I’ve been closely following the controversy surrounding the Owen Sound City Council and the Public Health Unit. I was struck in particular by the recent statement of the Board of Directors of the PHU that was read into Council minutes and republished by The Hub. In this statement, the Board, without evidence, repeats Dr. Arra’s claim that one particular Councilor, Mr. Tamming, is responsible for the increase in COVID cases because his questions “eroded confidence” in the PHU and led to non-compliance with the PHU’s recommendations. Besides being a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of) fallacy, the Board’s letter has more than a whiff about it of an institutional effort to cover their backsides. After all, if the questions Mr. Tamming raised about Dr. Arra’s management and compensation have any merit to them, then the Board would have something to answer for, wouldn’t it?

But I want to be more precise. I’d like the Board to inform the public as to exactly the size of the blanket of immunity that the pandemic provides for Dr. Arra. Does COVID protect him from any criticism whatsoever? Would the Board look the other way if there were, for example, sexual harassment charges, or evidence of embezzlement, or if the PHU was distributing vaccines on a “family and friends first” basis? If so, then one wonders what purpose the Board serves. If not, then the Board can’t use the “eroding public trust” argument as a way of shielding the PHU from any public criticism. I think the good citizens of Owen Sound deserve an answer to this rather than having the Board issue scandalous and perhaps libelous statements that scapegoat a particular councilor who asks questions in the public interest. After all, the idea that authority is ultimately accountable to the citizenry is the backbone of democratic governance.

Jeff Polet