Local trustees were right to insist at their last meeting that Planner Patricia Maloney revise a community survey on the Official Community Plan (OCP) to reflect their instructions (see article this edition).

This is not just because the proposed questions ran well ahead of consultation with the community and reflected what some might see as a bias. It is also because the democratic process mandates that those who can be held accountable for decisions should be responsible for making them.

Islanders of the Salish Sea hold a passionate interest in the well-being and protection of their islands. Many community members crawl around inside their OCP, and Land Use Bylaws on a regular basis and have a profound understanding of the nuances in their plans and bylaws.

Through the preserve and protect mandate, the Trust islands have been made special by Act and design. Many islanders hold their OCPs and bylaws in high regard as the documents that afford that protection.

Most trustees seek their office out of an ethos of service. The wages are poor to the point of embarrassment, the treatment trustees receive is often abysmal, and there are always islanders who are both knowledgeable, and intent on holding their trustees’ feet to the fire – often on both sides of every issue. For this reason stupid or lazy trustees are rare, and the particularly good ones come to the job with a wealth of experience in community leadership, logical analysis, and good process. We have two VERY good trustees on Gabriola.

Trustee Deborah Ferens has outlined a set of criteria by which the Local Trust committee (LTC) and community can evaluate the OCP review process and ensure it is proper (see page 11). We believe those criteria should be reviewed regularly by the LTC and Volunteer Review Committee (VRC).

Trustees originally intended to refer an “Issues list” and corresponding research to the VRC for discussion in the same way they do with the Advisory Planning Commission. The issues list and research have yet to be completed and formalised. We believe they should be, and the LTC should stick to their original plan in terms of how the VRC will serve during the OCP review.

We have grave concerns about the last minute revision of the review committee Terms of Reference (ToR) tabled for further discussion at the last LTC meeting. We note that the terms now include the creation of subcommittees through which the committee will discuss topics.

It is already difficult for the public to attend VRC meetings. If there are a number of subcommittee meetings it will be well-nigh impossible for even the most interested members of the public - or the press - to follow what the VRC is doing and thinking.

However if the VRC IS going to operate out of the public purview, the importance of its input needs to be downgraded to that of any other community group. A public body meeting in private is no longer public, and its views should not carry the weight of a public body.

The revised ToR say the purpose of the VRC is to “gather community input, identify goals, policies and directions, in the existing Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw that are outdated, ineffective, or do not clearly reflect the community views and to make recommendations to the (LTC) for amendments to the current documents”.

This is nonsense. While the VRC was wise to provide for generous community input at its meetings, trustees have already made clear the gathering of community opinion is their job. And it is the community that should be identifying “goals, policies and directions” for the plan. Including those that are outdated.

Originally Planner Maloney said that the committee’s purpose was to be a community barometer – not community spokesfolks. The community should speak for itself. Trustees should direct the VRC to finish familiarizing themselves with the plan, and then proceed with the LTC issues list.

We heartily agree with trustees that a community consultation process should operate in tandem with the VRC meetings. Originally the LTC said VRC members would discuss issues after they were identified at community meetings. This is a good plan. It ensures a wider delineation and assessment of issues and priorities, and ensures that the community’s agenda is followed.

We believe this is particularly important as so many on the review committee share housing as an agenda. This is an important topic but there are other issues of concern to islanders.

The new draft ToR also says that the committee “may pursue topics identified by their members, may present recommendations as a delegation at an LTC meeting or may provide written recommendations”. Of course committee members may do as they please in a free world, but if the LTC has issues they want the VRC to consider, the trustees’ agenda should take precedence as long as the review committee is meeting under LTC auspices.