for debate for another day.

So where does Jim really go wrong with his comment?

If you remember that all these comments essentially spawn from Coombes and McDougall asking for additional information related to the port financials, why on earth is MacLeod talking about a "hunt" and "no future" as though the councillors just asked to pull the plug on the project?

Maybe it's time to take a look at the comments of McDougall, Coombes, and MacMullin. All three asked straightforward questions, and made the case for why they wanted the additional information. MacMullin, after seeing the tangents the men went on, was bold enough to ask how the conversation ended up on such a path.

Finally, CAO Walsh spoke up. She succinctly described the current situation and what information is provided in practical, easy to understand terms, without any gibberish. She correctly assessed which information the councillors were asking for and showed her awareness of why they are asking for it. She also reemphasized her committment to transparency that she made a priority in her first media interviews after being declared CAO.

While the mayor and the veteran councillors focus on the all or nothing scenarios, the others just have a basic and reasonable request for information and one that they've made on prior occasions.

The only thing everyone essentially missed was a specific solution. So I'll offer one:

• Each month a report about the trust account, with funds earmarked for the port, should be included in addition to the port financial statements.
• It must contain a list of all transactions made from that account, incoming or outgoing. They must be dated, and must include the value of the transaction.
• For each transaction, it must identify the consultant, contractor, vendor, or service provider to whom the payment was made (or from whom it was received).
• For each transaction, it must identify the purpose of the expediture (or incoming funds) in non-abstract terms. Councillors must have a very clear sense of what the money was used for.
• If any of the information included must be kept confidential for a valid reason, then the report is provided to council members in private and not permitted for public disclosure until otherwise noted.

If we consider that the volume of transactions going through the trust account should be fairly minimal, then this is a very easy 1-2 page report to compile. At that point, all councillors will be fully equipped with the information they were requesting.

No doom and gloom necessary. No false dilemmas. No need to shut down the container port project. And no need to start filing lawsuits against CBRM citizens to take their bungalows.

After all, the Cape Breton Spectator's FOIPOP (freedom of information) bounty already showcased where some of the money has gone so far. As they reported, there are payments to companies previously referred to as "partners". Campbell even highlighted a payment to a company (Cadence) that appeared to be owned by the port marketers of Harbor Port Development Partners (HPDP), now rebranded as the Sydney Harbour Investment Partners (SHIP). Many may recall that Mayor Clarke pitched the port marketers exclusivity based on them paying their own expenses. And that is yet another reason why those who watch more carefully must pause to raise an eyebrow every now and then.

"I’m looking forward to making a positive contribution to my community through this leadership role with a commitment to ensure transparency and open communication with the public" - Marie Walsh, CBRM's Chief Administrative Officer

There's a reason we elect our councillors to act on our behalf, in the best interest of the CBRM. We need more councillors like McDougall, Coombes, MacMullin, and Paruch who have proven their committment to maintaining a watchful eye and never backing down. And we need less interference from other councillors who at times are just getting in the way of their colleagues as they try to do the job they were elected to do.

NOTE: The views expressed above are my own and do not represent lokol (goCapeBreton.com). Read more