Dear Editor:
RE: Centre Wellington staff to take another look at policies on mental health, public interactions, Oct. 21.
It is fair to say that few people enjoy or are comfortable with being unfairly or even fairly criticized, especially in public settings. It is also important that discourse among disagreeing parties should remain polite and respectful.
However, the attempted passage of the “Respectful Interactions Policy, And, Frivolous, Vexatious and Unreasonable Complaints Policy” at the meeting of the Centre Wellington council on Oct. 18 was a transparent and alarming attempt on the part of municipal staff and some councillors to deter and impede public discussion and engagement.
The idea that self-serving and subjective decisions by public staff regarding which discussions will be entertained and which will be ignored or suppressed is an affront to the fundamental principles of our democracy. The public is, after all, paying for their service and is entitled to express opinions regarding their actions. It is obvious that this proposed policy is directed at silencing specific individuals with whom discussions have been at times uncomfortable and perhaps irritating, but such conversations are a fundamental component of democracy.
On paper at least, free speech remains a right and a privilege in this country and that includes dialogue with those entrusted with management of public interests. The public must be genuinely solicited for comment and suggestions regarding municipal policies and spending of municipal funds, even if there is disagreement.
The alternative is authoritarianism, which this proposed policy is transparently a step towards. Given its unbridled scope, the proposed policy can only act to inhibit public input into municipal decision-making as ratepayers are forced to consider whether their opinions and views will be deemed acceptable and “reasonable”.
Having lived in a communist state I recognize far too well the thin edge of the totalitarian wedge. This is a policy better suited to an iron curtain regime than to Centre Wellington. It is appalling to me that such a policy would be recommended for passage and defeated by only a single vote.
That Mayor Kelly Linton, who is charged by his oath of office to uphold the interests of the citizens of Centre Wellington, voted in favour of such an obvious attempt to undermine the right and responsibility of public comment is shameful.
Bravo to the four councillors who had the integrity to stand against this ill-conceived and over-reaching attempt to censor public involvement in the governance of our municipality.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Centre Wellington