On January 12, I attended the council meeting to ask about the additional transparency the Town has said it is planning around finances. Transparency is something I care about, and I wanted to better understand what changes might be coming and what that would look like in practice.
Clarifying the Town’s Current Approach
During the meeting, the CAO explained that the Town’s idea of increased transparency is focused on connecting service levels to cost. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Understanding what services cost, and how changes to service levels affect the budget, is important.
However, it left me wondering about the many things the Town does, owns, maintains, or oversees that don’t neatly fall under a “service” category. Those items still involve public dollars, but it wasn’t clear how or if they fit into this transparency framework.
Access to Financial Information
During the discussion, I specifically asked whether line-item budgets could be posted online for the public to see. In response, the mayor indicated that council currently receives the same financial information as the public, with a few exceptions, and that there are no plans to change existing processes, procedures, or access to financial information.
That answer was helpful in understanding council’s position, but it also clarified that no additional financial detail is planned to be made available.
Trust in Staff and Existing Safeguards
Councillor Dykema shared that council does not have concerns about appropriate spending because they trust their staff, noting, “we have an amazing staff.” I don’t doubt that there are many hardworking and well-intentioned people working for the Town.
Council also highlighted that:
- Council appoints an external auditor
- Multiple signatories are required for spending
- Any non-compliance with financial procedures must be reported by the CAO
These are all standard and important safeguards.
Why I Still Have Concerns
For me, trust is valuable but trust alone isn’t a system.
Financial accountability works best when it can be verified. Auditors typically spot-check for procedural compliance, but that still leaves room for mistakes or even improper behavior to go unnoticed, especially if amounts are small. Multiple signatures don’t necessarily ensure money is being spent efficiently, and in rare cases, collusion is still possible.
More importantly, improving financial efficiency and responsibility requires access to detailed numbers. Without that level of detail, it’s difficult for council or the public to ask informed questions, spot trends, or identify opportunities for improvement.
Opening the Conversation
I’m sharing this not to criticize individuals or staff, but because I believe transparency and accountability are ongoing processes rather than a checkbox.
I’m genuinely curious what others think.
Do you feel the current safeguards and level of transparency are sufficient?
Or do you have concerns similar to mine?
I’d like this to be the start of a respectful and constructive conversation.
Colin and Amanda
Leave a Reply