To the editor,
It is astonishing to read in print that not only are NWMO-funded municipal staff providing direction to the mayor, council, and senior administration of South Bruce, but neither council nor these staff members are making any attempt to hide it.
As reported in the Sept. 22 edition of the Herald-Times – “South Bruce addresses POW-NNW’s requests about transparency, recording council meetings” – the writer quotes the project manager for the South Bruce Nuclear Exploration Team, Dave Rushton, as providing a written report to council.
Concerning our request of Aug. 9, Rushton’s three-page report is now the official position of the municipality. POW had asked council for three things: that the municipality not enter into any further agreements with the NWMO, that the municipality not renew any employment contracts for NWMO-funded staff, and that the municipality video record and post online all council meetings.
The conflict of interest – of an NWMO-funded staff member advising the mayor and council on how to respond – is jaw dropping. The POW requests should have been responded to by the CAO/Clerk Leanne Martin. By having a NWMO-funded staff member respond to council – and to have not a single member of council, including Mayor Robert Buckle ask any questions – is a clear and complete demonstration of just how much authority the municipality has ceded to the NWMO.
The question of video recording council meetings and posting them online is a council operations and administrative issue. It comes under the clear authority of CAO Martin, not a NWMO-funded project manager more loyal to the DGR process than public transparency. In his report, Rushton wrote, “unless otherwise directed by council, meetings will not be recorded.” As the meeting itself was not recorded, no one can see if the mayor or any councillor nodded their head in agreement with the man whose salary and continued employment is wholly dependent on money from the nuclear industry. To be fair, Rushton did give council the opportunity to stand up for transparency in municipal government. Council, however, with its silence, remained firmly seated.
As for Ruston’s laundry list of transparency proofs – his report leaned heavily on the activities of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC). That is the committee that only once during its many meetings has allowed anyone who questioned the need, science, or the DGR process to present their views or ask questions. Yet, Rushton was within his rights to hold out the CLC as a demonstration of transparency.
This should be recognized. But what the residents of South Bruce expect is much more than that. Protect Our Waterways’ next request of council (after it is sworn into office) will be accountability. For clarity, let’s define that term. From the Oxford Dictionary, it means “being responsible.”
After picking up our jaws from the floor, POW wishes to thank Rushton for his candidness. He made it clear that the municipality is indeed transparent. Hearing from him, rather than taxpayer funded staff, demonstrated that the NWMO has council and municipal administration firmly under its control. As for the question of accountability, that’s something all South Bruce residents should ask of the candidates who want your vote.
We suggest, “are you accountable to the residents or the NWMO?” Their answer, of course, will be the residents. Then, as Rushton reported about transparency – ask them for proof.
Anja van der Vlies
Teeswater
