Defining purpose

What if you were asked to join an organization to give advice and no one asked your opinion? That seems to be the dilemma faced by the municipality’s Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC).

The EAC was formed shortly after Mayor Leo Finnegan first took office in 2004. It has struggled ever since to find its purpose. Initially the advisory committee was quite shy—refusing at first to identify themselves or their credentials to the community—advised by Finnegan not to get tangled up in the to-and-fro in the newspapers.

That attitude would change over time as the organization matured. But even when it was called upon, as it was during debate on a potential pesticide bylaw, the EAC didn’t quite get a handle on its role. Without direction or suggestion the EAC ran ahead and developed a draft bylaw on its own. It turned out to have been lifted mostly from another jurisdiction—but council worried, justifiably, why, and on what authority, an advisory body was developing draft laws on its behalf.

Eventually the province passed its own pesticide bylaw making the exercise moot.

It found firmer footing on the wind energy issue, organizing a public meeting with representatives from a couple of provincial ministries and a municipal leader from Wolfe Island. Once again, however, the municipality saw its authority stripped by the province who knew better—rendering local debate pointless.

Mostly the EAC toiled quietly in anonymity with little interaction with council and even less impact on policy. Their frustration is borne out in a November 2010 report delivered to council in which they slam council for not using their expertise to help understand the issues of the day. They complain that their group features qualified engineers, agrologists and biologists, among others, and that all are volunteering their time and expertise to the betterment of the community—but that no one is listening to them.

The report asked: “Why didn’t council ask EAC to report on their research and observations? Why not at least ask for an annual report? Why wasn’t the EAC given some specific direction?” The report speaks of poor attendance at EAC meeting and the loss of meetings. “Was it frustration or lack of purpose?” the report’s author asks rhetorically.

The EAC’s experience provides a cautionary lesson for the next council.

During the election campaign many voices called for greater participation in local government by citizen committees. We are truly very rich in this community with expertise and skill developed in a wide array of business and other disciplines. It would be a shame not to find a way to use this talent that so many are willing to give.

But as the experience of the EAC shows, it does no good at all to gather a group of wise folks together, start a discussion and then close the door. We need to a better job of defining the problem we are trying to solve and finding those folks with the skill sets who can help.

Without a clear purpose, creative people start defining their own reason to be.

For example, the EAC strayed wildly off its mandate during the election in posing a list of questions to candidates. The committee wanted to know which environmental concerns were top-of-mind among the candidates, their views on green energy projects and means to reduce garbage. Simple stuff.

But then they wanted to know the candidates’ views on the EAC itself. Was the EAC useless? Was the EAC in conflict with economic and social concerns?

Then the questions veered to the bizarre. What did candidates feel should be done with the DukeDome after the last game of hockey is played? How did they feel about water rates? Were township halls worth saving? Should the County’s [financial] reserves be depleted?

It strains the imagination how these issues would fall under the mandate of the Environmental Advisory Committee—yet these were the questions they chose to ask. Most troubling, however, is that it was their perception that it was appropriate for an advisory committee of council to be posing questions to candidates during an election. Surely if an advisory committee is to have any credibility at all, it must first and foremost be seen as objective and open minded.

It must be a resource for council to study, explore and understand complex issues—not to decide them. It cannot be a lobby group. Nor a shill for one side of a debate or another.

The Times urged caution back in 2004 when council was establishing the EAC and, subsequently, the manner in which it conducted business. We were concerned that the initiative ran the risk of politicizing the issues it was to consider and therefore compromising the work it might do. As it turned out the EAC was mostly ignored over the past six years—never really trusted by council. Then, in its final days, it unwisely weighed into the election campaign as a participant.

We should all be disappointed with this outcome. It is not the only advisory group that struggles to understand its sense of purpose. Others, including committees that advise on hospital and agriculture matters, have occasionally veered from advice to advocacy. A harder line between the two must be drawn.

The next council must find ways to make use of the talent and skills of the folks who live here and willingly offer their time; and, it must do a much better job of defining the purpose, roles and responsibilities when it asks them for help and advice.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca