There is a lack of courage and openness among the mayor and city councillors these days.

It was exemplified last week after a decision was made behind closed doors to plead not guilty to two safety charges laid by the Worker's Compensation Board in relation to the deaths of two firefighters, killed in a shed fire, March 17, 2005.

Mayor Gord Van Tighem promised last spring -- shortly after the charges were laid -- that council would make its decision in public.

He broke that promise when an in-camera council committee meeting was held, Aug. 11, where the decision was subsequently made to plead not guilty.

The mayor and councillors are now shielding themselves behind a paragraph found in the Cities, Towns, and Villages Act, which says municipal legislators may make a resolution behind closed doors if it's "to give instructions to the municipal corporation's lawyers."

There are times when council must meet behind closed doors: in discussions involving personnel issues, or those where negotiations over commercial acquisitions and contracts could be compromised by premature public disclosure. Even in those situations, public votes are still necessary.

Legal matters are a third area that goes behind closed doors. Giving direction to legal council is the one situation when council can make a decision behind closed doors.

But with the safety charges, voters should have a right to know how each councillor voted, especially on something that could cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills and potential fines.

We don't need to know the evidence; just how each member of council voted.

Council has barely uttered a peep since the deaths of firefighters Cyril Fyfe and Kevin Olson 18 months ago. Do they think firefighters are safe? Do they have anything to suggest to improve their safety if not?

Most councillors are quick to make statements on just about anything, whether it be recognizing a Heterosexual Day in the city or the cost of curbside garbage pick-up. But when it comes to the lives of the city's firefighters or the security they provide to our citizens, they've been noticeable absent from public debate.

At the very least, last week's decision should have been a recorded vote. Instead, councillors were in "general agreement," according to Van Tighem.

This alone doesn't seem to stand up to the requirements of the Cities, Towns, and Villages Act, which calls for a "resolution" to be made and votes cast, whether it happens in private or public.

It means no one is accepting accountability for last week's decision.

And it begs the question: how many other decisions are made by "general agreement" behind closed doors?

We can now only hope this fall's municipal election provides some candidates with the courage to stand up for themselves and the city's firefighters and residents.

Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News

There can be no denying that the Kivalliq felt the impact this past year when the local CBC broadcast disappeared from the airwaves when the public broadcaster locked out its employees.

However, just when things were at their bleakest, it was time to drop the puck for the NHL's first regular season after it, too, closed-up shop for a year over labour strife.

It was, no doubt, the first time in the station's history that its regular radio listeners viewed Don Cherry as a white knight riding in to save the day.

You see, as eager as the network was to show its employees who was boss, it wasn't about to throw away some $30 million a year it receives in advertising revenue from its Hockey Night in Canada broadcasts.

It was time to kiss and make up and all was well in the world of Canadian public broadcasting once again.

It's ironic, then, that the same program which helped calm the waters a year ago will probably be responsible for the loss of hundreds of CBC jobs just two short years from now.

And we all know satellite stations that provide regional news - like we have in the Kivalliq - will be the first to go.

The CBC has been broadcasting Hockey Night in Canada for more than half a century, but its current deal with the NHL is set to expire at the end of the 2007-08 season.

And there's a nasty storm cloud of competition brewing on the horizon.

The hot topic of the week within the business industry is that Bell Globemedia is prepared to offer the NHL $140 million per year over 10 years for the broadcast rights, more than twice what the CBC and the NHL agreed to in the current deal.

Make no mistake; there is no loyalty in this world anymore when that kind of money is thrown around.

There are many journalists who sneer at those who work for the CBC because the network is funded by the federal government.

However, as a number of journalists have pointed out during the past week -- including noted sports columnist Adam Proteau - there is a need for a national network in Canada that is free to operate away from the pressures often exerted by advertisers.

And, call it a hunch, but we're pretty sure the privatization of this CBC program would not bode well for Northern listeners, who rate slightly below exotic pet owners in the world of target audiences.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out during the next two years, but it's unlikely the feds will match the $1.4 billion Globemedia is reportedly dangling in front of the NHL.

It's almost unfathomable to think of the impact the loss of one program could have across the land, yet such is the power of hockey in the land of the crazy Canucks.

