Name applicants

We know that four people have applied to fill the vacancy on town council following the passing of Coun. Sharon Tibbs back in early January.
What we don’t know—and may never know, at least officially—is who those four are.
Town clerk Glenn Treftlin would not reveal the identities of the four individuals who had submitted applications by the Feb. 28 deadline, citing a lack of direction from council. Whether council gives its blessing to do so at tomorrow night’s meeting remains to be seen, although there are indications council is leaning toward keeping their identities under wraps.
Which leaves one to wonder why? Why shouldn’t the public know who put their names forward to fill the vacancy? More to the point, why shouldn’t the people know the four candidates from which council will appoint Coun. Tibbs’ successor.
The last two times Fort Frances had a council vacancy were fraught with controversy. Back in 2005, council opted against holding a costly byelection after Coun. Struchan Gilson passed away suddenly. But rather than simply appoint the first runner-up from the previous election (in 2003), council instead invited all the failed candidates to apply for the seat, then held a weighted election amongst itself to determine the winner.
Then in 2007, following the resignation of Coun. Tannis Drysdale, council initially passed a resolution to appoint someone, then abruptly changed its mind and went the byelection route—after three people already had applied.
In both cases, there was an uproar over council’s actions.
This time around, council did not have the option to appoint the first runner-up from the last election (in 2010) because all the councillors were acclaimed. And with less than half of the current term remaining, and given the town’s fiscal challenges, choosing not to hold a byelection was a sensible decision.
What doesn’t make sense is the apparent abhorrence on council’s part to reveal who applied for the job.
This isn’t to suggest council has a nefarious reason for keeping the public in the dark but why be open to that perception—justified or otherwise? As well, by setting the precedent of not naming the applicants, where is the safeguard against a future situation—perhaps years from now—in which council may have a self-interest in appointing one person over another?
Council should name the four applicants. Equally important, a policy clearly is needed that precisely outlines how to fill a future council vacancy to avoid any further kerfuffles.