Council needs to be held accountable

Aug. 28, 2008

As the saying goes, you can’t please everyone. But, if you’re an elected representative of a community, it’s your job to try.

It’s a tough job, no doubt. Big city or small town, there will always be issues residents are divided on.

Headingley council dealt with such an issue recently. More and more young families are choosing to settle down in the area, and the need for services is growing along with the community.

Council proposed the idea of a joint library and recreation centre to meet the increasing need for services. Two different sites were considered for the facility, and architects drew up two different plans, both with the same proposed cost. Those proposals were then presented at a community meeting. Residents were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the sites, and it was clear there was no general consensus.

A survey was conducted afterwards to get a more definite response from the community, and residents anxiously awaited the results.

Imagine their surprise when, weeks later, they learned — and not from their council — that a combined facility was no longer being built.

Council decided to abandon the idea of a joint facility and focus solely on building a new library in the community.

Residents could hardly believe their ears. Although the meetings had been held mostly to get feedback on which of the two sites the community preferred, the bulk of the conversation was surrounding what services needed to be included in the facility.

People were adamant about the need for a child care facility, a gym and a hockey rink. They wanted a place where their kids could play, learn, be active and read — a central meeting place for the community.

People couldn’t understand how councillors could ignore the needs of the community — especially after they asked for the input of residents.

Perhaps even more of a shock, although less significant, was when residents learned that neither of the two sites introduced by council would house the library.

Instead, a third site was chosen and purchased — all without anyone letting residents know.

According to the Municipal Act, council was well within its rights to purchase the land for the facility. There is no law or by-law that requires it to consult with the community before buying land, nor is there any legislation that says it must inform residents of such a purchase.

Still, the moral obligation is clear.

Councillors are elected to make decisions for the greater good of the community. How can those decisions be made without notifying residents?

Council’s defense has been that the community was divided and so a decision was made so the process could move forward.

Sure, some believe the main focus should be on a hockey rink, and others feel the greatest need is for a child care facility. But the vast majority of residents agreed a combined facility was the best choice.

It would be understandable if council chose between the two sites initially proposed.

What is not understandable is why the community’s wishes were ignored — and why council’s plans were kept under wraps from those same people?

Perhaps council needs to address the issue of accountability at its next meeting.