Head scratcher

Town council’s abrupt decision yesterday to drop the referendum question—on whether Fort Frances should be considered as a future site of a gaming facility (casino)—from the ballot for this fall’s municipal election is a real head scratcher.
Most vexing, at least on the surface, is why the town didn’t seek legal advice in the first place on whether it had jurisdiction to pose such a question to the electorate, which presumably would have avoided the whole rigmarole and, most importantly, the appearance of ineptitude.
The real heart of the matter lies much deeper, however. First and foremost, if the town isn’t able to consult the electorate on the casino issue, just who can?
Reading between the lines, it effectively means council has the discretion to hold a public meeting—or not—prior to making a decision on whether Fort Frances should be considered as a future site for a casino, rather than needing a formal referendum to get the go-ahead.
And judging by the debate around the table at yesterday’s special meeting, it also begs the question the purpose of any referendum. If the fear is the outcome—whether “yes” or “no”—would hamstring the incoming council for the next four years, why bother to hold one at all?
Whether or not yesterday’s decision was the correct one, it calls into question where the power rests to decide the casino issue and the very future of referendums as a whole.