The Urban Council finds itself in an extraordinary position. The news this week that written proof supporting an important council decision has gone missing or may not even exist is incredible.
The matter affects the fate and future of the council's performing companies, along with the livelihoods of their staff. The Urban Services Department says plans to hive the companies off have been cancelled - even though it can't find the records for such a decision.
Should it be put down to administrative negligence, or gross disrespect for rules and procedures? Even more disturbing is that the department apparently does not see the error of its ways. Some Urban Councillors have been given the impression that the department cannot understand what all the fuss is about.
If this indeed represents the attitude of the department and majority members of the Urban Council, then the municipal body should not have been upset when criticised by the media and others in this community for operating 'like a private club'.
How can there be the accountability and the sense of duty the public expects of a municipal body if such a casual attitude in dealing with the council's affairs is found among members of the council and its executive arm? For every public body, there is a proper set of rules and procedures to follow, and the Urban Council should not be an exception.
The present problem perhaps reflects the danger of a lack of transparency and public monitoring of the municipal body.
The decision to hive off the Hong Kong Repertory Theatre and the Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra was taken in March 1989 at a confidential meeting of the council's core committees - the Culture Select Committee, the Finance Select Committee, the Administration Select Committee and the Performing Companies Sub-Committee.