MPS - DEMOCRACY IN-ACTION

Guided by principles of sustainability, we will work towards achieving the following objectives: An inclusive community based on social equity and guided by citizen engagement through ongoing public consultation. . . .

From Wolfville’s Vision Statement, Municipal Planning Strategy (“MPS”), Draft 2, p. 3.

Principle 7: Empower people and foster participation.

From the Melbourne Principles Adapted for Wolfville, MPS, Draft 2, p. 69.

The Town leadership has not done all it could or should to encourage participation in the ongoing process of rewriting the Town’s MPS which happens about once every ten years.

Here are a few examples of how the Town has limited public participation in the process of producing a new MPS.

1. The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and two other members of the Town Council were appointed to the Sustainability Task Force (“STF”) which was responsible for writing the new MPS. All four would have an opportunity to provide their input later in the process as members of the Town Council. Three of the four are also members of the Planning Advisory Committee (“PAC”), another venue which has authority to review and recommend changes to the MPS. These four have taken the places of other town residents who could have brought to the drafting process different viewpoints and different experiences of living in Wolfville.

2. The STF had a policy that documents to be discussed at the next STF meeting would only be made available to the public on the day of the meeting and only in hard copy. After the meeting, electronic versions would be available.

3. When attendance was low at STF meetings, especially at those meetings where housing issues were being discussed, the STF didn’t ask why, and what it could do to increase public awareness and participation.

4. The PAC, under the chairmanship of Deputy Mayor Wrye, determined not to place hardcopies of the latest version of the MPS, including colour maps, at local public gathering places like Tim Hortons or Just Us Cafe or the Farmer’s Market. The specific reasons given: the document is available on the Town’s website and hardcopies at the Town Hall. (I provided four copies to the library.) And no use killing more trees.

5. The Town will not post on its website the comments it receives concerning the draft MPS. I was informed that there were insufficient resources to do this and this was not the best way to conduct a “discussion” on the MPS.

Why are the Town leaders acting in ways which discourage public participation in the process of rewriting the MPS? Here are some possible explanations:

The Town leaders wish to control the process, which is very different from providing leadership.

The more the public is involved at all stages, the more cumbersome, sloppy and time consuming the process may become.

The Town leaders have a cramped understanding of what “citizen engagement” and “participatory governance” entails and/or they do not fully embrace these principles.

The Town leaders may believe that they have provided or will provide more than sufficient opportunities for residents to participate in the process.

“Participative governance” and “citizen engagement” are more than just slogans to be quoted and then forgotten. They are intended to serve as guiding principles by which to judge how the Town acts and the content of those actions in the context of rewriting an MPS based upon sustainability.

If these and similar principles are followed, then the end product, in this case the new MPS, should be the better for it. And no less important than the end result, participation in the process itself yields significant benefits: less isolation and the feeling that “my voice is just ignored” amongst town residents, and a greater sense of belonging to the community. By acting in the manner they have, the Town leaders have, in effect, squandered the potential benefits of greater citizen engagement in the MPS drafting process.