Dear Editor,
When I first started working in the field of local government, it was actually referred to as the field of Municipal government, regulated by the Municipal Act. Regional districts existed then, but the industry as a whole hadn’t matured enough to recognize it as an order of government, as is done today through the use of new legislation and the more broadly inclusive and accommodating term ‘local government.’
Municipal governments were typically formed by citizen groups for specific purposes, like community water systems, community sewage collection and disposal, paved streets, and controlling unregulated community growth and development patterns. I am not aware of a successful community that was incorporated to provide a recreation centre, or serve as a platform for developers to prosper. That, however, is where we are moving to today.
As old infrastructure declines, many Councils have switched their focus to the ‘Golden Statues.’ Recreation centres, parks, and community attractions receive priority, while residents drive on deteriorating potholed roads, and have to put up with water restrictions and endure sewer backup. The often hidden infrastructure of a municipality is just that, hidden. It’s not sexy, not eye-appealing, not highly prioritized for budget dollars for constantly needed upgrades.
Some Municipal Councils, and staff, devote their time to making the community appealing for developers. They see their function as one of ‘attracting growth to the community.’ Not a bad objective, but, if that’s the only tool in your toolbox, you lack a decent toolbox. They have long since forgotten their role as community builders in the sense of serving their taxpayers. Instead, they now have all the answers. and don’t need detracting input from taxpayers who know little the value and importance of the community. Perhaps, Council members never really understood their role, after all, they were likely not present when their forefathers found the corporations they are now running.
There is no set of self-imposed community rules for governing a Municipality. There are guidelines in documents like the Official Community Plan, but little exists to remind a Council of the deeper meaning of ‘why we are here.’ Legislation exists which sets out legal parameters for Municipal operations, but there are no words handed down over time as to the actual purpose of the Municipality. There is a process, however, to reach back and asses that purpose. There exists in fact several ‘public consultation’ processes. A time to consult the community, with the objective of listening to, not ruling out unwanted public comment.
Most Councils want to do well for their community, but they don’t always know how to. They self-impose their learned wisdom, without giving due consideration to the opinions of the people who entrusted them to their jobs in the first place. Remember, getting elected is a popularity contest, not the engagement of the most qualified.
Perhaps Municipal OCPs should include statements about the original purpose of the Municipality, about its founders, and about who it serves.
Merritt’s OCP is founded on the principle of ‘Making the Economic Pie Bigger’. The document appears to have been written for that sole purpose, accommodating growth. Perhaps, strengthening the fabric of the community for the residents who have chosen to make it their home might have been a more glorious objective.
Council’s should never write-off the opinions of any of its citizens. They should take time to try to decipher and understand those opinions. Local government is not about being in a rush, it’s about getting it right for its stakeholders.
When Councils fail to consider the opinions of those most affected by its decision-making process, it typically leads to an uptick in letters to the local newspaper editor, and negative comments on social media.
We should all take time to listen, to respect, to consider.
Doug Fleming