We here in the North will have to wait to see how quickly the fallout hits us should the Globemedia deal go through, but we bet the hamlet of Rankin Inlet will be operating the most powerful radio transmitter in the Kivalliq before the ink is dry on the paper.

If Globemedia's money talks, regional public radio in the North will walk.

Editorial Comment
Dez Loreen
Inuvik Drum

Development is something that we cannot avoid. In the coming years, we will see the land around us change. It's easy to see that trees will be cut down and tonnes of gravel dumped to create new places to build.

With the possibility of the Mackenzie Gas Project, there will be companies from the south that will want to acquire land around town and use it for their own purposes. A great example of this is the recent blocking of the Navy Road river accessway.

Long used by people who walk their dogs and others who want to get to the river, the road is actually on private land. The company that owns it decided to secure its investment and put up a barricade to keep the public off the land.

While the land isn't developed, who knows what's planned for the future. The company may just be preparing the community for the inevitable: a fenced lot with no access to the waterfront whatsoever.

This may be the time for the town office to wake up and develop the road that has been in the works for so long.

Dog walkers, mushers, fishermen, elders and anyone else who uses that access in the summer time will know that this comes as an inconvenience. One guy I talked to used to take his two dogs out to the open area for some exercise.

He said he preferred the secluded area because his dogs have a tendency to be hyper. It makes perfect sense and nobody was getting hurt.

Some other people said they want to park their boats out on the old federal dock at the end of the road on the beach so no one steals their gas. I guess there have been complaints about the main boat launch.

Maybe the people who are leaving their boats out on the Navy access road should lobby the town for a secure marina space, instead of hiding them in the brush.

People in town need to realize that private land is private for a reason. The owner has every right to seal off their property.

The town also needs to recognize the need for an access road in that area, which serves travellers from outlying communities as well as truckers who transport goods through the passage.

Editorial Comment
Roxanna Thompson
Deh Cho Drum

Take a festival with events, entertainment and fair weather, add a few people and presto, there will undoubtably be a number of individuals who are showing the effects of drinking alcoholic beverages of one kind or another.

The likelihood of people noticeably drinking increases exponentially if the event is held on a long weekend For many, long weekends are tailor-made for enjoying a few, and sometimes a few too many drinks. All of this is to be expected in adults and, unfortunately, the same can often be said for people under the age of 19 who are not supposed to have access to alcohol.

A resident of Fort Providence is raising her voice about what she judged as out-of-control drinking by youth during the Mackenzie Days festival over the civic holiday long weekend.

The truth, however, is that this is not an issue limited to Fort Providence and Mackenzie Days. It's not an issue limited to the Northwest Territories or even to Canada.

It's also definitely not a new issue.

Underage drinking happens in many places, probably everywhere that youth have access to alcohol.

For many societies and cultures, it's a rite of passage.

Few people make it through their teenage years without gathering a number of stories involving that time they had a bit too much of something to drink, did a number of crazy things and then felt horribly sick the next morning, afternoon or even evening.

If you are through your teen years or even early 20s and don't have at least one of these stories, you may be found lacking by your peers.

But with that said, it doesn't make underage drinking right.

Legally, no one under the age of 19 is allowed to purchase alcohol but that doesn't mean that in practice they don't get a hold of it and, of course, drink it.

Should teens be teetotallers? My best wishes go out to anyone who believes they could enforce that.

Instead, it comes down to a question of what level of drinking is acceptable.

The Northwest Territories Addiction Survey released this year and conducted in 2004 found that 83.7 per cent of drinkers in the Territories are between the ages of 15-39.

The age group most likely to drink heavily, five or more drinks at a time in a month are those between 15-24. On the front line are parents who have a responsibility to watch out for the welfare of their children.

In some cases, however, parents are not able to do this for a variety of reasons or simply turn a blind eye to excessive underage drinking and the behaviours that can come with it.

At that point, it can be members of the community who watch out for youth and help to ensure they don't irrevocably harm themselves.

In the end, someone has to speak up if things are indeed getting out of hand.

Airing concerns allows the rest of the community to help judge the situation and decide if action is needed.