Missing from SAC?

Planning to attend the third Stakeholders' Advisory Committee meeting this Thursday at RDNO, it occurred to me that something's missing.
Besides a modicum of dialogue, that is.

Something integral to public confidence that the entire five-month regime of SAC meetings is neither a pointless exercise in semantics nor a delaying tactic by bureaucrats.

What is that integral component?
 
Wouldn't it be productive to learn the personal (frankly-held and openly-stated) opinions of each of the 18 appointed members (increased by GVW to 14 at selection stage)...
But engineers likely felt the process of selecting candidates for SAC membership was akin to selecting a jury, where opposing lawyers weigh individual tenets and how their client--the Master Water Plan--would be affected. 

Having missed the first SAC meeting--where introductions were made--I wondered if newly-appointed members were encouraged to state the reason(s) they felt they could make a worthwhile contribution to reviewing the Master Water Plan? 

Or were only bureaucrats privy to that information as they pored over applications?  (The committee application form and terms of reference were on the RDNO website, now absent here) and one question, I believe, asked what experience the applicant possessed that the applicant felt would provide a contribution to the committee.
Or something like that.

Back to frankly held.
It's probably safe to assume domestic applicants to the committee would hold varying degrees of this opinion:  "I'm concerned about how high my water rates are now, and where they're going in the future, and the impact on seniors on a fixed income."

It's probably safe to assume agricultural applicants to the committee would hold varying degrees of this opinion:  "I'm concerned that domestic users want to restrict how much water agriculture uses, as well as the amount they subsidize my farm, but farming developed the area's water licenses."

And potential comments from commercial and industrial representatives, a couple of whom appeared to share a similar level of flagging interest at meeting two.
To this observer anyway.

My point is--with two elected representatives (Garlick and Cunningham) and the posse of bureaucrats and plan developers, not to mention the public gallery and media reps--who among appointed committee members would willingly (given the opportunity) openly state their personal feelings (biases) about the Master Water Plan?

From overheard restaurant conversations, it's clear the public has lost confidence in elected officials who sit on GVAC--ostensibly the REAL decision-makers.
With the exception of Councillors Kiss and Spiers, that is.

"I have a day job (so) I hire politicians to make

decisions for me..."

statement by BNN interviewer

 while discussing Keystone XL rejection

with former Canadian finance minister Joe Oliver,

BNN November 11/15 (12:23pm ET)

Who in their right mind would subject themselves to the over-bearing scrutiny of GVW engineering boss McTaggart (accustomed as he is to a free rein--or perhaps more accurately, a free reign) at RDNO?

Who indeed?

Are opinions "openly-stated?"
Will they be in January as the committee's term ends?

Is there an image that reflects "creeping doubt"?

"It's akin to parents hanging around at their teenager's pyjama party," offers Kia.

Good analogy.