The Instigator
SpectateSwamp
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
oz123max
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should anything in local government be "in camera" hidden from the public

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SpectateSwamp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 485 times Debate No: 40564
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

SpectateSwamp

Con

In local government they say "Labor Land and Legal" MAY not must be "in camera" (hidden from public).

Almost all local dealings are rife with Cronyism, Nepotism, Lobbying and bad bad shenanigans.

For legal! They cite lawyer client privileges. The citizens are the clients so that one gets tossed.

For land! If there is a developer or real estate agent involved; we should watch very closely with camcorders.

For labor! If HR audits aren't done once and a while then that should be totally open as well.

Any town that doesn't do procurement audits will suffer from corruption.

I don't think you'd find a town that would say to WhistleBlowers or WatchDogs come on in with your camcorders we are clean.

I'm even of the opinion that secret ballots leads to voter fraud almost every time.
oz123max

Pro

I say yes they should be hidden from the public because you are getting the people that slow down and race off when they have passed the camera but if u hide it u can get them and put them in jail or give them a fine
Debate Round No. 1
SpectateSwamp

Con

With everything of importance on video.. If someone hides from the camera, people will know they are bad. The camcorder person should hound them like any good watchdog. Yup if the town manager slammed their door he/she should be terminated. I say.

All video should be uploaded to YouTube or other service unedited and as soon as possible. People like watching fresh video.
oz123max

Pro

yes I get your point but if people wont deaths on the streets to decrease its a good idea to hide them not let everyone know that their there
Debate Round No. 2
SpectateSwamp

Con

Thanks oz123max you took such an impossible position.

In a town near here they said they couldn't publish the budget info because it would "jeopardize the tendering process".
What jeopardizes anything is secrecy. That is the only way their cronies can be guaranteed the contracts. The tendering process in most places if fixed from the get go.

I was doing video of open council meetings in 2 towns here. Oliver and Osoyoos. Until they put through resolutions prohibiting citizen video. One mayor said that I was editorialising too much. All the videos were posted directly to YouTube where anybody could make comments.

Most towns / cities are run like a family business. HR is not for Human Resources it's Hire Relatives. And corrupt ones.
oz123max

Pro

oz123max forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SpectateSwamp

Con

Too bad we couldn't get a town councilor or city manager to come here and explain why "in camera" is necessary. They always want things hidden from public view. Maybe a lawyer or property developer could explain why WE need secrecy.
oz123max

Pro

oz123max forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SpectateSwamp

Con

Even open meetings don't want video. Why is that? Not really honest with their thoughts I'd say.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Arlene Arlow"
To: "stonedan"
Cc: "Alex Atamanenko" , "Alex Atamanenko-Lilly"
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:28:24 PM
Subject: RE: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark

Hi Doug

I would prefer that you not video the Osoyoos event. We have people designated for that task.

Your web presence is clandestine in that you do not post your contact details and as you state, you do not have a phone. Persons who might otherwise wish to "not" be part of your YouTube presence would have no way of contacting you to have the images removed.

I appreciate your interest and hope that you attend the Osoyoos event.

Kind regards

Arlene Arlow
For the
Okanagan-Similkameen Farm Labour Society
Ph/fax: 250-499-5121
Cell: 250-488-7567

-----Original Message-----
From: stonedan
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:16 PM
To: Arlene Arlow
Subject: Re: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark

Hi Arlene

I don't have a phone.

You can find me at Jojo's cafe just across the street from Watermark most any day.

I can maybe have a friend at jojo's let me use their phone.

I never ever edit anything and make many short clips in mpg format.

The videos are usually 2 minutes long. If it's 2 hours long I may shoot 60.

I would also hang around to video after.

One way or other I will attend.

Good luck with your event.

Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlene Arlow"
To: "stonedan"
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:09:25 PM
Subject: RE: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark

Hi Doug

Pls give me a buzz to discuss your request.

Arlene Arlow
For the
Okanagan-Similkameen Farm Labour Society
Ph/fax: 250-499-5121
Cell: 250-488-7567

-----Original Message-----
From: stonedan
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:44 PM
To: aarlow*telus.net
Subject: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark

Hi Arlow

I'd like to shoot video of the event and post it unedited to my YouTube account.

https://www.youtube.com... Food Sovereignty forum Oliver 20Mar2012

There is a core of people that will attend.

Video will show everything... Stupid or otherwise.

Thanks in advance.

Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp
oz123max

Pro

oz123max forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
SpectateSwampoz123maxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited every round pretty much