By Stephen Vance, Editor
Meaford’s already irritated rural residents have been confused and angry in recent weeks after council voted to alter the arrangement for rural community halls, after a staff discovery that those facilities had lacked liability insurance for several years.
Meaford’s staff and members of council have likewise been confused, and at times likely angry themselves, about the aggressive response from those rural residents over the issue, especially given that the intent of the changes was to ensure that those dedicated volunteers would be protected should an incident ever occur that resulted in a lawsuit.
It is amazing what can happen, though, when two opposing parties actually sit down and have a proper, respectful meeting.
A meeting held at Bognor Hall on Tuesday, September 3 featured a full complement of senior municipal staff: the CAO, Treasurer, Clerk, and the Director of Community Services all attended the meeting along with three members of council. Roughly 20 representatives of the Bognor and Riverside community halls also attended the meeting.
A meeting held just two weeks prior in the same hall about the same issue saw not a single member of municipal staff or council attend. That meeting saw calls for all of council to resign, accusations that staff were controlling members of council like puppets, and the usual criticisms that are levelled when the ‘opposition’ isn’t in the room.
While several of the attendees expressed opinions that a similar meeting involving all the hall boards should have been held before any options were put before Meaford councillors for consideration, for whatever reason that didn’t happen. What is important is that in response to the backlash from those rural residents a meeting eventually did happen.
As one might expect, the early part of the meeting saw each side stating their views, concerns, frustrations, and there was even a bit of anger expressed. But by the end of the meeting, the tone had shifted drastically with each side expressing an understanding of the views and reasoning of the other side.
Sure, one member of council became frustrated with a lack of tact briefly exhibited by the moderator, resulting in that councillor packing up and heading for the door, but the councillor returned later in the meeting, presumably after cooling down and putting things in perspective. There’s nothing wrong with those sorts of outbursts, as long as in the end progress is made, and certainly progress was made during that meeting.
Leading up to the meeting, the tone was one of ‘us against them’, but by the end of the meeting the overriding sentiment was ‘together we can find a solution that everyone will be happy with’.
It’s amazing what a little group face-to-face time can do, as opposed to communicating by email and telephone on an individual basis.
Meaford’s senior staff should be applauded for the in-depth explanation of the core issues and what they felt were the most appropriate solutions to those issues, and perhaps even more importantly, why they had come to their conclusion in recommending a preferred option to council. Staff should also be complimented on their willingness to listen, and to adjust their position once they had a true understanding of what was bothering the hall board volunteers, and what they felt was an appropriate course of action given the circumstances.
The representatives of the hall boards who attended should likewise be applauded – for fighting human nature.
Even though they walked into the meeting more confused than angry, there is no doubt that many in the room had been angry since council made their decision on August 12. But there was very little anger expressed. There were no personal attacks on councillors or members of staff. There was no name calling, there was no pounding tables in anger. The rural hall board volunteers exhibited respect and a genuine desire to work with the municipality toward an appropriate solution.
The result?
In the end, after a lengthy discussion during which everyone was allowed to have their say, staff advised the rural hall volunteers to make a presentation to council in which they can request that council revisit the issue, toss aside their initial decision, and instead approve an option that is more in line with what neighbouring Chatsworth has implemented for rural community halls, and that will be more palatable for all concerned.
That is progress. That is democracy at work. That is success.
The question is, will this fine example of problem solving by working together while maintaining an atmosphere of respect be remembered the next time an important decision that will impact people directly has to be made?
