Secret, private mayoral debate another blow to transparency
Secret mayoral debate part of an election operating largely out of sight
The first debate of Edmonton's mayoral election was a spirited affair, featuring a current of combativeness, a no-show candidate and plenty of ideas on how to invigorate the city's beleaguered economy.
You really should have seen it. Or at least had the chance.
But most of you never did, because the debate was an entirely private, invite-only event held Thursday evening in a swanky downtown hotel ballroom. Transparency to the public was clearly not one of the priorities, adding to a disturbing trend in this election that I'll elaborate on shortly.
Kim Krushell, Amarjeet Sohi, Cheryll Watson and Michael Oshry were the guests of honour for the exclusive shindig, which featured an hour-long discussion followed by up to two and half hours of schmoozing.
As for who was in the audience, I really can't tell you because the media wasn't on KV Capital's invite list, and it was only because Postmedia got tipped off that we even learned of the event.
A spokeswoman for KV Capital declined our ask to attend, insisting our presence would be disruptive, or change the dynamics to the point that invitees would feel more guarded. To their credit, the company did eventually provide Postmedia a link to a video recording of the debate, which at least allowed us to hear whether candidates' messages to a room of elite Edmontonians was in line with what they have been telling the public. (Generally, it was).
Seeing those four contenders interacting on the same stage for the first time was informative, and I encourage you to read my colleague Dustin Cook's story on it (below). If you hope to watch the video, you are out of luck because the company apparently isn't going to make it publicly available.
Part of me understands the candidates' motivation to take part. A gathering of wealthy movers and shakers like this can provide both donations and influence.
But the cost in optics also has to be considered. This is the kind of thing that leads people to become cynical about politics and politicians, because it comes into the vicinity of paid access to power.
Mike Nickel was the no-show at Thursday's debate. I was inclined to applaud him for steering clear of it, but then I remembered that Nickel hasn't made himself available lately in any other public format to answer questions from the media or voters, or have direct discussions with his opponents.
(A message to Nickel's campaign on Friday went unreturned, as have all of my past messages).
One question I think Nickel needs to answer is whether he will join Watson, Oshry, Krushell and Sohi in committing to disclose his donor list prior to election day.
Municipalities formerly had the power to require this — I'm not aware when Edmonton last used it, if ever — but UCP changes to provincial legislation now allow all candidates the option to wait until after election day to disclose.
The government purportedly made this tweak to allow candidates to focus on politicking instead of paperwork, but I think it's more important to deliver some transparency to voters before ballots are cast.
In Nickel's case it sure would be interesting to find out who's funding unusual billboards attacking fellow city councillors he's not even running against.
In an attempt to keep some transparency, accountability and decency in the race, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) has asked municipal candidates across the province to sign The Pledge.
Those who agree supposedly commit to four principles, including revealing campaign contributions prior to Oct. 18.
However, in keeping with the theme, the AUMA is not disclosing or even keeping track of candidates who sign the pledge, which makes the whole exercise a near empty gesture. AUMA president Barry Morishita said association leaders felt there would be logistical issues keeping the list of signees up to date, and worried some candidates might use it as a weapon against others.
These are not strong justifications. The AUMA should reconsider its policy on this while there is still time.
If that wasn't enough, transparency is also out the window for most Political Action Committees (PACS) this campaign. Again due to provincial changes, PACS that put out advertising on “issues” instead of specific candidates can operate especially unrestrained, by not having to register or observe any regulations on spending.
Clever groups can theoretically repeat the talking points of a favoured candidate without naming them — or slam an opponent in the same fashion — and the public will probably never know who's funding or operating those efforts.
Only PACS that insist on naming candidates have to register, but even then, their financial statements don't have to be turned in until five months after the election. So far, no PAC has registered in Edmonton and I'm doubtful we will see one.
Private debates. Unregulated PACS. A contender who won't answer questions. Secrecy on political contributions. For a city in hope of a brighter future, it's a shame so much of the election touted to provide it is operating in the shadows.