Recall what Mayor Cecil Clarke said at the $30 per seat luncheon hosted by the Cape Breton Partnership (see video):

“So that means taking some heat. So be it. But my stick is on the ice and I’m not taking cheap shots from the cheap seats, and I hope you will be with me in the game for success.” - Mayor Cecil Clarke

The irony here is that he should be penalized for slashing. With that statement he hacked his stick into the ribcage of folks he labelled as those in the “cheap seats”.

There should have been a whistle on that play. And here’s why:

He’s talking about his constituents.

That is all of us - and we do have a say in the affairs of the municipality. We are the same voters that will help decide whether his incumbency in 2016’s mayoral election rewards him with four more years in office or the alternative: releasing him from his contract and sending him off as a free agent.

This second outcome is just as the voters did when Clarke ran into the immovable red wall. Nothing to do with China this time. I’m talking about Liberal MP, Mark Eyking, during Clarke’s unsuccessful Federal bid.

But what is this stuff about “cheap seats” all about? Is the public under some obligation to be supportive or else keep quiet?

Inconsistency in Clarke’s Sense of “Freedom to Speak”

There are many out there that join Clarke in decrying the negativity - or as HPDP (Harbour Port Development Partners) historian Barry Sheehy went so far as to refer to as:

“pathological negativity”

Sheehy downgraded those who speak out from the level of basic whiners to those who perhaps even exhibit mental illness, in order to strengthen his assertion. Let’s hope he intended it as hyperbole.

It wasn’t the first time Sheehy has expressed this general idea. In fact, as recently revealed by a Freedom of Information request by local freelance journalist Mary Campbell, it also comes up in his private communications with the mayor.

Campbell reviewed Sheehy’s emails to Mayor Clarke, and found this tidbit. Apparently the cheap seats are at Tim Horton’s. If there was ever a way to criticize a block of Cape Bretoners who enjoy a hot cup of tea or coffee, he nailed it when he wrote:

“I would love to see the faces on the chronic "naysayers" at Tim Horton's today." - Barry Sheehy, HPDP

I’m not a professional psychologist, so I’ll avoid attempting a psychoanalysis of why that would give him such pleasure.

Nonetheless, that’s a sample of kind of communication with the mayor that you would never have witnessed without Mary Campbell’s successful bid for freedom of information.

So far all that I’ve identified is that they don’t like feedback which they consider negative.

But how is Cecil Clarke Inconsistent?

Chief Terry Paul wrote the mayor a letter expressing his discontent with angry and questionable comments from Lowell Cormier during a council session. In the mayor’s response, he wrote:

“Members of CBRM council have the right and freedom to speak in the municipality’s parliament. It is also your right to disagree and express yourself freely, as you have in your letter to me.”

He’s right. But it also points to some inconsistency. Everyone in this country celebrates the “freedom to speak”.

And everyone in this country - including Councillor Cormier, the mayor, Chief Paul, and each individual citizen - will also be accountable for whatever it is that they say. That comes through responses in support, criticism, or simply being ignored.

Therefore, it’s reasonable to ask why he’s so adamant about protecting the freedom to speak in one context with Lowell Cormier, but stereotypes his own constituents as those in the “cheap seats” when they express discontent or opposing views?

Certainly some people do get upset and express themselves more like Cormier did when spoke angrily before council, throwing barbs at Membertou. However, others do it with more professionalism, thoughtfulness, and tact as did Chief Terry Paul in his response letter.

Is Clarke Just Ignoring the “Cheap Seat” Folks Who Lack Political Influence?

Well, not quite. If you ask CBU assistant professor, Doug Lionais, from the Shannon School of Business you’ll get a valuable perspective.

After doing a radio interview where Lionais criticized the sale of Archibald’s Wharf in North Sydney, his boss received a call from the mayor’s spokeswoman, Christina Lamey.

She allegedly told the dean at the time, David Rae, that Lionais’ opinion was “at odds” with what people were saying and the Ivany Report.

As the Chronicle Herald reported, Lionais let her know he considered it as:

“a form of intimidation intended to muzzle public debate on an important community matter.”

Is it Just the Cape Breton Zeitgeist He Doesn’t Like?

Zeitgeist is fancy German word for the “spirit of the time”.

I’m using it to represent the overall thoughts and influences, measures of what is of concern and what is important in Cape Breton over perhaps the last 20-30 years or so. And it's always changing.

It represents us. It represents our recognition of decline, the problems it creates, and our lack of confidence in a clear path to either stabilization or regrowth.

Could that be the collective feelings Clarke doesn’t like?

Maybe our mere acceptance of our freedom to speak does not sit well with him when it conflicts with his political interests.

However, what else could reasonably be expected for a Cape Breton zeitgeist? Years of promises and optimistic political headlines have over promised and under delivered.

►When men get laid off from their Western jobs and EIC benefits are close to running out, they worry.
►When announcements are made that the Cape Breton Regional School Board is seeing over 400 less students enrolled per year, we know people are leaving.
►When our population plummets and housing taxes (through increased appraisal value) has to continue paying for municipal services, we wonder if we’re foolish to stay - or if we have to reallocate retirement savings to pay taxes instead.
►When we’re 5th last in MoneySense magazine's list of 209 cities, or 5th from the bottom for transparency on the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s list of 100 municipalities, we have good reason to question what is happening.

Do the Elected Councillors Have Their Say?

It’s not uncommon for successful people to be dismissive of feedback from those who are beneath them on political, career, financial, educational - and resulting social standing.

Cape Breton Post comments most often don’t come from the keyboards of communication professionals. The rant rooms are filled with vulgarity and trashiness that mutates and finds continual ways to develop immunity to the vaccines of reason or civility. Yet they too are an indication of the island’s zeitgeist.

