Guest column: More openness needed on how Windsor spends tax dollars

Article content

By: Kirk Munroe

Article content

Article content

The fall budget season for local governments is winding down. No surprises. We’ve seen this movie before.

It starts with an announcement of a possible huge budget increase. Local politicians express shock and dismay, promising to trim the fat. And, lo and behold, the proposed budget is reduced.

But residents still must swallow a significant tax hike from the year before. People grumble though they are happy the increase was less than the opening salvo.

Article content

Politicians take a bow for a job well done looking after the taxpayers. But did they?

To assess whether elected public officials are doing a good job or not, residents must have full information. Otherwise, we are blind.

Simply put, we have no way to judge the performance of those we elect without full information; it is impossible to hold politicians accountable for what they do, including collecting and spending the taxpayers’ money. To repeat the motto of a leading American newspaper, The Washington Post: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Of all the levels of government, local governments are the most visible for ordinary folks. The actions of local governments are felt directly: from hockey arena construction and maintenance, to land use restrictions, to garbage collection, to fire protection, to parking bylaws, and to property tax assessments.

Thus, citizens need to seek, indeed demand, the disclosure of information of acts done in our name. This is especially true when the act includes the spending of money — taxpayers’ money, our money.

The need for constant vigilance in keeping our local governments open is especially true today with local media a shell of their former selves and many small-town county newspapers dead.

Article content

In short, there are fewer “eyes” on the local politicians to inform the public about what is going on and how their money is spent.

There was the recent announcement of the end of a legal fight between the City of Windsor and a developer. Politicians crowed about the good news. But was it?

I certainly agree that the end of a lawsuit almost always is good news, but the necessary information to reach an informed conclusion always includes: What were the legal costs? And, more pointedly, was there money exchanged to end the lawsuit? Did the city pay the developer? If so, how much?

If the legal costs were reasonable and there was no or very little payment to end the lawsuit, then I will join in the crowing. However, if the legal costs were high and there was a payment to end the case and it was large, such a disclosure may lead to criticism.

But we don’t know — and that is the point. The money information should have been released with the initial announcement. When the Windsor Star asked, it was rebuffed. Why?

Why can’t the city, as a matter of course, release such information that will enable people to judge for themselves whether this was good news or not?

Article content

I am not suggesting the city violated some statute. That is not my point. I am arguing for good government and, to me, good government means open government. Our elected public officials are entrusted with taxpayer money, our money.

How they spend it, whether wisely or not, must be open to the public. That is good government. That is democracy.

False statements are not necessary to paint an inaccurate picture. Whether intentional or not, the omission of material facts can distort the true picture.

Thus, local governments must be careful to ensure the disclosure of all material facts when making announcements of their actions or achievements. And full disclosure should come at the time of the announcement itself.

There should be no informational hide-and-seek games. There should be open government.

The public is entitled to nothing less.

Kirk Munroe is a retired Windsor Superior Court justice and longtime former criminal defence lawyer. He lives in Kingsville.

Article content