No, the heading doesn't denote negativity.
It's just the reality of dealing with a largely unsupervised--and uncontrollable--regional district.
More on that later.
This blog will however omit the
Morning Star story today entitled "
Water
Plans Put to Public" because the entire story is just that...a story
about how the politicians are putting the public in charge.
Which is
absolute nonsense.
Because the general public is only slightly less informed than GVAC committee members, largely due to the regional district bureaucracy.
That
must change.
The positive signs first:
Yesterday's GVAC meeting for the area's Master Water Plan saw some
phenomenal results:
As promised by Councillor and GVAC Chair Cunningham at the Schubert Centre public information meeting, a review of the Master Water Plan has been initiated (this--despite RDNO boss Sewell opening with a Powerpoint Presentation that explained the Master Water Plan and the water utility's--and regional district's--interaction with it.)
Ordinarily--at the regional district's GVAC meetings--that would've been the sum and substance of any review...
"take it or leave it" has always been the water engineers'
choke-hold on advisory committee members. Not unlike the regional district saying to them:
"you can't come up with anything 'smarter', so just follow us on the path we're leading you down."
But not on Thursday!
Hopefully buoyed by voter pressure during the Schubert Centre presentation by Citizens for Changes to the Master Water Plan--or simply that elected officials finally remember who they're working for--bureaucrats got told by their bosses...
yes, their bosses--
GVAC, what would occur next.
Grab a coffee and enjoy:
Politicians, one by one, took charge of the meeting (as they should always have, but haven't in ages), and mapped out a series of questions to frame the Master Water Plan review. Each question was electronically posted to the overhead screen so that everyone could read and peruse goals and implications...and (
zut alors!) politicians actually
voted on each question after discussing it.
Democracy began to awake from its long sleep.
Here they are:
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
But!!!!!!
Glaring with its omission was the public's--and CCMWP's--demand that an independent technical authority be engaged to review the MWP. And nobody meant that group should comprise folks from all walks of public life...retired people, homemakers, people with lots of time on their hands, etc., with no disrespect intended! The group needs technical people from all walks of life...people trained through industry professions or university. Please don't suggest prospective members come from named political parties who are seeking to get their name in print, nor bureaucratically-dependent (and left-leaning) affiliations such as the Okanagan Basin Water Board.
The new committee needs people who can read through the smoke 'n mirrors of what the bureaucracy has always produced. And people who can read and understand technical memoranda.
Now...why does democracy remain handcuffed after all this good news at GVAC?
It's simple really.
But it takes another Morning Star story (today) to realize what the problem is.
Apparently, Vernon city hall and resident "interactions" need an avenue to get their ideas exchanged. It was presented by Councillor Anderson that Town Hall meetings be considered.
There's the problem!!!!
The format of current meetings...yup, that's the curse that prevents public dialogue with their elected officials.
Think of it this way: 20 or 30 years ago (yes, I'm of an age that I easy recall it), a member of the public could go to a council meeting and speak up on any topic that he wanted to present. Officials and bureaucrats would reply...presto, comments to and fro in one meeting.
That doesn't happen anymore at council...and certainly not at regional district GVAC meetings.
The public is not allowed to speak!!!!!
That's not a democracy...that's a way to have meetings end on time.
Yup.
Consider this.
You are a resident with an opinion on a current community topic.
You attend council--or a GVAC meeting--and hear politicians and bureaucrats ask--and answer--a question or two related to your topic. But they don't know the mitigating circumstances that only you can provide. Or they're wrong...flat wrong...in their perception.
But you're not allowed to speak. As an attendee, are you really going to leave the meeting, pen a letter to the bureaucracy, asking to be a Delegation at the next meeting (which--in GVAC's case--is a month away!)....no of course you're not. You're disgusted at being unable to shed new light on a topic they discussed...all without your valuable input.
So a Town Hall meeting is the answer to that?
No.
 |
| The current format of meetings deters and stifles the public input process. |
Council meetings must open up the floor--and not just for the first 10 minutes as a "Delegation"--so that someone can offer an opinion for politicians and bureaucrats to discuss. Yes, a bureaucratic moderator would have control so that a person isn't allowed to ramble on and on, or be disrespectful. But provide information? Yes indeed. That's democracy, speaking to his elected representative.
Who the hell wants to go to yet another meeting?
Sounds like the Ombudsman should be contacted to force the structure of meetings (under the Local Government Act?) to once again allow the public to speak to their representatives at the only meeting where they all assemble!
Town Hall meetings are not necessary.
Ever.
"Demand change, and reap its benefits," suggests Kia.