Vulgarity is easy to dismiss, and many of them surrender their opportunity to have any influence at all. They are easy to ignore.

However, our councillors are elected officials. We voted them into their elected positions, and they have the power to overturn the will of the mayor when it conflicts with the will of the people - if they exercise it.

A few strong voices stand out as more than just drones: Ray Paruch and Eldon MacDonald get significant recognition in conversations about who isn’t afraid to speak up.

Why then did Mayor Cecil Clarke Withhold the Neil MacNeil Report from Elected Council for 7 Months?

These elected councillors were not given a copy of a report that shipping industry consultant, Neil MacNeil, authored. It included an unfavorable outlook for the potential for a Sydney container port. It was likely very discouraging to hear, but it was coming from an expert paid more than $100,000 to write the report.

It took seven months to get it into the councillors’ hands, and then it was quickly rejected by the majority of council in a secret vote.

After the aforementioned vote, Ray Paruch called it a:

“sad day for democracy”

The use of non-disclosure agreements in nebulous ways is keeping information hidden from the public and our elected officials. Though there are certainly business contexts when confidentiality would be appropriate, this is not likely one of those instances. Council could have been given the report and held under the same confidentiality restrictions. And they could have decided if confidentiality was appropriate at all.

When a qualified consultant tells us our number one economic development focus isn’t likely to succeed, our councillors (at the very least) need to know immediately.

Meanwhile, Paruch indicated that behind the scenes they had tried to get the parts of the consultant’s report that they didn’t like changed. That is very concerning and reminiscent with the sort of Harper-type strategy that we just voted out in the Federal election.

Fortunately for those of us who favor accuracy, truthfulness, and integrity of information over misguided optimism, those changes were not made.

Had they been successful in their bid to have changes made behind the scenes, we might never have known that Neil MacNeil presented an alternative outlook. MacNeil could cash his cheque, and the mayor would have the report he wanted.

Maybe you agree that it was simply a matter of a confidentiality related issue with an unfortunate delay. Let’s consider some other happenings.

Is this the only way the councillors have been unfairly impacted?

In late 2015, council had to vote on whether to proceed with getting a loan for $1.2 Million to purchase land from some of that Mary Campbell researched in her Cape Breton Post article.

The plan was to buy the land and then lease it to McKeil Marine on a “cost recovery basis”. Of course, one might wonder why McKeil Marine isn’t capable of either negotiating a lease with private landowners, or financing the purchase themselves.

The end result was the CBRM (i.e. all of us) taking on further debt, and likely relinquishing potential tax revenue that would be due from either MacKeil Marine or from the owners: Sydport Operations and Eastcoast Metal Fabricators.

But the structure of that deal is another story. How did the vote go?

It passed. Much to the surprise of Ray Paruch, Eldon MacDonald, and Mae Rowe who were returning from a scheduled break to find out that council had proceeded without them.

Cecil Clarke defended it by saying he had reconvened by “hitting the gavel”.

Though Clarke may not have thought it was a big deal, it was. Their three nay votes would have been a minority. However, they also missed the opportunity to made comments and ask questions. During that process, it’s possible they could have raised specific concerns or influenced the vote of the other councillors. That is the mechanism of democracy in action.

Instead it was denied, and they rushed it through. It was an insult to the constituents of the three districts whose councillors could only record their nay votes after the fact, to get their dissenting opinion on record.

Is that freedom to speak? Is it good democratic behavior? And would you by default belong to the “cheap seats” category if you felt that what was done was inappropriate?

Paul Schneidereit, editorial writer for the Chronicle Herald focused on the topic in his March 3rd, 2015 column. 

“Some folks on the island are likely unhappy I would even ask the question. But there’s a difference between relentless negativity and reasonable scrutiny.”

He also noted how elected officials talk how the concerns raised in the public could impact the container port deal as it relates to attracting international investors.

From Schneidereit’s perspective, that suggestion isn’t quite valid:

“With respect, I imagine major players in the global container traffic industry would base that decision on a rigorous assessment of an actual business case for a terminal in Sydney — not the fact some locals weren’t waving their pom-poms vigorously enough.”

And that comes from a journalist who believes that “focusing on the port is smart”. He just so happens to also have the objectivity to realize that feedback or “reasonable scrutiny” shouldn’t be discouraged.

So is Clarke’s Stick Really on the Ice After All?

►He’s slashed at Cape Breton voters who don’t have $100k+ paycheques and who directly experience our decline.
►He’s defended “freedom to speak” when it came to councillors who vote in his favor.
►His communications officer has made behind the scenes calls to CBU after a professor expressed a dissenting view.
►He kept a pessimistic $100k report about the feasibility of a future port by a hired expert away from council for 7 months - and they voted to reject it in a secret meeting.
►He hit the gavel to reconvene a council vote prior to three of our elected district councillors having arrived back from break. And they just so happened to be nay votes.

The mayor will have to decide if it’s good strategy to continue antagonizing his dissenters; giving them motivation to rebuke him. Or if he should start listening to what the Cape Breton zeitgeist is telling him.

That's us - the voice of the community

Each of you will have to decide if you’re in the cheap seats or not - whether you’ll wear a self-imposed muzzle or express your ideas whatever they may be.

You’ll also have to decide if the mayor is playing his position, playing like a good sportsman, keeping his stick on the ice… or whether it’s time to send him back into free agency.

If any of this is important to you, please comment below and share it to your social network accounts. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m listening and open to opposing viewpoints. I would appreciate your reasonable scrutiny in challenging the info and perspective I’ve shared here.