Elaine Shein is Managing Editor of The Western Producer.
Should the news media be allowed into all meetings of publicly-elected officials?
Many people argue reporters should be able to report what is being said, to hold politicians responsible for their decisions and perhaps even conduct.
News reports can give insight into the background, the process and reasons why decisions are made. This helps the people who elected the officials understand the reasons and decide if the politicians are best representing their views.
Other people argue against the presence of reporters at meetings.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
They fear quotes will be taken out of context, especially in emotional or controversial situations. The people at the meeting may be influenced by the media to be either overly cautious and afraid to express themselves or, in the other extreme, grandstand.
If the discussions are of sensitive issues (labor situations, legal or financial matters), the media may again be excluded from reporting.
The above pro and con arguments have led to a patchwork of open and closed meetings for the media.
For example, at the annual wheat pool meetings set to begin across the prairies, different practices prevail.
Manitoba Pool Elevators offers media the most access, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool offers some open and closed, and Alberta Wheat Pool remains closed for the majority.
Sometimes annual meetings or conferences of other organizations might not even hint of closed meetings in the agenda, but in the middle of a meeting or a highly heated issue the reporters will be asked to leave.
Last week the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities held a semi-annual convention and for the first time closed part of its meeting to the media.
However, prior to the meeting, SARM took an unusual step.
Sinclair Harrison and SARM’s board of directors held an editorial luncheon for the local radio, television and newspaper people.
Harrison and others explained the political structure of SARM, its mandate and its goals and objectives.
He also explained why a two-hour session on settling Indian land claims would be closed to the media a day later.
It’s a sensitive, emotional issue. At first Harrison defended the SARM delegates who wanted to speak their minds at the meeting, but who were inexperienced with the media. They didn’t want to see themselves on the six o’clock news.
He made reference to a newspaper story last year on the same subject that upset SARM delegates who feared they were being labeled racist in their views.
Having a television camera or microphone shoved in their faces can be intimidating and bothersome to the delegates or even to Harrison, he added.
However, Harrison said the purpose of the session on land claims was to talk about legal options and how to finance the options:
“It’s not about taxes and talking if treaties should be honored.”
SARM was considering legal options to force the federal government to uphold former agreements reached on how to reimburse local municipalities for loss of taxes in RMs involving Indian land claims.
Pressed on whether SARM was holding a closed meeting to prevent negative stories or from showing emotional statements made during a controversial issue – and prevent news stories such as the one last year – the SARM board said no, the decision to have a closed meeting was not tied to that issue at all.
It was on a strictly legal aspect the closed meeting was held. SARM wanted simply to talk legal options for suing the federal government and didn’t want to reveal all its legal plans through the media.
This can be a legitimate argument – but it’s hard to keep a secret from reaching the federal government when the people allowed into the meeting were several hundred delegates and the provincial government representatives.
Human nature dictates it won’t be a secret very long.
Harrison stressed it is a rural municipal/federal government issue, not a rural municipal/aboriginal issue. He said it is a government-to-government issue, and the argument was not with the Indians.
But ultimately the decision being made will directly affect Indians in their land claims.
How did the journalists react to the news of a closed meeting?
The majority accepted the decision once they were told Harrison would meet with the press after the meeting and discuss what had transpired. Other people in the meeting were also free to give interviews later, if they wished to do so.
This promised at least some insight into what and why certain decisions were made, and showed some co-operation with the media.
However, there are still some concerns about the closed meeting.
It sets a dangerous precedent. Will SARM be tempted to close more meetings in the future, such as the annual convention?
Will it be applied to other issues that may be controversial and about which elected officials don’t want their constituents to hear what they’re saying – or they don’t want people to know the reasons certain decisions are being made?
Will the second-hand quotes be in the right context or correct information be given to the media later in their follow-up interviews?
Reporters also warned SARM that a closed door can lead to more suspicion by the public.
Perception might be worse and more damaging politically than reality.
People wonder why the meeting is closed and what is being said.
Are racist comments being made? They have only the word of someone later that certain things were said.
People want to have their politicians more open and accountable. That is why democratic structures exist and how credibility is built.
When any organization decides to have closed meetings, it should seriously consider the reasons why the doors are being closed, and think about the consequences later.
To the credit of SARM, at least there was the foresight displayed to meet with the media before the meeting.
It allowed both sides to discuss the subject, understand each other’s mandates of being accountable to their public and try to seek some form of resolution.
Not every elected organization or official has made the effort in the past, but they could learn from this for the future.
