Letters to the Editor

Reflect needs and interests of all stakeholders

To the editor:

As I read the Mayor’s article of Nov. 15, “Field Committee will reflect everyone’s interests”, several points within the text provoke reservations about the process establishing the Advisory Work Group for Westmount Park. My concerns arise from observations based on my proximity to the park and my long career in physical education and recreation. I also have some pertinent professional experience in matters of consultative structures and their composition and function.

Although not specifically stated in the article, Mayor Marks may be categorizing Save the Park as a lobby group. She notes that they “feel a very strong sense of ownership” but must realize that “this is a public space belonging to the city” and “must... be put to the best use possible.” In fact, at both the small meeting called on Oct. 3, 2006 and the larger consultation on May 16, 2007 these very themes were strongly presented by the same well-educated and energetic residents that now support this group — which receives positive feedback from all areas within our city. At both meetings the majority of speakers reflected concerns expressed by the 762 Westmounters who signed Save the Park’s petition requesting a well-maintained, low-tech, multi-use, open playing field formed of natural rather than artificial materials. This large group of taxpayers is similar in number to the entire voter turnout for the recent school board elections, and it would seem disingenuous of any city council to ignore such a consistent message backed by so many residents.

My home overlooks the playing fields, and as I walk, ski, run, or chat on these fields and other areas of the park I rejoice in our beautiful city. I enjoy watching the many children and adults that use the playing fields for various organized and spontaneous physical activities, and am also fond of seeing bridal parties commemorate their special day with photos set in our gracious park — two examples of Westmount’s welcoming spirit. In my professional life, I work at a very large local educational institution and chair an academic council of 35 people representing all stakeholders in that particular community. I must often attend to situations where balance, transparency, and decision-making based on real consultation are difficult but necessary and appropriate. We are mindful that we, too, are publicly funded and are working with and for taxpayers. Mayor Marks characterizes the debate about the playing fields as “excessively lengthy,” but surely proposals for major changes to a heritage resource with expenditures in the millions of dollars from funds we regularly trust to be carefully allocated by City Council would qualify for thorough review. Council must realize that public confidence in future initiatives will increase if residents feel their opinions are sought in a systematic and democratic manner.

Forming and working with representative committees is an ongoing learning process, as it should be, and it has become clear to me that openness, inclusion, and recognition of dissent is vital – not only to actual fairness, but to the broad perception that participation is real and honest. Individuals and groups who demonstrate motivation and respect for particular issues must be rewarded with gratitude and inclusion rather than condescension or dismissal. The real enemy of consultation is apathy — a lack of involvement is cause for anxiety, but enthusiastic, respectful participation that may oppose some elements of the party line must be encouraged as an essential part of any genuine dialogue.

I challenge Councilors Forbes and Lulham to compose this advisory body as a meaningful reflection of the needs and interests of all stakeholders. This will, in my opinion, include at least one of the four applicants who are not only associated with various wards or user groups but are supporters of Save the Park, as well as at least one resident representing Westmount soccer groups. I presume that all individuals chosen for the advisory group will be encouraged to consult with their constituents to allow the small group to function openly as a representative body. I fear that without these two groups the City risks the uncomfortable perception that it has chosen to populate a committee with individuals who are likely to be compliant with its own position.

I hope council is wise and courageous enough to allow the advisory group to truly “reflect everyone’s interests.” The mayor reminds us that the decision will not please everyone – sadly, this is part of everyday reality and will be an important consideration among the residents willing to give their time to work together on this committee. On the other hand, it is quite possible that an equitably structured committee with a mandate to collaborate in a transparent manner will be able to generate a satisfactory recommendation based on real consultation and consensus.

Leslie Barker

Melville Avenue



Mayor re-defines objectivity

To the editor:

It is disappointing to see, in the letter from the mayor explaining the selection procedure for the Park Advisory Committee, (Examiner Nov 15/07) the use of derogatory language to describe those who do not share her opinions about Westmount Park.

For some reason we Westmounters always fail to please. Fresh from chastising the elderly for cluttering up the neighbourhood, the mayor goes on to dismiss the hundreds of citizens from all wards who have indicated their concern for the park. At various times she has described them as loud, aggressive, hysterical and even (and this is the cruelest blow of all) as lobbyists. As the mother of three opinionated young people who rarely accept my own directives without a full and vigorous debate, I can certainly understand the mayor’s preference for the cloistered environment of the council chamber, where dissenting voices are seldom heard.

Nonetheless, the mayor promises “an objective selection process” - as long as Save the Park is excluded! Objectivity it seems, like love, lies in the eye of the beholder.

There are those who would characterize the behaviour of the mayor as dictatorial and combative. I, of course, would never describe the mayor in such terms.

Mavis Young

Melville Avenue