The Failure Path?

Maybe it's just me.
Or has the bureaucratic lack-of-transparency-fish reared its ugly head yet again?

Isn't it strange that Greater Vernon Advisory Committee members are called to a Special meeting on Wednesday June 10th, declared IN CAMERA "to deal with matters deemed closed to the public".
As bureaucrats are wont to do.
Same old, same old, as the saying goes.

Really?
Matters closed to the public?
How could these matters be closed to the public when it was the public--through a grassroots group--that is demanding change?

Bureaucrats aren't good at making exceptions.
But they're very good at dragging politicians around in circles.

GVAC Chair Cunningham should insist that the process be changed to allow a technical member of Citizens for Change to the Master Water Plan to help determine Terms of Reference.
Will GVAC Chair Cunningham recall her statement where she suggested her idea "to take a step back".
Maybe she won't remember.
And while they're at it, invite the manager of Interior Health to also attend on June 10th to help dispel the bureaucratic bullshit about filtration.


Then, a day later, Thursday, June 11th, the same group is coming back to their regular meeting to discuss the Master Water Plan review.   Agenda:  "That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Terms of Reference for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, to review the 2012 Greater Vernon Master Water Plan be endorsed; and further:

That staff be instructed to initiate the process to form the committee as outlined in the Terms of Reference for the Stakeholder Advisory Committee to review the 2012 Greater Vernon Master Water Plan."

Or will the CCMWP automatically be allowed one technical member--or two--to sit on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, looking over a hastily-crafted--and adopted--Terms of Reference?
Yet not permitted to change/add any of the Terms of Reference?

Is this the beginning of the Failure Path?
Continued bureaucratic control?

Just in case any politician or bureaucrat has forgotten what was recently adopted, here's a cut-n-paste (complete with blog opinions in Italics) as a reminder:

1.  Councillor Lord asked that a Communications Strategy for dealing with the Review be adopted such that the public could be informed on each question. Adopted

2.  Coldstream Mayor Garlick said the defeat of the Referendum bought valuable time (bullshit!) for a review to be undertaken.  And that Standards for water quality, pricing and delivery have changed and are in the process of change, that the review incorporate these changes in its process.  Adopted

3.  Councillor Kiss requested the review focus on a MWP that addresses the future needs of the water user base, and that as Okanagan Lake is the most reliable water source where the least amount of treatment is needed, that the review include the viability of the OK Lake as the principal water source. Adopted

4.  Filtration exclusion and deferral issues were discussed and GVW management explained the current situation with respect to IHA and that it should be included in the review. Adopted


5.  Bob Spiers asked if a review could include the cost of treating the entire volume of Duteau water as compared with other treatment options. Adopted

6.  Mayor Garlick asked that public involvement in the review follow the model set and adopted by the Municipalities at the provincial level whereby a public committee was struck to provide feedback into decision-making relative to MWP allowing politicians and staff to have maximum input to direction.  (Politicians and staff?  Aren't you forgetting the public?  As long as his idea has no semblance of Coldstream's Agricultural Advisory Committee, which was a sham whose meeting principals were led--by the nose--by a councillor--after they were told what terms of reference were!).  Adopted

7.  Director Fleming asked if  "current demand levels" projected to 2020 and on, be considered in the review. Adopted

8. A question respecting the differing levels of supply by Quarter be included in the review.  Adopted

9. Redundancy of sources and the management of supply should be reviewed as Duteau, Kal, Coldstream Creek, King Edward Lake, and Okanagan Lake all are in the picture. Adopted

10.  Whether one treatment plant could supply all needs from all sources. Adopted

11.  Mayor Garlick proposed that the principle of  "need of supply type" be adopted to guide supply management.  In other words, if a user needs potable water, user pays for potable water.  (Alternately then, it would follow that if a user needs unchlorinated non-potable water that isn't available, the user pays for unchlorinated non-potable water!  An excellent idea!)  Adopted.

12.  Question to minimize the use of treated water on agricultural lands.  Adopted

13.  Councillor Cunningham advised everyone to take a "step back" and work with the public on developing a new MWP that serves the needs of the entire community.  (But no longer controlled by bureaucrats, hopefully!)  Adopted

14.  Mayor Garlick proposed that staff investigate hiring a communications specialist (dumb idea!  a $100K addition to the bureaucracy...simply tell the truth each week in one or two paragraphs in the newspaper...nobody needs to read something from a spin doctor who is on the RDNO payroll).  Develop a communications strategy to facilitate the flow of information to and from public and press throughout MWP review process. The intent is to draw people in to the process.  Adopted

What's that saying?
Perhaps bureaucrats are, under duress, allowing (ahem) things to be done differently.
Yet hoping for the same results?

Lack of transparency in bureaucracy.

"Yup, that's one ugly fish," offers Kia.


Bureaucrats are so used to being in charge of politicians.

Can politicians avoid the Failure Path?