The mandate of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC), appointed by RDNO Board of Directors for the review of the Master Water Plan (MWP) is nearing its end. During its existence members were bombarded by staff approved information regarding the options of the MWP. There was no input allowed from anyone with differing views. The process could have been better if open discussions between those supporting and those questioning the proposal were allowed.
The entire reason for the creation of the SAC was that some politicians rejected the proposed MWP prior to the referendum. Nearly all politicians stated publicly during the 2014 election campaign that they would vote “NO” on the borrowing referendum. That in itself indicated that not everything was right with the plan. Yet no dissenting voice is allowed to be heard by SAC members nor do we allow an independent reviewer.
SAC Committee members, average citizens, were unfamiliar with the issues at hand. They needed all the available information for and against the MWP’s complicated options. They also needed some background information which led to the “need” for a MWP. This they did not receive. The Board of Directors decided that only existing consultants and staff would be allowed to provide information that they themselves would choose to this uninformed Committee to consider. Imagine what they retained from the meetings! Could they arrive at a balanced conclusion?
As the political representative on the MWP Technical Committee I am very familiar with all aspects of both Master Water Plans (yes, there were two: MWP 2002 and the current proposal!). As an elected representative of the taxpayers my only interest (some refer to it as “bias”) is to see the development of the most cost effective MWP that will serve the Greater Vernon area now and for the future. I am not alone questioning the wisdom of filtering water to be used for crop irrigation. My input and questions to the consultants could have helped SAC members to have a balanced view of the issues. They did not have to accept my views but they should have had an opportunity to hear them.
Taxpayers and SAC members may legitimately ask the question: If the proposed MWP is the best solution to the water problems of Greater Vernon how would an alternate view point hurt it? Staff and consultants should be happy to prove once and for all that they have a winner and opposing concerns are unjustified. Having denied me an opportunity to raise critical questions diminishes the value of the SAC exercise and will cast a shadow on whatever conclusions will be provided by the SAC. It will create mistrust in the process.
It would help SAC members to find out why some politicians could not support the MWP. It could also help if they could understand why most politicians stated that they would vote “NO” on the referendum question. Just like SAC members taxpayers in general are asking those questions.
In future reports I will provide examples of where staff (including consultants) and I differ in our approach to a reliable and more cost effective MWP. If interested look for those reports on my blog (Google coldstreamernews to access the blog).
Gyula Kiss
The entire reason for the creation of the SAC was that some politicians rejected the proposed MWP prior to the referendum. Nearly all politicians stated publicly during the 2014 election campaign that they would vote “NO” on the borrowing referendum. That in itself indicated that not everything was right with the plan. Yet no dissenting voice is allowed to be heard by SAC members nor do we allow an independent reviewer.
SAC Committee members, average citizens, were unfamiliar with the issues at hand. They needed all the available information for and against the MWP’s complicated options. They also needed some background information which led to the “need” for a MWP. This they did not receive. The Board of Directors decided that only existing consultants and staff would be allowed to provide information that they themselves would choose to this uninformed Committee to consider. Imagine what they retained from the meetings! Could they arrive at a balanced conclusion?
As the political representative on the MWP Technical Committee I am very familiar with all aspects of both Master Water Plans (yes, there were two: MWP 2002 and the current proposal!). As an elected representative of the taxpayers my only interest (some refer to it as “bias”) is to see the development of the most cost effective MWP that will serve the Greater Vernon area now and for the future. I am not alone questioning the wisdom of filtering water to be used for crop irrigation. My input and questions to the consultants could have helped SAC members to have a balanced view of the issues. They did not have to accept my views but they should have had an opportunity to hear them.
Taxpayers and SAC members may legitimately ask the question: If the proposed MWP is the best solution to the water problems of Greater Vernon how would an alternate view point hurt it? Staff and consultants should be happy to prove once and for all that they have a winner and opposing concerns are unjustified. Having denied me an opportunity to raise critical questions diminishes the value of the SAC exercise and will cast a shadow on whatever conclusions will be provided by the SAC. It will create mistrust in the process.
It would help SAC members to find out why some politicians could not support the MWP. It could also help if they could understand why most politicians stated that they would vote “NO” on the referendum question. Just like SAC members taxpayers in general are asking those questions.
In future reports I will provide examples of where staff (including consultants) and I differ in our approach to a reliable and more cost effective MWP. If interested look for those reports on my blog (Google coldstreamernews to access the blog).
Gyula Kiss
***********************************************************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment