Air of hypocrisy

The decision by the Rainy River District School Board to find David Kircher had breached the Trustee Code of Conduct was a necessary one—but it reeks of hypocrisy.
As anyone who lives in a small town knows, actions and discussions which take place behind closed doors inevitably leak out at some point. These “rumours” end up circulating on the street and in the coffee shops, and usually come to the attention of the local media, whose reporters then are tasked with separating fact from fiction in a bid to uncover and reveal the truth.
It happens all the time, including just last fall when new board chair Michael Lewis said he “caught wind” that plans by the former board to amend the contracts of two senior administration staff were in the works.
How could that be if someone hadn’t breached confidentiality? Yet here’s Mr. Kircher now facing formal censure for admittedly revealing in-camera information to members of the public even though he believed—and rightly so—that the information already had been broached in an open session of the board and, more importantly, should have been public knowledge in the first place.
If Mr. Kircher is at fault, it was in the way the information was passed along. He took it upon himself to share details with certain members of the public, rather than voicing his displeasure over the amended contracts in an open session of the board, when other trustees would have an opportunity to offer their input and perhaps vote on a course of action as a board.
As vice-chair Dianne McCormick put it last night, in voting in favour of the resolution, “whether or not the issues should have been dealt with in-camera or not, it was still being discussed in-camera.” As such, the majority of trustees had little choice but to find Mr. Kircher in breach of the code.
Whether that decision stands, and just what punishment he will face, will be decided at next month’s board meeting.
In the meantime, ratepayers are left feeling vexed as the tempest over Mr. Kircher’s actions conveniently diverts attention from the questionable decision by the former board, as well as the laudable push for better transparency and accountability of the public’s money.