Creative Control International Inc.

But if you want know how it came to be, or which politicians supported or opposed it, you’re out of luck — the fair boss says citizens have no right to know.

Hugh Mitchell, the fair’s chief executive, rejected a request by The Free Press to provide records that show how the controversial charge — one the fair’s board of governors reversed last week, after a storm of public protest — was proposed and who voted for it.

He even declined to say on which dates deliberations took place.

Asked for the basis of his refusal. Mitchell said again and again, “We’re not at liberty to do so.”

Asked why, he said, “There’s no law that requires us to do so,”

Asked if any law forbid disclosure, he said no.

Last week, public backlash led fair executives to rescind their plan to introduce a $5 admission fee to disabled people and their attendants. They did not reverse their decision to levy new admission charges for children.

Mitchell admits the charge on the disabled was a mistake — but he’ll oppose efforts to make public those documents that show who was responsible.

“We’re not a public company,” he said.

His stance stunned an expert in civic government, University of Western Ontario political scientist Andrew Sancton.

“I’m just astounded . . . I’ve never heard of anything quite so outrageous,” Sancton said.

The fair’s bottom line is boosted by public entities: It rakes in millions of dollars a year from government-owned slot machines at the casino at the fairgrounds and pays below-market rent on the city-owned property.

Fair executives should make as much information as possible available to citizens, especially when five politicians and former politicians serve as fair directors or governors, Sancton said.

“Any enlightened board and management, given these circumstances, would go out of the way to have a strategy to release the maximum amount of information,” Sancton said.

The Western Fair Association, which operates the annual September fair and other attractions at the fairgrounds, is — as Mitchell describes it — a “quasi-public” organization.

The association is regulated by Ontario legislation that dates back about a century.

Had the fair board’s and directors’ agendas been public from the get-go, the controversial charge for the disabled could have been scuttled before it was adopted, Sancton said.

Controller Gina Barber, who isn’t on the fair board, agreed.

“This has been a PR disaster for them . . . If they don’t have things to hide, then why aren’t they open about it?” she asked.

The secrecy comes at a time when it’s not clear what role city politicians played in hiking admission charges,

Coun. Cheryl Miller at first said the board of governors, on which she sits, wasn’t told about the new charge for the disabled.

Later, Miller told a local radio station she’d re-checked her agendas and found she missed a key meeting at which the charge was discussed.

The Free Press has phoned and e-mailed Miller to request copies of the agendas, but she hadn’t replied by Sunday evening.

Coun. Harold Usher also faced questions about his role as a fair director: He supported the board after it passed the new charge, but later said he personally had opposed it.

Asked for agendas and minutes, Usher said he throws them out after meetings.

Coun. Bernie MacDonald, also a fair director, said he’d ask the board to reconsider Mitchell’s refusal.

“That where the request has to go,” he said.

Mitchell says he’ll forward any request made in writing by MacDonald, but will personally recommend the board reject the request.

If the board declines to publicly disclose its minutes and agendas, the three city councillors should, Sancton said.