Privacy should have its limits

Now anyone can log on and hear for themselves all the motions, seconds and carries of the agenda items, sometimes with a few words of explanation by the appropriate city councillor. They will also hear the various reports from the mayor and councillors — all important, of course, but also rehearsed and scripted for public consumption.

Unfortunately, they won't hear the really good stuff — questions and comments by residents who take their turn at the mike before and after each meeting.

Question period is usually the most exciting part of any council meeting. Okay, exciting may be too strong a word for anyone other than the dozen or so die-hards who show up each month and discuss among themselves agenda items the way other people discuss hockey stats or American Idol contenders — but question periods have usually given us the most dramatic and controversial moments in council.

Rage, tears, pleading, laughter — they're all there on a regular basis as local residents bring their concerns to public attention. From simple zoning issues to major health and safety problems, people who care about their community have never hesitated to stand up, identify themselves by name and address, and let fly with a question — usually with a lengthy preamble that prompts the mayor to ask them to get to the point.

On some occasions, when a particularly sticky issue has been under discussion, the queue of questioners has snaked out of the council chamber and into the foyer. Everyone wants to voice their opinion publicly, and most find a way of doing so under the premise of asking a question.

The City will not be including question periods in its council meeting website audio postings because it compromises the privacy of those asking questions. It has also asked another local paper, Actualités Westmount, to remove existing clips of question period from their website. This was not done because some people complained that they did not give their permission to appear on the website. But in true City of Westmount fashion, they are following the law to the letter and certainly cannot be faulted for doing so.

The problem is with the law itself, for where does that right to privacy end? Anyone who voluntarily stands up and participates in a public event should relinquish the expectation of privacy. In some cases it could challenge the media's ability to provide a full and accurate account of a public event.

We often see close-up images of fans attending public sporting events — just minding their own business as they watch the game — put up on the big scoreboard screen and broadcast on television. Do they complain? Do they threaten to sue the team or the network because their privacy was invaded?

In 10 years, no one has ever asked the Examiner to exclude them from council coverage. If anything, they are miffed if their appearance at the mike doesn't make the paper.

Westmount has no shortage of community newspapers; it is easily the best-covered community on the island. But editorial space is severely limited, making it impossible for any of us to cover everything the way we would like to. That means a lot of people who ask questions at city council meetings don't get mentioned. Websites help a lot, allowing us to post an infinite number of items that don't fit into the weekly paper due to space restrictions — and posting sound clips of question period would be a great example of using the latest technology to its fullest advantage in showing people what really happened.

As it stands, a meeting that saw major fireworks during question period would be posted to the web with absolutely no indication of that big news story, leaving the mistaken impression that nothing dramatic occurred.

The legalities of privacy have their limits — and wilfully participating in a public meeting pushes those limits into a grey area that should definitely be the subject of further debate.