Wellington Square

Archive for January, 2012

Fields of dreams

- January 31st, 2012

I’ve been flummoxed at times when faced with the manner in which the request from the Brantford Bisons football association has made its way to the city council table.

The Bisons, along with other football teams based at area high schools, have been suffering through the redevelopment of the Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre project, which took away a playing field that won’t be ready again for some time.

Thinking long-term, the group wants the city to redevelop the North Park Collegiate field adjacent to the sports centre as part of the $64-million project and make it an all-weather turf field.

There is merit in, as it can be afforded, moving city and school fields to turf on the cost basis alone.

This project however, hasn’t been part of the harried marathon of the sports centre’s redevelopment. It’s not on the city’s five-year capital plan and has not been identified as a priority by the city’s parks and recreation department. Ask the department’s general manager and the cost of putting in the turf and other associated renovations to the running track, stadium seating and fieldhouse could start at $1.4 million.

City council, in a slick move that happened Dec. 1 and was confirmed Jan. 30, moved $150,000 from capital-project spending in information technology (IT) that could actually improve the way city employees provide public services to this Bisons field of dreams. It’s a shadow of what will be needed to do the project properly and as far as council’s own planning and priorities, wasn’t on the radar prior to November.

Asked point-blank what the Bisons would be willing to bring to the table, president Brad Ward offered up all kinds of useful information on pricing for the project and volunteers to advise the city. He even suggested the city add the field project to the KCI fundraising contract for the rest of the Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre. Not in the offer is any money from the Bisons, who would be one of this field’s main users.

Counter that with the field of dreams at Pauline Johnston Collegiate, a community-led initiative that hasn’t done as good of a  job (yet?) calling up city councillors and giving them the gears. That group wants an all-weather turf installed at the PJ site. Speaking to Brantford public-school trustee David Dean, they’re looking for partners beyond the city and Catholic school board. Partners willing to bring their wallets to the table, one would assume, since neither school board can tap into a pot of money for a sports field.

This could become the start of a long line of other sports and recreational organizations lining up at council’s door with the words “my turn” on the tips of their tongues.

To which there’s an easy end— You want the city to invest in new or revamped facilities to benefit your user group?

Come to the table with money to support construction costs or a partnership model to pay for operating costs.

Don’t forget to blame everyone

- January 12th, 2012

Struck by this thought tonight at the joint brownfields community advisory committee and heritage committee meeting considering the reports on Greenwich-Mohawk.

The heritage advocates in this city will likely, justifiably perhaps, be incensed if this or the next council does anything except preserve what’s worth preserving at the Greenwich-Mohawk site. This council’s task is unenviable— account for decades of neglect and attempt to address it with a pot of money that’s nowhere near large enough and a fiscal and political dynamic that won’t allow it to raise the necessary capital through taxation or debt.

Surely, predictably, heritage advocates will call for the seats on council if the spending required to make up for these decades of neglect is not supported and the decision becomes demolition over preservation.

It’s not this council’s fault. It’s not really the previous council’s fault either.

There are decades worth of councils that hold some of the responsibility for the current state of these buildings.

Worse yet, there are decades worth of voters who elected those councils that obviously didn’t see the preservation of these buildings as a priority.

So, before blaming this council should it choose not to spend what’s needed to preserve, take a good look in the mirror first.

 

On documents

- January 9th, 2012

It’s come to my attention that some recent documents I received, wrote about and posted online may have ruffled some feathers at Brantford city hall.

What a great opportunity for me to explain a philosophy when it comes to documents.

When a document is commissioned by a publicly funded government or agency, the inherent ownership of that as far as I’m concerned lies with the people who’ve paid for it. The public. Plenty of exceptions to this rule exist, to protect intellectual and other property that may be contained in said documents when they’re commissioned, which allows those documents to be kept and viewed only by authorized personnel.

Some of these exceptions are understandable and logical— these governments and agencies should have the same legally protected ability to view certain things in confidence the same way that you and I would be extended that ability. If I receive written advice from my lawyer, for example, I don’t have an obligation to share that with the world and in that respect, when a council commissions a document from its lawyer it should have the same ability to respect that solicitor-client privilege.

However, when that document is meant for public consumption, such as these reports are, and I receive a copy of them, where possible, I’m sharing. In this particular case, the documents were sent to committee members. Not members of council, nor under any advisement that the matter the reports pertain to was legitimately an in-camera item. Public documents sent to members of the public appointed by council to advisory committees.

The frustration, if any, in part, with those documents ending up in my hands is that council has not officially received or reviewed them. However, once the documents are sent out to members of a city committee, whether or not any official action or statement on them is ever made, they’re in the public domain and they’re public.

Any time I receive documents under those conditions, you’d better believe I’ll be reading them, writing about them where necessary and sharing them where possible.

If I receive other documents under different conditions — plain manila envelopes always welcome — I, in consultation with editors, will be weighing whether to write about them and post them for public view using much of the same criteria: Should the document(s) have been private to begin with? Is it in the public interest they be made public? How is the public best served by publishing? And so on…

Let he without sin…

- January 5th, 2012

““Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” — John 8:8

I have been mulling over this particular Bible passage in my head since our coverage of the New Year’s Day Mayor and Commanding Officer’s Levee was posted earlier this week. Not because I necessarily am one who would have a passage at hand for all occasions, but because MPP Dave Levac quotes Mother Teresa.

Mayor Chris Friel is quoted speaking about the post-publication furor regarding the division on council exposed through how the Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre signage was handled. As all good practitioners tend to do, I have reflected on my posts to Twitter in the 24-48 hours that followed given the mayor and I exchanged some thoughts on the matter.

I welcome Friel’s approach.

I would add to it with a modified version of the quote that kicks off this post— ‘let one who is without sin (when it comes to the critiqued politicking) cast the first stone.’ If said stones continue to be cast from those who have pledged to leave the rocks on the ground, then they should be called on that behaviour and held responsible for its consequences.

It’s only fair.