Someone is telling the city that it can't ask the voters of Yellowknife what they think of the plan for a new arena and community centre, at least right now.

With all due respect to the city's lawyers, we disagree. How could it be illegal for city council to consult the citizens of the city at any time on any subject council sees fit? After all, there is no qualitative difference between an official referendum and a casual survey -- the former just happens to produce more useful answers.

The NWT Local Authorities Elections Act says the city "may submit to the voters any question relevant to the local authority at the same time that an election is held." It does not, however, specifically limit the city to those occasions. How could it? We're only talking about asking a non-binding question that council can use as one of many factors to consider when making a final decision.

The right to gather information cannot and must not be limited by law.

Spending $9 million of the public's money on an arena that we may or may not need -- or want -- certainly warrants a thorough understanding of the public's wishes. A poll of the city's ratepayers on a $2.5-million loan that council believes will be enough to get the project rolling will still be required, but only if a wider consensus establishes that a new arena is necessary and desirable.

The possibility that the existing Gerry Murphy Arena could refurbished for much less than the cost of an whole new complex remains on the table, and until it is decisively dismissed, the main question remains.

If, on the other hand, the lawyers are right and a separate referendum is illegal, then the law should be changed without delay. City council should not let the GNWT dictate when council can ask for help deciding the major questions of the day.

The Yellowknife Association for Community Living is to be commended for its commitment to tackling one of the biggest problems holding back Northerners: illiteracy.

As a recent NWT Labor Force Survey indicates, 36 per cent of the population 15 years or older are living with a Grade 9 or less education, the association's two-day workshop last week to help identify needs and encourage community groups and government agencies to get involved is obviously a move in the right direction.

The association has also lobbied successfully to have Yellowknife designated as one of three areas in Canada worthy of a literacy outreach program -- a program that will need all the help it can get.

Should public meetings be closed to the public? The answer is flatly no -- not unless there are personnel issues to be discussed or delicate legal issues be worked out, such as court cases or contract negotiations. Public meetings should remain as such.

Yes, meetings can go in camera at any point after there is a consensus to close the doors, but there are certain policies and procedures that have to be followed.

Yes, there are good reasons that some meetings are held behind closed doors, but none of these reasons applied a hamlet council meeting held in Rankin Inlet last week that went in camera after Interim Commissioner Jack Anawak asked the meeting be closed.

Anawak had attended the meeting to address council on the implementation of Nunavut -- specifically, which government offices would be located in Rankin Inlet and how many Nunavut government employees would be working in them. He did, however, touch on several other issues relating to the Nunavut government.

When the issue of the deputy ministers for the Nunavut government arose, several councillors voiced their concern that only three of the 11 are Inuit. Following this discussion, Anawak requested the press leave and the meeting go in-camera.

It's not completely difficult to understand why the hamlet would comply with Anawak's wishes. He was an invited guest. It's respect. Give him the forum he requests. And as Mayor John Hickes said, "It was the only time he could meet with us."

But if Anawak wanted to discuss matters that he didn't want made public yet, an open meeting is probably not the forum to begin discussions and then shut the doors on them. That's a matter of courtesy to the public. It's not fair and it's not right. The public has a right to know.

As a delegate, does Anawak have the right to ask council to close the doors to the public? Why is he requesting private briefings with the hamlet members? Shouldn't he be briefing the people of Nunavut?

While all council members agreed to go in camera and the council was certainly within its right to shut the doors, the act reveals a special treatment for Anawak that the public doesn't deserve.

It's not illegal and it doesn't break any rules, but it does break a certain level of trust that the public has handed their leaders. If there had been any other members of the public at the meeting, they would likely not have appreciated Anawak's request for a private briefing. And if there had been other people present, besides the press, would the request have been made?

Anawak is not alone in his attempt to shut out the public at given times. Media blackouts are common -- they are rarely warranted, nor are they fair to the public the media represents.

If it is true that the way to a man's heart is his stomach, maybe YCC is on to a new kind of rehabilitation program. By the sounds of things at the jail, there can't be any complaints about the food.

Three square meals a day, snacks and all four food groups duly represented. No wonder guys who've been living on the street tend to leave prison a few pounds heavier.

And at seven bucks a day, the price is right.

With that kind of expertise running the kitchens at the jail, maybe restaurant management is a trade that prisoners should learn during their stay.