Re: ‘Meetings should be available for viewing’ (Editorial, PQB News, April 4)
I fully agree with your editorial regarding the RDN and the absence of video recorded public meetings. Unfortunately, the problem is deeper.
It seems the word “transparency” is limited for use by politicians at election time.
Late last year, the RDN was asked to provide an audio only recording of a December public board meeting. That recording was promptly provided.
However, when the same request was made for a Jan. 8 RDN public meeting, that request was denied. The reason given was privacy and confidentiality issues.
To repeat, these were both public meetings – on the same subject.
Good intentions should be applauded but actions or the lack of same is what really matters. Personally, the stares into a camera are of less interest to me than hearing what is said. Why must the public gripe to obtain transparency, if it is obtained at all?