The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

PAGE 4. WEDNESDAY. JUNE Il. 1986. WIITBY FREE PRESS w hitby ~~~Published evcry Wednesday BILMOAdU whritbyntyEdto [K ~~~' ~by M.1i.M. Publishing CmulyEio (~~and Photography me.a e ~ ? L1 Phne668(UIlVALERIE COWEN u uý T h e F r e re ss B u ild in g , A v r l n g M a n a g e Voice ef the County Town Michael an. Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor 111 irock treet Nort, Second Çîlass Mai P.O. Bmta201. Whitby, Ont Regisltaliofl No. 5351 The only WhlLby newspaper independlently owned and opcrated hy Wlitby residents for Whitby resdlests. Incame ra Policy is needed The revelation that Whitby Council f irst ap- proved the Decom application ln a private meeting' held two months prior to any public notice osf the application first came to outr attentio>n ast week when Dennis Fox brought In an arm load of documents he had obtained fromn town clerk Don McKay. Fox, a perennial and regular visitor to the council chambers and a defeated East Ward can- didate ln last year's municipal election, has made It his business to follow the Decom hearing 0f recent months. During the course of that hearing, Fox was surprised by a reference made by Decom lawyer Tom Ledered to council's Initial approval of the application. He was surprised because to his knowledge council had. neyer approved the ap- plIcation. It was only after paying a visit to the clerk's office that he learned otherwise- more than a fuli yearafter the fact. Whatever Fox's motives were for bringing this business to our attention, his Indignation about being kept' in the dark is not entirely misplaced. Like the press, Fox attends council meetings because he wants to know what is going on ln Whitby. He, like the rest 0f us, has a right to know what is going on in Whitby and when he dIscovers that council1 hasn't been completeiy forthright, he has the rght to question why. There are certainly any number 0f occasions where council has to go behind closed doors to discuss business which would flot be served ln the public forum. This was not, however, one 0f those occasions in our opinion. According to McKay, the town has no "hard and fast" ruies governing when they should exclude the public frorr considerations of municipal business. lnstead, said McKay, there are general guidelines, a lIst of which appears ln a story on the front page of this week's Free Press. None of those guidelines, ln our estimation, can be used to.justify an ln camera consIderation of Decom's application except for one vague proviso permit- ting councillors to do so when a majorlty of themn have concluded that it is In the municipality's best i nterest. By first going in camnera to approve the Decom application, council accomplished absolutely nothing except to bring on a new wave of con- troversy, speculation and Indignation long, long after the fact. It is not council's business to stir controversy. Council members are elected to deal directiy and effectively with the affaîrs of the municipality and ln this Instance they have falied that mandate. The decision to deal wlth Decom ln this way was nothing mnore than a presumptlon on councll's part, a presumption which has clouded an already complex Issue. It would seemn to us that a strict by-law governing exactly what should be dealt with behind closed doors Is long overdue ln the Town of WhItby and would best serve the public lnterest. k -ter ToTheEclitor: On reading your report on last Monday's Council meeting one can only deduce that certain council members on belng toid they were in need of a lifesaving operation wold take their doctor's opinion ta a meeting and ask for a vote. Whitby is fortunate in having an experienced, professional firefighter head its department; yet when he attempts ta apply this knowledge and professionalism he is voted down. Chief Crouch had ne axe ta grind, he was mereiy doing his job. He was looking ahead through the eyes of a professional at per- ceived dangers. Fighting a fire is truly a battie royal. Many wars have been lest because the politicians refused ta heed their generals. Let us hope that no lives or homes are ever lost because the general was ignored in favour of a subdivision. J.A. Wraight, Whitby. Writer assails couneil secrecy To The Editar: Now- that. the En- vrùrnnental Hearing »ioucernng Decom is fiilyconcluded,, I feel that ta time ta ask visat Whitby Counll's raie has been in this issue. Like a gaod numberaof other citizens of this town, visa oppose Decam, 1 tee have been involved in this issue over thse past year and have spent hours atten- ding meetings and listening ta the rhetoric. Hawever, thse ose un- derlying question, that has yet ta be answered is, "Why is Decam per- sisting te settle in Whit- it was nat until the Environmental Hearing of June 3, that 1 as able te secure 1"confidential" reports (only with Per- mission from the town s lawyer) which nt only answers the above question, but aIse, maises a nuzaber of other important questions concerning counci's pracedures. These doc.uments clearly prove that Whitby coun- cil passed and approved Decom on March 25, 1985 - three months before the public ever heard of Decom. On a motion by Counciller Edwards and seconded by Counillor Emin, Resolution No. 981-85 became areality. Tihe fact is that this item was not listed on the agenda for ether the March- 18, 1985 ad- ministrative meeting (where it received initial approval), nor do the minutes of tis meeting incicate that the topie was even discussed, nor was the issue llsted on the agen- da for the council meeting of March 25, 1985, Thse only reference ta this issue was given in the minutes of this meeting under a resolution numnber - no description was given. It appears that any use of thse name Decoin was purposely hidden fromn the public. Why were these documents made confidential? Wby wasn't the public asked for input at the time? Why was thse Deconi issue excluded frors the agenda and fromn the minutes of these meetings? Why didn't council inform the public of their decision? Now te understand the full implications ofaillof tiis, ane must be aware of tihe history of this issue. 1. June 3, 1985 - Thiss first meeting vas wel attended and the public voiced their strong op- position taetise Decem praposal. Tise one point which stands eut in my memory ta an incident when a Ministry of En- vironment officiai made reference ta council's prier approval of Decom and Councillor Batten quickiy interjec- ting, stated that Councîl had neyer deait with this issue before and that prier approval had not been given. 2. June 17, 1985 - The second public meeting. Ater waitisùg for five heurs, the public was refused tise right ta speak on the matter. The administrative cenimittee proceeds ta approve Decam. To- the public, this vas tise first timne that Decam received support fromn aur counciliors. Little did we know about Resolution No. 981-85. 3. June 24, 1985 Council denies Decam's application. Haw can they do tisis, when they have already made a commitment te this company? 4. JiiIyý 1985 - Detam appeals Io the province. Environmental Hear- ings are planned for the eariy faii. 5. Sept./Oct., 1985 Hearings *ere post- poned until the spring. 6. Nov., 1935 - Municipal Election. Five of the seven coun- cillars claimned that they had always been against the Decom proposai. If this ta true, how did it get approval in March of thes me year? Why were the M.O.E. hearings postponed? 7. Jan., 1986 - The Town of Newcastle maires an "in camera" decision tfo permit Decom there. However, Decom's lawyer dlaims that thse company neyer approached Newcastle. If Decom didn't, then who did? Wisat game is being played here? B. April/June, 1986 - The Envirernental Hearings. Wisat angers me thse most in tisis entire issue, is the way it bas been shrauded ita "canfiden- tial" reports. Daesn't the public have a right ta know what goes on in their local goverrnment? Why is a lawyer's ap- provai needed, before these documents could be obtained? Doesn't the public have the right of access te infor- mation? Apparently, SEE PG9